My response to May 09, 2008, "Obama Needs a History Lesson," By Jack Kelly, from RealClearPolitics

Posted by: balkanization

Date: 05/10/2008 03:17PM

Sorry, Mr. Kelly, weak history on the part of the pundit on this one. Orwell made the point that one's enemies today are allies tomorrow in his 1984, written in 1948 -- get it? -- which is a date relevant to two of Sen. Obama's and your examples. Everyone concerned was aware that ally Russia/Joseph Stalin had been and could be an enemy. Still, as Churchill noted when asked why he a staunch anti-Communist would work with Stalin; he replied he would work with the devil himself, if he thought it could bring down Hitler faster. (Which means, of course, that your view, Mr. Kelly, also goes against Churchill's.)

The problem, of course, is that keeping to a hard-and-fast view of who the enemy is (dog-headed, enemy to mankind, eats babies, etc.) means living in a non-existent world. It means that we identify an enemy -- USSR invading Afghanistan for example -- and then support those resisting that enemy unreservedly -- weapons to the Taliban, etc., with little sense that roles can change. It turns out, in the real world, the enemy is not dog-headed, eating babies, etc. Diplomacy is as much a part of realpolitik as iron and blood.

Perhaps there is nothing all that new in what Sen. Obama said. But it makes a lot more sense that Mr. Kelly's Medieval mantras.

obama leads in superdelegates according to abc

I made the following post on abc (for some reason I don't know how to spell gaugeing):

Superdelegates want what is best for the party; but their best way of gauging that is to look at the popular vote and the pledged delegate count. Sen. Obama leads in those two categories and, oh yes, he leads in amount of money raised by large numbers of people sending in small amounts. Superdelegates are not directing this parade; they are simply joining in.

So Sen. Obama and his organization have shown they have the moxie to win. Sen. McCain and his policies will certainly benefit the super-rich; but the idea that John and Cindy are less elitist than Barack and Michelle is laughable. The latter might have more education; but folks, that used to be a good thing.

I appended the following to a petition for an inquiry demanded by John Kerry (at least I tried to; his website doesn't appear to work too well_.

I am quite concerned about the growth of what Eisenhower warned about: the growth of the military-industrial complex. Particularly egregious are no-bid and cost-plus contracts going to a small group of semi-private firms. If these firms are then "planting" the military support of policies that benefit the bottom line of these firms, this is EXACTLY what Pres. Eisenhower warned against. Separation of Public and Private when one is discussing War is just as essential as separation of Church and State.

The original:

• Help get an investigation of the Pentagon pundit program

• Nearly two weeks ago, the New York Times reported on a covert Pentagon plan in, “an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." The goal of this program: get coverage favorable to Bush Administration policies.

• But since that story, there's been little effort to find out more about this program, and essentially zero coverage of the revelation on television news.

• With a near total blackout on the story from the television news networks, we need the American people to demand answers!

• Co-sign the letter John Kerry wrote to the GAO demanding an investigation and help us get answers.
  

"President Bush should be out here watching this ramp ceremony to see what it is really like," said one soldier, who asked not to be identified.

"The people who created this war need to be thinking about the families of these 18-year-olds who are dying."

("Car bomb targets US patrol, kills Iraqi," By BRADLEY J. BROOKS, Associated Press Writers, 29 Jan. 2008)

it appears that the surge + arming sunni tribal militias = relative calm to one or two provinces. it does not appear if it can bring peace to the entire country. what about an expanded jobs program to rebuild the country, a pull-back to western anbar as usa interest are really in kuwait and saudi arabia, not iraq, and an acceptance of, well, balkanization? we already appear to have accepted ethnic cleansing in baghdad.

reconstituting terrorist groups among our allies


Summer NIE estimate: "In some ways, the most startling assertion made was that al Qaeda has reconstituted itself in Pakistan. What is startling is that it appears to acknowledge that the primary U.S. mission in the war -- the destruction of al Qaeda -- not only has failed to achieve its goal, but also has done little more than force al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan." ("Week out of Focus: Washington, Iraq and Al Qaeda," By George Friedman, 17 July 2007, Geopolitical Intelligence Report, Stratfor)

diplomatic surge working: for now

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker met Aug. 6 with Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi and Iraqi National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie. Separately, a committee of Iranian, Iraqi and U.S. officials held its first meeting on Iraqi security, following up on an agreement reached at a July ambassadorial-level meeting. ("The Major Diplomatic and Strategic Evolution in Iraq," By George Friedman, 8 July 2007, Geopolitical Intelligence Report, Stratfor)

there's a war going on, you know

article 3 of convention iii of the Geneva Conventions (1949 and subsequent):

• Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the followingprovisions:
• (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
• (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture...;(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
• (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples....
• An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. (Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.)

Highlights of Pres. G.W. Bush's speech, Thursday, 1 Nov. 2007, to the Heritage Foundation

• We are at war. And we cannot win this war by wishing it away or pretending it does not exist....

• in a time of war, it is vital for the president to have a full national security team in place. And a key member of that team is the attorney general....
  

• The attorney general is the highest ranking official responsible for our law enforcement community's efforts to detect and prevent terrorist attacks here at home....

• As a price for his confirmation, some on that committee want Judge Mukasey to take a legal position on specific techniques allegedly used to interrogate captured terrorists.

• As Judge Mukasey..., he does not know whether certain methods of questioning are, in fact, used, because the program is classified. And therefore, he is in no position to provide an informed opinion. He has not been read into the program and won't until he is confirmed and sworn in -- won't be until he's confirmed and sworn in as the attorney general.

• Second, he does not want an uninformed opinion to be taken by our professional interrogators in the field as placing them in legal jeopardy. (November 1, 2007, President Bush's Remarks on the Global War on Terror, by President George W Bush)

a few fact checks:

1. It is a "war." the POTUS says so, we all agree it is, therefore the combatants have to be treated as if they are in a war.
2. Among those acts which are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions to which we are a signatory are those upon combatants who have been taken prisoner and have laid down their weapons (whether or not they were official combatants or not) are: "cruel treatment and torture...[and]outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."
3. Are own special forces are taught to insist upon their rights by convention iii of the Geneva Conventions if they are captured.
4. Everyone know what water-boarding is; it is not some secret, classified process. You can watch it on the web by someone who went through this as what might be done by an evil enemy when he was in the military.
   
5. So why the hell can't we ask a potential attorney general if he thinks that there are some specific processes which are illegal?
6. And why in a war, especially in a war, in which our boys are in harms way, are we suggesting that the procedures for proper war conduct need not apply? If it can help our boys just once to be captured by an enemy who notes, well they are obeying the Geneva Conventions, and we know that those who don't will sooner or later be brought to trial, perhaps we won't do this, then subscribing to the Geneva Conventions has served its purpose.

but, 'nuff said. this is just crazy talk.

first time they said "things will be better in six months" that i actually believed them

• U.S. and Iraqi officials are negotiating Baghdad's demand that security company Blackwater USA be expelled from the country within six months, and American diplomats appear to be working on how to fill the security gap if the company is phased out. ("U.S., Iraq discusss Blackwater expulsion," By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers 34 minutes ago

an independent country means having someone else enforce your laws; an open democracy means no free press

• BAGHDAD A daring ambush of bombs and gunfire left Poland's ambassador pinned down in a burning vehicle Wednesday before being pulled to safety and airlifted in a rescue mission by the embattled security firm Blackwater USA. At least three people were killed, including a Polish bodyguard.
• American authorities confiscated an AP Television News videotape that contained scenes of the wounded being evacuated. U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl told AP that Iraqi law make it illegal to photograph or videotape the aftermath of bombings or other attacks." ("U.S. Confiscates AP Footage At Scene of Bloody Baghdad Bombing," AP from Editor and Publisher, Published: October 03, 2007 5:30 PM ET)
  

so what is the army doing enforcing iraqi law (and what the hell kind of law is that?)? and why was blackwater called upon when they don't have a role in protecting the Polish ambassador?

we've done everything we can militarily

• Lt. Col. Steven M. Miska, deputy commander of a brigade of the First Infantry Division that is charged with controlling northwest Baghdad, said, “We’ve done everything we can militarily."
• He said, “I think we have essentially stalled the sectarian conflict without addressing the underlying grievances.” ("Troop Buildup, Yielding Slight Gains, Fails to Meet U.S. Goals," New York Times, By DAMIEN CAVE and STEPHEN FARRELL, September 9, 2007)

i am still trying to find the silver lining in the following snapshot (although there more people in prison now--that is a good thing?)

"The surge isn't going on forever"

From Forward Operating Base Hammer, a sprawling military base 30 miles east of Baghdad, Col. Wayne Grigsby, of Prince George's County, Md., the brigade's commander notes:

• "The surge isn't going on forever, so who's going to take our place?" Grigsby asked. "The key is the Iraqi security forces; that is the key. We've worked our butts off up here and lost some great soldiers. At some point, they've got to bring it so they can live in a peaceful nation." ("South of Baghdad, U.S. troops find fatigue, frustration," By Chris Collins | McClatchy Newspapers, Thursday, August 30, 2007)

Discussion of Katie Couric's reporting from Iraq on Think Progress includes ire from some that she is not more outspoken against the war. I noted, however, the following:

• given the number of journalists who blithely repeat that O’Hanlon and Pollack were “war critics,” and who never mention that their “inside” reporting is based on a military dog-and-pony show, Katie Couric is to be congratulated not condemned for noting the strictures under which reporting is done in Iraq. I think it important that her words suggest a preparation of mainstream America for the obvious, that the American military can “win” the surge in specific, contained time and place–that, of course, a well-armed military can defeat insurgents here and there, forever–but that it cannot provide peace. The Iraqis know this, the troops on the ground know this, and, slowly, the American public know this. That leaves, uh, the folks in charge. Ms. Couric is not the enemy on this one, folks.

media succumbs to o'hanlon and pollack surge

i wrote the following to npr.org

Your report this afternoon (is that all things considered, c. 6 cst?) on opinion makers believing that the iraq surge is making "progress," reports that pundits Pollack and O'Hanlon work for the "center-left" Brookings Institution. You don't note that many, including the original AP report that your report appears to copy, call them critics of the war. They are neither. They both supported the war in 2003 and they supported the surge. So how is the fact that they think the surge is working (after a jaunt organized and paid for by the Dept. of Defense) news? Pollack is employed by the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, and I will let you do your own research as to what issue Haim Saban finds most pressing.

I am disappointed by your report (on the most pressing issue in the run-up to the Petraeus Report next month--which, of course, will not be written by Petraeus) for two reasons:

1. Your reporter did not seem to do even elemental fact-checking (see the readily available analysis at salon.com.
2. the surge can and will make "progress" forever. The US is fighting a tiny force. But the surge cannot win the peace. Sunnis don't want us there. Shias don't want us there. By huge margins, even in the same Brookings Institution report which your reporter did not appear to bother to read.
   

We could, for example, still be fighting in Vietnam. Bring 'em home, and let the long road to peace begin.

success at the local level means more troops and oversight from washington at the national level??

president bush touts "successes" at the local level in iraq. trouble is, they are not successes due to u.s.a. planning

• "When things work — and they often do at the local or project level — they work in spite of a lack of any meaningful planning and management in Washington, or as yet in Iraq," said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for International and Strategic Studies, who recently returned from a trip to the country.
• "All have major problems in getting any action out of the central government and face a morass of local, provincial and tribal politics. The good news is that they are now being integrated with the military and are getting military support and protection, but it again is too early to judge what is really happening," Cordesman said. ("Bush stresses local successes in Iraq," By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer, 18 Aug. 2007)

(note Cordesman's full report "The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq: A Trip Report")
and, in any case, i don't understand the successes given the lack of infrastructure:

• In his report to Congress earlier this month, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction said rebuilding is being crippled by power plant problems, mismanagement, corruption and weak spending on capital projects by Iraq's central government ministries and its provinces.
• And in an audit released in July, the inspector general, Stuart Bowen Jr., found the Iraqi government has refused to take control of more than 2,000 U.S.-funded reconstruction projects since June 2006. That left U.S. officials to turn over the projects to local officials or to commit more money to keep them running. ("Bush stresses local successes in Iraq," By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer, 18 Aug. 2007)

infrastructure problems?

• Iraq's power grid is on the brink of collapse because of insurgent sabotage, rising demand, fuel shortages and provinces that are unplugging local power stations from the national grid, officials said Saturday.
• Electricity Ministry spokesman Aziz al-Shimari said power generation nationally is only meeting half the demand, and there had been four nationwide blackouts over the past two days. The shortages across the country are the worst since the summer of 2003, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, he said.
• Power supplies in Baghdad have been sporadic all summer and now are down to just a few hours a day, if that. The water supply in the capital has also been severely curtailed by power blackouts and cuts that have affected pumping and filtration stations.
• Karbala province south of Baghdad has been without power for three days, causing water mains to go dry in the provincial capital, the Shiite holy city of Karbala ("Iraqi power grid nearing collapse," By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer Sat Aug 4, 6:32 PM ET).
  

national problems; local problems. indeed, local successes are because localities are no longer playing with the national government. clear sailing ahead.

cheney and the logical quagmire of iraq (1994)

moveOn provided footage of dick cheney on iraq (1994). [thanks and a tip of the hat to roger.]

"Who cares how many neighborhoods of Baghdad are secured?" the official said. "Let's talk about the rest of the country: How come they have electricity twice a day, how come there is no running water?"

i haven't posted for a month; is everything looking better on the ground in iraq? are the billions we are giving to private contractor firms helping us rebuild the infrastructure there? no?

(Quote is from "Top general may propose pullbacks: Petraeus is expected to tell Congress that Iraqis can assume duties in some areas, freeing U.S. troops for other uses," by Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers, August 15, 2007)

perhaps if we spent $24 billion?; or, 0 out of 10 is, what, a B-?

• A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reforms....
• The "pivot point" for addressing the matter will no longer be Sept. 15, as initially envisioned, when a full report on Bush's so-called "surge" plan is due, but instead will come this week when the interim mid-July assessment is released....

meanwhile, of course, the white house thought complete lack of progress on any of the targets was just peachy:

• White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on Monday tried to lower expectations on the report....
• "You are not going to expect all the benchmarks to be met at the beginning of something," Snow said. "I'm not sure everyone's going to get an `A' on the first report."

and the cost of all this non-achievement?:

• The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, with the overall tally for Iraq alone nearing a half-trillion dollars, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers.
• The figures call into question the Pentagon's estimate that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar province would cost $5.6 billion through the end of September. ("Official: Iraq Gov't Missed All Targets," by ANNE FLAHERTY and ANNE GEARAN | July 9, 2007 11:34 PM EST | AP)

who's sorry now? (more blackwater blackguards)

remember this?:

• "I need Comms (communications equipment). ... I need ammo. ... I need Glocks and M4s. ... Guys are in the field with borrowed stuff and in harm's way," said the e-mail, released at a House hearing Wednesday.
• Blackwater employee Tom Powell wrote the memo to other company officials on March 30, 2004.
• The next day, a mob in Fallujah ambushed a supply convoy guarded by Blackwater, killing the four employees who all were former members of the military. ("Slain Iraq contractors short on armor, families say," By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press, 8 Feb. 2007)

posted that back in 24 feb. 2007. well, now tom powell looks less like the whistleblower and more the man ordering undermanned groups into harms way:

• When four Blackwater USA security guards were ambushed and massacred in Fallujah in 2004, graphic images showed the world exactly what happened....
• Since then, Congress and the families of the murdered private security contractors have been demanding answers....
• Some answers can be found in memos from a second team for Blackwater operating around Fallujah on March 31, 2004.
• Blackwater, based in North Carolina, sent two squads through Fallujah without maps, according to memos obtained by The News & Observer. Both of the six-man teams, named Bravo 2 and November 1, were sent out two men short, leaving them more vulnerable to ambush.
• The Bravo 2 team members had protested that they were not ready for the mission and had not had time to prepare their weapons, but they were commanded to go, according to memos written by team members.
• The November 1 team went into Fallujah and was massacred.
• The Bravo 2 team memos, in emotional, coarse and damning language, placed the blame squarely on Blackwater's Baghdad site manager, Tom Powell.
• "Why did we all want to kill him?" team member Daniel Browne wrote the following day. "He had sent us on this [expletive] mission and over our protest. We weren't sighted in, we had no maps, we had not enough sleep, he was taking 2 of our guys cutting off [our] field of fire. As we went over these things we new the other team had the same complaints. They too had their people cut." ("Blackwater manager blamed for 2004 massacre in Fallujah: Military contractors write that a site manager sent four Americans on an ill-advised, fatal mission," by Joseph Neff, Staff Writer, The News & Observer, Jul 08, 2007 12:30 AM)

both can be correct, of course. mr. powell knew of the shortcomings and complained of them to his superiors. but he also knew his operations were being judged by their profit/cost ratio and 4 heads per unit cost less than 6. now WHY all this was being done, given that blackwater was hired by Regency Hotel and Hospital Company is another question.

well it has been over a month; how do things look?

greetings. i was unable to post to this blog for a month or so. the usa government has committed additional troops to secure baghdad and iraq. cause for celebration?

well, the overall picture is not rosy:

• The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. policy, according to senior administration officials closely involved in the matter. ("Administration Shaving Yardstick for Iraq Gains: Goals Unmet; Smaller Strides to Be Promoted," By Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writers, Sunday, July 8, 2007; Page A01)

the alternative "strides" have to do with deaths down in june, but have little to do with any political advances that were supposed to take place with the breathing room provided by the "surge."

but i don't understand how they can take any comfort with the numbers of dead iraqis:

• Nearly five months into a security strategy that involves thousands of additional U.S. and Iraqi troops patrolling Baghdad, the number of unidentified bodies found on the streets of the capital was 41 percent higher in June than in January, according to unofficial Health Ministry statistics. ("Body Count In Baghdad Up in June," By Joshua Partlow, Washington Post Foreign Service, Thursday, July 5, 2007; Page A01,)
  

one small piece of good news: the insurgents attack away from the center of the surge, away from the show of force by the usa. but the proof of such a response to american strength is hardly cause for rejoicing:

• A suicide truck bomber blasted a Shiite town north of Baghdad on Saturday, killing more than 100 people, police said, in a sign Sunni insurgents are pulling away from a U.S. offensive around the capital to attack where security is thinner.
• The marketplace devastation underlined a hard reality in Iraq: There are not enough forces to protect everywhere. U.S. troops, already increased by 28,000 this year, are focused on bringing calm to Baghdad, while the Iraqi military and police remain overstretched and undertrained.
• The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told The Associated Press he expected Sunni extremists to try to "pull off a variety of sensational attacks and grab the headlines to create a `mini-Tet.'" ("Suicide Bomb Kills Over 100 in Iraq," by YAHYA BARZANJI, July 7, 2007, AP, from TUZ KHORMATO, Iraq)

note, too, that for some reason the usa military is allowed to make all sorts of unlikely comparisons to vietnam (a "mini-Tet'!?), but any obvious reference to quagmire, no light at the end of the tunnel, etc., is met by stay-the-course politicians.

in one sense, this war is unlike earlier wars, including vietnam: the vast number of mercenaries, contractors fighting the war by proxy:

• The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort....
• More than 180,000 civilians — including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis — are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
  
• Including the recent troop buildup, 160,000 soldiers and a few thousand civilian government employees are stationed in Iraq.
• The total number of private contractors, far higher than previously reported, shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq. ("Private contractors outnumber U.S. troops in Iraq: New U.S. data show how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of the war-torn nation," By T. Christian Miller, LA Times Staff Writer, July 4, 2007)

so the number of troops is never going to settle the peace. indeed, the iraq situation will never be solved by surges of any sort. it will be solved by political and economic will (more theirs ; than ours). that is not defeatism; that is the logic of all civil wars.

so, the facts, as mr. gradgrind would note, all militate against any positive result from furthering a build up of military force in iraq. thus, it is not surprising (except that it took them this long to do it, that the new york times, has come out today for a usa military withdrawal:

• It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
• Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.
• At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq....
• But...milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost. ("Editorial: The Road Home," New York Times, July 8, 2007)

time for the freda payne option: bring the boys home.

perhaps the extra troops can use the rooms at the new embassy?

the only difference is that the surge in iraq is more precipitous.