My hero this week surprises even me...it's Angelina Jolie. She's got a cool head on Iraq:

The request is familiar to American ears: "Bring them home."

But in Iraq, where I've just met with American and Iraqi leaders, the phrase carries a different meaning. It does not refer to the departure of U.S. troops, but to the return of the millions of innocent Iraqis who have been driven out of their homes and, in many cases, out of the country.

In the six months since my previous visit to Iraq with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this humanitarian crisis has not improved. However, during the last week, the United States, UNHCR and the Iraqi government have begun to work together in new and important ways.

No hack this week....couldn't find anyone sufficiently hack-worthy.

Labels: Hero/Hack, Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:01 AM | Permalink | |

Which world leader lied, triggering a U.S. invasion of Iraq? Saddam Hussein.
CBS:

Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture.

Piro spent almost seven months debriefing Saddam in a plan based on winning his confidence by convincing him that Piro was an important envoy who answered to President Bush. This and being Saddam's sole provider of items like writing materials and toiletries made the toppled Iraqi president open up to Piro, a Lebanese-American and one of the few FBI agents who spoke Arabic.

"He told me he initially miscalculated... President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998...a four-day aerial attack," says Piro. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack." "He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" asks Pelley, "No, not initially," answers Piro.

Labels: Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:23 PM | Permalink | |

WSJ:

It was exactly one year ago tonight, in a televised address to the nation, that President George W. Bush announced his fateful decision to change course in Iraq, and to send five additional U.S. combat brigades there as part of a new counterinsurgency strategy and under the command of a new general, David Petraeus.

At the time of its announcement, the so-called surge was met with deep skepticism by many Americans -- and understandably so.

- * - * -

The question we face, on the first anniversary of the surge, is no longer whether the president's decision a year ago was the right one, or if the counterinsurgency strategy developed by Gen. Petraeus is working. It is.

The question now is where we go from here to sustain the progress we have achieved -- and in particular, how soon can more of our troops come home, based on the success of the surge.

- * - * -

If the mismanagement of the Iraq war from 2003 to 2006 exposed our government's capacity for incompetence, Gen. Petraeus' leadership this past year, and the conduct of the troops under his command, have reminded us of our capacity for the wisdom, the courage and the leadership that has always rallied our nation to greatness.

As Americans, we have repeatedly done what others said was impossible. Gen. Petraeus and his troops are doing that again in Iraq today.

I think McCain and Lieberman would agree with me on this one.

Labels: Iraq, McCain

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:42 AM | Permalink | |

My 2007 Hero of the Year is General David Petraeus. He is one of the driving forces behind the recent move forward that seems to have been made in Iraq this year. The military architect of the surge, Petraeus has led the New War Forward, a long overdue policy change by the Bush Administration, brilliantly.

I was skeptical of the surge in the beginning, as I didn't think we needed more troops. What convinced me was taking a closer look at the strategic shifts being made in conjunction with the troop increase and the leadership Petraeus showed.

See here, here, here, here, and here for related posts from this year.







My 2007 Hack of the Year is Hollywood. While the big studios turned out a lot of crap this year (thinking about Spider-Man 3 still makes my blood boil a little bit), they also released a tremendous number of films directly opposing the Iraq War. Nominally, I don't care. Both Across the Universe and The Bourne Ultimatum had some sort of anti-government/anti-war/CIA themes to them, but I still found them enjoyable despite this because those themes were appropriate for the characters, etc.

Now, making a watchable film with a political bent, but the box office suggests that the highest profile 7 anti-war films to be released in the past 6 months are not great films to begin with, or that the public is just not interested in anti-war propaganda masquerading as entertainment. Charlie Wilson's War, Redacted, In the Valley of Elah, Grace is Gone, Southland Tales, A Mighty Heart, and Lions for Lambs have currently a box office total of $50.956 million. For comparison, the patriotic and family fun film National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets made more than those 7 films during its first week of release!

You're telling me that Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep (twice), Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Julia Roberts, Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron, Susan Sarandon, John Cusack, The Rock, Justin Timberlake, Seann William Scott, and Sarah Michelle Gellar, with upteen Oscars and billions in past box office performance couldn't make a film that can even match box office performance of a film about the guy from Con-Air and Ghost Rider peaceably kidnapping the President while looking for a City of Gold? Pitiful. That's why Hollywood is the 2007 Hack of the Year.

By the way, go see National Treasure 2 if you get the time. Almost as good as the first one, and a ton of fun.

Labels: Hero/Hack, Iraq, Movies, Petraeus

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:00 PM | Permalink | |

It is becoming increasingly clear that Americans are tired of hearing about the Iraq War. Debates exclude it, people avoid movies about it, and the importance of the issue to voters is declining. Meanwhile, economic issues are gaining in importance, once again. It seems as if the 2004 election will be an abberation of modern history in which the economy took a backseat to another issue (in this case, terrorism).

This is why Mike Huckabee is best poised to win the general election out of any other Republican. As Ramesh Ponnuru of Time Magazine has written:

When the Republicans met in Dearborn, Mich., to debate the economy, most of the candidates maintained that times were good and that people who thought otherwise just hadn't seen the statistics.

Huckabee had a different message: "For many people on this stage, the economy's doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans, it's not doing so well." He talked about people who have trouble paying their rent or getting health insurance or paying for college. Huckabee does not always have convincing answers to these problems, but at least he recognizes them.

Populism is going to win the 2008 election, especially if we are entering a recession as Alan Greenspan has suggested.

"We are getting close to stall speed … and we are far more vulnerable at levels where growth is so slow than we would be otherwise," the former Federal Reserve chairman says. "Indeed it’s like someone who has an immune system that’s not working very well is subject to all sorts of diseases and the economy at this level of growth is subject to all sorts of shocks."

If the Republicans nominate someone who understands this (like Huckabee), they clearly stand a better chance at keeping the White House.

Note: The Des Moines Register released their endorsements today. The endorsed Democrat is Hillary Clinton and the endorsed Republican is John McCain. Many people credit John Edwards's 2004 second place finish in the Iowa Caucuses to his Des Moines Register endorsement.

Labels: 2008 Watch, Economics, Huckabee, Iraq, Pinstripe Politics

Posted by Gary at 1:03 PM | Permalink | |

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

Invade Iraq, end WMDs in Libya and Iran. Whoddathunkit?

Labels: GWOT, Iran, Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:17 PM | Permalink | |

The surge is working:

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's government today said security statistics showed that Baghdad had "defeated the forces of darkness" after more than a year of sectarian warfare, and the United States said it was crucial that Iraqi leaders use the relative calm to get their political fighting under control.

The government released numbers indicating a major decline in violent attacks in Baghdad and the surrounding areas. Attacks such as bombings numbered 323 last month, compared with 850 in February, when a U.S.-led security crackdown was launched, according to the government figures.

If this continues and we're able to make a smooth transition, we might see a stable, free Iraq after all.

Labels: Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:28 PM | Permalink | |

My heroes this week are the Afghans who recognize the value of another group of heroes, the NATO troops stationed there:

OTTAWA -- A strong majority of Afghans approve of the presence of NATO-led troops in their country, including from Canada, and want the foreign soldiers to remain to fight the Taliban and support reconstruction efforts.

In a poll of Afghans conducted by Environics Research on behalf of The Globe and Mail, the CBC and La Presse, respondents expressed optimism about the future, strong support for the government of President Hamid Karzai and appreciation for the work being done by NATO countries in improving security.

In Kandahar, where the Taliban is stronger and violence more pervasive, support for the foreign troops was weaker, but respondents still want the soldiers to stay.

According to the survey, conducted between Sept. 17 and 24 with a sample of 1,578 men and women, 60 per cent said the presence of foreigners in the country was a good thing. Only 16 per cent said it was a bad thing, while 22 per cent said it was equally good and bad.

And this despite the fact that most Canadians are opposed to their troops being in Afghanistan.

My hack this week is Congressman Stark. I was all set to dig up some juicy stuff, but Miss AO did a fantastic job already. Read away!

Labels: Afghanistan, Canada, Congress, Harper, Hero/Hack, Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:30 PM | Permalink | |

AP:

Deaths among American forces and Iraqi civilians fell dramatically last month to their lowest levels in more than a year, according to figures compiled by the U.S. military, the Iraqi government and The Associated Press.

The decline signaled a U.S. success in bringing down violence in Baghdad and surrounding regions since Washington completed its infusion of 30,000 more troops on June 15.

A total of 64 American forces died in September — the lowest monthly toll since July 2006.

The decline in Iraqi civilian deaths was even more dramatic, falling from 1,975 in August to at least 988 last month, a decline of 50 percent, according to an AP tally. The civilian death toll has not been so low since June 2006, when 847 Iraqis died.

Labels: Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:58 PM | Permalink | |

The White House recently met with leading Democratic campaigns to talk about Iraq and other issues:

So far, Bush has been encouraged by the fact that Democratic candidates are preserving enough wiggle room in their anti-war rhetoric to enable them to keep at least some troops in Iraq.

“If you listen carefully, there are Democrats that say, ‘Well, there needs to be some kind of presence,’” Bush said.

I don't think the Democrats have the fortitude to withdraw. If they did, why are they still funding the war?

Labels: 2008 Watch, Blame it on Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:01 AM | Permalink | |

Katie Couric recently decided to share her thoughts on the conflict in Iraq:

“Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war,” said Couric, adding that it is “pretty much accepted” that the war in Iraq was a mistake.

“I’ve never understood why [invading Iraq] was so high on the administration’s agenda when terrorism was going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that [Iraq] had no true connection with al Qaeda.”

Now if she truly felt this way during the buildup to war in Iraq, that we were being misled, isn't it her duty as a member of the press to investigate and vet the arguments of the administration?

If so, Katie Couric failed in her duty.

Thomas Ricks states in his book, Fiasco (review), that the media essentially rolled over for the Administration rather than truly acting in the role it claims to play in our democracy.

Ironically, Couric alludes to her failure as a journalist in the same speech:

And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring the ‘Today’ show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, ‘Will anybody put the brakes on this?’ And is this really being properly challenged by the right people? And I think, at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic and it was a very difficult position to be in.

So much for "courage."

Labels: Iraq, Media

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:35 PM | Permalink | |

I'll try and write a full reaction post later tonight if I get all my homework done.

Liveblog of Democratic Response:

9:24 The Democrats have a plan now? When did that happen? Did I miss the memo?

9:23 The president just said he redefined our mission in Iraq...

9:22 It isn't 9 months into the surge...it is nine months since the announcement of the surge. These things take time.

9:21 I think the president actually did both things. He defined success as much as you really can in a conflict like Iraq, and success means troops come home.

9:20 Jack Reed, D-RI..who? Oh...military. That's why he's on the podium.

Liveblog of Bush:

9:15 Support "the troops levels General Petraeus has asked for..." 'I'm not asking for this...' Bush recognizes a 4-star is much more credible on Iraq at this point.

9:13 Bush is calling for unity on Iraq..."for the first time people on opposite sides of the issue can come together..." I wish I could be more optimistic about tat happening.

9:11 How we handle the transition to more of an oversight role in Iraq is going to be key to this whole venture.

9:09 Sharing of oil profits!

9:08 I'm saddened that his speech isn't happening in 2004 or 2005.

9:07 Bush is really pushing our success in al-Anbar, and for good reason.

9:02 Bush seems really confident. Winning the peace by making the Iraqis feel like they have secure freedom is a sadly obvious point.

Labels: bush Speech, Iraq, liveblogging

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:01 PM | Permalink | |

General Petraeus gave his report to Congress today (full text). He reported that the surge is working, and that troop levels can be returned to pre-surge numbers without losing progress already made. This is because the surge was about a change is tactics more than about sheer numbers. Under Petraeus' leadership, we've been fighting the insurgency and not merely killing insurgents, only to have them replaced by others.

Only Iraqis can make their country work, and Petraeus recognizes this:

The most significant development in the past six months likely has been the increasing emergence of tribes and local citizens rejecting Al Qaeda and other extremists. This has, of course, been most visible in Anbar Province. A year ago the province was assessed as “lost” politically. Today, it is a model of what happens when local leaders and citizens decide to oppose Al Qaeda and reject its Taliban-like ideology. While Anbar is unique and the model it provides cannot be replicated everywhere in Iraq, it does demonstrate the dramatic change in security that is possible with the support and participation of local citizens. As this chart shows, other tribes have been inspired by the actions of those in Anbar and have volunteered to fight extremists as well. We have, in coordination with the Iraqi government’s National Reconciliation Committee, been engaging these tribes and groups of local citizens who want to oppose extremists and to contribute to local security. Some 20,000 such individuals are already being hired for the Iraqi Police, thousands of others are being assimilated into the Iraqi Army, and thousands more are vying for a spot in Iraq’s Security Forces.

That is excellent news, and Petraeus also laid out goals for the future:

The operational considerations include recognition that:

• military aspects of the surge have achieved progress and generated momentum;
• Iraqi Security Forces have continued to grow and have slowly been shouldering more of the security burden in Iraq;
• a mission focus on either population security or transition alone will not be adequate to achieve our objectives;
• success against Al Qaeda-Iraq and Iranian-supported militia extremists requires conventional forces as well as special operations forces; and
• the security and local political situations will enable us to draw down the surge forces.

My recommendations also took into account a number of strategic considerations:

• political progress will take place only if sufficient security exists;
• long-term US ground force viability will benefit from force reductions as the surge runs its course;
• regional, global, and cyberspace initiatives are critical to success; and
• Iraqi leaders understandably want to assume greater sovereignty in their country, although, as they recently announced, they do desire continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq in 2008 under a new UN Security Council Resolution and, following that, they want to negotiate a long term security agreement with the United States and other nations.

The "solution" here is not on the military alone, but they play an integral part of a stable and free Iraq.

See also: Fiasco Book Review, The Problem With Bush's War

Labels: Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 6:25 PM | Permalink | |

L. Paul Bremer, former head of the CPA in Iraq is defending his decision to not recall Saddam's army:

The decision not to recall Saddam Hussein’s army was thoroughly considered by top officials in the American government. At the time, this decision was not controversial. When Mr. Slocombe held a press conference in Baghdad on May 23 to explain the decision, only two reporters showed up — neither of them Americans. The first I heard of doubts about the decision was in the fall of 2003 after the insurgency had picked up speed.

Moreover, we were right to build a new Iraqi Army. Despite all the difficulties encountered, Iraq’s new professional soldiers are the country’s most effective and trusted security force. By contrast, the Baathist-era police force, which we did recall to duty, has proven unreliable and is mistrusted by the very Iraqi people it is supposed to protect.

Interesting, especially the timing with Petraeus' report due Monday.

Labels: Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:26 PM | Permalink | |

A shocker this week, as my hero is the United Nations. Yes, you read that correctly. Here's what happened:

UNITED NATIONS — The Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Friday expanding the United Nations’ role in Iraq in a move aimed at reconciling the country’s rival groups, winning support from neighboring countries and tackling Iraq’s humanitarian crisis.

The resolution authorizes the UN, at the request of the Iraqi government, to promote political talks among the country’s ethnic and religious groups and a regional dialogue on issues including border security, energy and refugees.

The United States and Britain, who have the largest military forces in Iraq and cosponsored the resolution, believe the UN should play a greater part there because the world body is viewed by many as a more neutral party that can facilitate talks among feuding parties.

To me, this seems like an indicator that the surge may be going well, because this isn't a peacekeeping role --they aren't sending in the blue helmets-- meaning that the country is militarily stable enough to allow the UN to conduct talks. It also shows that the international community at large is investing in this project, something that they haven't been since we made the decision to invade.

My hack this week is Stu Bykofsky of the Philadelphia Daily News. He is "thinking another 9/11 would help America" out:

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.

I sympathize with Stu, I do. I think it is sad that Americans are divided like we seem to be during wartime. However, Stu does not recognize two important things. One, Iraq is part of the Global War on Terror. Always has been. But here's what is surprising: Stu forgets about Afghanstan. He says we've forgotten who the "bad guys" are, but the bad guys are the Islamic extremists and those who harbor and support them. Even Hillary knows that.

Honorable mention for hack this week goes to AT&T for censoring Pearl Jam. AT&T is backtracking on that action, saying it was the company it hired to film/broadcast the performance, but I think the censorship in the first place was dumb. What Eddie Vedder sang was dumb to, but he should be allowed to say dumb things.

Labels: GWOT, Iraq, Music, UN

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:21 AM | Permalink | |

My heroes this week are the Iraqi Soccer Team. Congrats on the victory, one of the better Cinderella sports stories to come along recently, only enhanced by the current state of Iraq. It's sad that terrorists used this occasion to kill innocents, but I think there is still hope for a Disney sports movie sometime in the future.





My hacks this week is the entire House of Representatives, which apparently broke down into chaos last night:

In a massive flare-up of partisan tensions (video link courtesy Breitbart.tv), Republicans walked out on a House vote late Thursday night to protest what they believed to be Democratic maneuvers to reverse an unfavorable outcome for them.

The flap represents a complete breakdown in parliamentary procedure and an unprecedented low for the sometimes bitterly divided chamber.

The rancor erupted shortly before 11 p.m. as Rep. Michael R. McNulty (D-N.Y.) gaveled close the vote on a standard procedural measure with the outcome still in doubt.

Details remain fuzzy, but numerous Republicans argued afterward that they had secured a 215-213 win on their motion to bar undocumented immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance. Democrats, however, argued the measure was deadlocked at 214-214 and failed, members and aides on both sides of the aisle said afterward.

Labels: Congress, Hero/Hack, Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:49 AM | Permalink | |

The myth so far this Presidential campaign is that Democrats, arguing that we need to pull out of Iraq, will be less likely to go to war in 2009-2012. Given Obama's statement about Pakistan recently, it shows that even he, the one who was against "dumb wars" shares Bush's worldview on this.

Democrats tend to intervene militarily at least as much as Republicans (especially in the Clinton school), albeit for different motivations sometimes. Nick Schweitzer elaborates:

The Democrat's playbook is clear. Iraq is "Bush's War", and as much as possible will be "The Republican's War" to hurt Rudy, Thompson², McCain (is he still running?) and the rest (except Ron Paul). But in order to look strong on the War on Terror, they will have to find a war of their very own. Obama is picking on Pakistan and Edwards is picking Saudi Arabia. Iran is too closely tied to Iraq to be a good target, so they're avoiding it. It will be interesting to see who attracts the ire of Mrs. Clinton.

The exception to this rule would be the "peace candidate" of Dennis Kucinich and the "ostrich candidate" Ron Paul.

Labels: 2008 Watch, Barack Obama, GWOT, Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:58 AM | Permalink | |

We unveiled a new arms sale yesterday with Saudi Arabia.

To preface this, at first glance it may seem that the people really outraged by this are were the same people opposed to the Dubai-ports deal from last year (which I was ambivalent, if not in favor of). This is completely different. The chasm between Dubai and Riyadh today is about as wide between the Athenians and the Spartans of old.

Not only could this hurt the troops in Iraq if the weapons get funneled to Sunnis in Iraq (not as remote a possibility as it should be), but this is also going to increase tensions in the reason.

I consider Saudi Arabia anything but an ally. They are the ones funding rampant Wahabbism with their petrodollars.

So why is the Administration doing it?

Looks to me that we're doing it so that if the President in 2009 withdraws from Iraq, and the mess in Iraq turns into an all out sectarian war (with Iran and the Saudis using Iraqi proxies) then the Saudis will be reasonably prepared to prevent an outright genocide of Iraqi Sunnis by factions like the Mahdi Army.

But that still doesn't make it a good idea.

Related (more on Saudis/Wahabbism): Bernard Lewis ISI Dinner

Labels: Blame it on Bush, Iraq, Islam

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:30 AM | Permalink | |

Bad day for DELiberal! First their allies don't know who they're supposed to be protesting, now they can't make up their mind who we're fighting in Iraq!

Donvitit today:
Hmm...the guys that attacked us on 9/11?
OH! You must mean Al-Qaeda! Al-Qaeda has a lot of members who are Saudi Arabian...who we're fighting in Iraq...and they're majority of the insurgents?

But that's not what Donviti said last week:

Labels: Fact Check, Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:00 AM | Permalink | |

UD alum, friend, and too-infrequent blogger Mike McKain has a post up at his blog, McLefty. He makes some valid points, but I am surprised to see him advocate for an immediate withdrawal:

Everyday in the news, I see evidence that such a state of affairs already exists, and that the risk of it increasing is in no way diminished by a massive American presence. The “surge” might have worked if we had done it in earnest or earlier in the conflict; however, a creeping surge this late in the game was ill-fated from the start and should not be allotted much more time to fail; the lives of our soldiers are too valuable for that.

Yes, the "surge," which is more importantly a change in strategy than an increase in numbers has come a lot later than it should have. No contending otherwise. Yes, there is a chance it may fail. But for now, it is the best chance we have. The "surge" also did not reach full strength until June 15.

Once the "surge" is over, a drastic drawdown of troops seems like an appropriate course of action. Prime Minister Maliki's statements from the past weekend about Iraqi security forces being ready for us to leave are just that right now, statements. But it may show an attitude within the Iraqi government that this is their fight, which is great news for the long term. Hopefully, once the majority of the insurgency is rooted out (that's what the "surge" is for: a change from fighting insurgents to fighting the insurgency) we can begin major troop withdrawals and act in more of a stability/peacekeeping role.

Mike goes on to talk about the US role in the international arena:

As Russia seems content to escalate old tensions, Pakistan continues to refuse to fully cooperate against the Taliban and the hunt for Bin Laden, Iran and Turkey threaten to expand the Iraq conflict into a regional war, North Korea remains unstable, genocide continues more or less unchecked in Darfur – the threats to international peace are everywhere, including within our own borders.

A lot of this is fodder for other posts down the line, but Musharraf seems to be doing his best to combat the Taliban while holding onto popular support. Pakistan is a critical ally, and one we have to be careful about pushing too hard, because Pakistan's nukes getting into the hands of a Taliban-like government is too great of a threat to chance.

As I've mentioned before, I agree with Joe Biden about Darfur (video: 1, 2). I see Darfur not only as the atrocity it is, but also as another front for the War on Terror.

I don't question Mike's patriotism in the least, as it is clear his position is motivated by keeping American lives safe and American power strong. I'm glad there are some other people out there willing to have an honest discussion about this issue.

Related: My reivew of Fiasco, Iraq Pullout Scenarios

Labels: Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:45 AM | Permalink | |

My heroes this week are the Philadelphia Phillies. My beloved home team is heading towards being the first sports franchise to ever hit 10,000 losses, and there's even a website celebrating this feat:

The five-digit figure has 610 WIP Sportsradio personality Anthongy Gargano impressed.

“The next closest team is 1,000 losses away. You’re talking about six seasons. It’s amazing, it’s such a feat,” he said.

“It’s more about celebrating the fans and the fact that we’re still loyal and passionate about this team even though for the past 125 years they’ve only won one World Series and basically have been losers,” DeBow said.

My hacks this week are the 223 members of the House of Representatives that voted for withdrawing troops from Iraq by April. The hackish thing is that this seems to be motivated not out of a position other than purely political:

Before the House vote, Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: We're the people who decide when to go to war, whether the war should be funded.

"Now, when [the Bush administration] keeps making mistakes as they have made, we have to intercede. The public spoke in the last election and said clearly we want the troops redeployed."

"We are wasting the time and trying the patience of the American people for no useful purpose," said Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, one of four Republicans who voted for the measure.

The public "spoke" by switching parties. Yes, a change of course in Iraq was needed. And it's happened! But as it has been all along, "change of course" is code for "pull out and let thousands of Iraqis be killed because we want to hurt the Republican Party/get re-elected."

Labels: Hero/Hack, Iraq, Sports

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:23 AM | Permalink | |

Austin Bay outlines seven possible outcomes if the US withdrawals immediately from Iraq:
1. Three States
2. Regional Shia-Sunni War
3. Turkey Expands
4. Shia dictatorship
5. Chaos
6. "Gang Up"
7. Surprise! The Iraq center holds

He details what those scenarios would entail (an amalgam of the first six is possible).

Worth checking out.

Labels: Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:49 AM | Permalink | |

This is a book review, but I’m going to use it as a platform to discuss the main topic of the book, the American military adventure in Iraq. Within Fiasco, author Thomas E. Ricks paints a narrative of Operation Iraqi Freedom from before 9-11 until about a year ago. Unlike Woodward’s efforts, this is a very military focused narrative, which helps substantially once OIF gets underway.

I’ve read both Woodward’s Plan of Attack and Paul Bremer’s My Year in Iraq, but I feel that this book and the Iraq Study Group Report are the only two bits of essential reading on the subject, though Woodward and Bremer’s books help give this one perspective. The only area of conflict between Fiasco and Bremer’s account is in dealing with Order No. 1 (De-Baathification) but it isn’t a large enough to warrant discount either work, and Bremer does provide a lot more elaboration as to why were given the exaggerated numbers of trained Iraqis by the Administration (my review of Bremer’s book here).

If Ricks has a political agenda he’s pursuing in the book, I couldn’t find it. The book is very fair, and he seems about as neutral as anyone could be expected to be vis-à-vis the Bush Administration. He does not accuse the Administration of lying us into this war, but he doesn’t give them a pass on anything. What investigative journalism should be.

Ricks explores the relationship between Rumsfeld’s office (OSD) and the Army, which was strenuous at best. Going to war with a an Army and military bureaucracy mad at each other is a really bad idea.

One thing that stood out for me was the planning of Phase IV, i.e. “what happens when we get to Baghdad.” There was some planning done, no one was in charge of it, and the duty was shuffled back and forth between OSD and CENTCOMM for far too long.

However, Ricks gives a phrase to a concept that I haven’t come up with a better name for. To paraphrase, America fought the war it wanted to, not the war it faced. The main facet of this would be that the Army’s endgame seemed to be the fall of Baghdad, while ignoring other problems along the way.

There were major problems with the American attitude post-fall of Baghdad, including holing up in palaces rather than living among the people. By not being prepared for an insurgency, we neglected the beginnings of one, and squandered most, if not all of the goodwill we earned by toppling Saddam.

Then, after the insurgency was underway, the Army was fighting insurgents rather than fighting the insurgency. This lapse of thinking is a lesson we could have taken from the few bright spots in Iraq, Petraeus’ 101^st Airborne, Gen. Mattis of the 1^st Marine Division, and the Marine Corps on the whole, who were determined not to follow the Army into mistakes.

Given that Petraeus seems to understand the nature of the enemy we’re fighting better than any other commander in the US military, having him in charge is a big positive sign for the future of Iraq, assuming Washington doesn’t pull the plug.

In fact, this may be the case, as the BBC is concluding that the “surge” (and more importantly, the change in strategy and tactics that came with it) is working:

According to BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, the debate is moving so fast in Washington that Gen Petraeus's efforts, which might have saved the day for the Bush administration if they had been introduced three, or even two, years ago, may well have come too late.

Read the whole BBC article, which is largely an interview with Patraeus. Sadly, he has to play two to three years of catch up. I hope that this isn’t too little too late, and that those in Washington pay close attention to what is going on in Iraq.

Overall, I highly recommend Fiasco, and I will note that the paperback editioncomes out soon.

Labels: Book Review, Books, Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:00 PM | Permalink | |

First, Bill Roggio is reporting that Muqtada al-Sadr is back in Iran, and he is losing control of his Mahdi Army, rogue elements of which are working with Iran:

The “rogue” elements of Sadr's Mahdi Army have been repeatedly attacked by Iraqi and U.S. Special Forces due to their relationship with the Iranian-backed “Special Groups” or “Secret Cells.” These Iranian backed cells are receiving arms, funding, training, and guidance from Iranian Qods Force.

. . .

Sadr's return to Iran harms his image as an Iraqi nationalist. He has criticized the leadership of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC, formerly the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) for sheltering in Iran in the past, only to accept aid, comfort, shelter and cash from Iran's Qods Force.

Also, the an Iraqi FM is claiming that Turkey is massing as many 140,000 troops on the Iraqi border. This illustrates of the problems with the "three state" solution. the Kurds are spread between Iraq and Turkey.

The Turks are a tenuous ally, and we don't want to push them in the opposite direction by giving the Kurds an opportunity to rebel and create Kurdistan. We also don't want the Kurds to be worse off than they were under Saddam.

Labels: Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:15 PM | Permalink | |

My hero this week is Michael Yon.

Yon's been reporting from Iraq off an on for a while now, and his courage and candor is well worth reading. His on-the-ground reports are honest and up front. And he does it all out of pocket or through donations.






My hack this week is Barack Obama, who apparently is not a friend to bloggers. Even ones that are sympathetic.

At least, that was Jerid from Buckeye State Blog's experience. He writes:

Apparently that didn't matter. It was of no consequence that I'm a Democratically slanted activist who's trying to learn as much about all of the candidates in New Hampshire as I can. It didn't matter that I phonebank and canvas for candidates I support. I didn't matter that I put my "super friendly blogger hat" on when I go to these events and am respectful of folks privacy, taking great care with what I write about. All she saw was the press.

The Obama campaign, along with some of the other prezzies, don't understand the concept of citizen journalists. There's a lot of old school politics out here on the NH campaigns - some of the communications folks desperately need to refresh their understanding of how bloggers work. You see, we're not all the same. Just like regular folks, there are friendly bloggers that want to help, and there are bloggers bent on screwing you. It's up to a campaign to discern who's who and dole out special access depending on such. However, we're regular folks too - we volunteer, vote, and try to help because we believe in the Democratic party. So you can't really lump bloggers entirely into the press category - last time I checked Brian Williams wasn't passing out door hangers for his local Democratic Party. That's hard for folks on campaigns, locked into one particular mentality or another, to understand. It's a nuance to which some campaigns are tone deaf.

That's just sad. Both sides need to be much more open with citizen journalists, or it's going to come back to bite them later.

Like this example. Rather than writing a glowing pro-Obama post I never would have read, I found Jerid's post through Instapundit, and now several thousand people have heard this negative thing about Obama. Great job!

Labels: 2008 Watch, Barack Obama, blogging, Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:26 AM | Permalink | |

I don't always see eye to eye with John McCain (at least, when I can figure out what his position is.), but this is something I think he's absolutely correct on. At the last Republican presidential debate, McCain said:

And when Senator Clinton says this is Mr. Bush's war, that this is President Bush's war -- when President Clinton was in power, I didn't say that Bosnia, our intervention there was President Clinton's war. When we intervened in Kosovo, I didn't say it was President Clinton's war.

What Senator Clinton doesn't understand that presidents don't lose wars. Political parties don't lose wars.

Nations lose wars, and nations lose the -- have the consequences of failure.

At the time, two weeks ago, that statement didn't even warrant a mention in my post on the debate. However, in those two weeks, Senator McCain's words have been bouncing around in my head.

I don't remember if any Republicans called Bosnia or Kosovo "Clinton's War." It's possible some did, and that would have been the wrong attitude to have. Certainly, the anti-war crowd, to a large extent, has been using the phrase "Bush's war" to a great degree. McCain's remarks above, were in direct rebuttal to Senator Hillary Clinton's remarks at the Democratic Presidential debate two days prior:

And I think it's important particularly to point out: This is George Bush's war. He is responsible for this war. He started the war. He mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war.

I will pause only momentarily to point out that this s obviously hypocritical of the former First Lady, as the President did not simply send over several thousand troops overnight and undisclosed. She and her Congressional compatriots voted for the war. They authorized what some now call "Bush's war."

This language allows the anti-war crowd to distance themselves from the war by associating it with someone who is their opposite. When they "Bush's war," what they mean is "It's His war, it doesn't belong to us. We don't want anything to do with it."

Let me use an analogy. Two brothers are inside the house together, while their mother is out in the yard working on the garden. The older brother (older by only a few years), encourages the other brother to fill up the bathtub so they can play with their toy boats. The younger does so, but then both kids hear their mother calling them from the yard. They rush out, forgetting about the tub precariously filling with water.

After a while, mother and sons reenter the house, only to find water leaking through the first floor ceiling. The older brother says to his mother, "Not my mess. He did it." He says this knowing full well that he is equally responsible for the current predicament.

In this analogy, the brothers represent the Republicans (younger) and the Democrats (older), the mother the American public, and her calling them into the yard represents election time.

This is exactly the attitude the Democrats have to the war. This presents a problem, especially in the international arena. And especially in the non-democratic world. One of the reasons McCain's words bounced around in my head so much goes back to hearing Bernard Lewis speak.

As I related in May:

Lewis said that bin Laden & co. were not expecting the reaction they got to 9-11 because of their experiences in Beirut, Khobar Towers, Eastern African embassies, the USS Cole, etc. This was because where they come from, said Lewis "elections don't change governments, governments change elections." (Emphasis Added)

In this mentality, a victory for al Qaeda in Iraq or Muqtada al Sadr in Iraq is a victory against the United States, not George W. Bush. They do not see the differences between a Bush Administration and a Clinton Administration, they see the United States.

A failure in Iraq, like so many on the left seem to want, or a pullout in reaction to the insurgency, and al Qaeda and Sadr will be able to claim victory against the superpower, similar to how the Taliban and bin Laden believe themselves responsible for the downfall of the USSR.

Saying Iraq is not part of the War on Terror (sorry, it's just a bumper sticker anyway, right?) is like saying fighting Japan or Italy wasn't a part of World War II. This is a war with many fronts, including the homeland.

It's time for Democrats to realize this is their war too.

Labels: Blame it on Bush, Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:00 AM | Permalink | |

I thought overall, the debate was better than the last one, though not as lively as the Democratic one, because Ron Paul isn’t as angry as Mike Gravel, and because the Republicans generally refused to attack each other head-on the way the Democrats did.

Giuliani did particularly well, especially compared to his prior performances. The lightning moment was probably the most entertaining thing in the whole debate (video). He apparently was also holding Mitt Romney’s leash. Every time that Romney spoke after Giuliani did, he agreed with him, from Iraq, to gays in the military, to the immigration bill, it seemed that Romney was the “me too, Rudy!”

It is interesting that Sen. Sam Brownback supports the ‘Biden plan’ of the three-state solution to Iraq. I also thought that Gov. Mike Huckabee did particularly well, especially on the “creation question” nailing it down to what the media is really asking: “Do you believe in God?” and providing a well-spoken answer. Of the “second-tier,” he and Tancredo stood out the most, though admittedly Ron Paul has his niche. Gilmore, (Tommy) Thompson, and Hunter blended into the background.

Immigration was the central issue of the debate, it seemed, and the most divisive overall. This is bad news for John McCain. Tancredo shone on the issue of immigration, and I think that his anger toward the bill and the Bush-McCain-Kennedy coalition will resonate with the average American, who does not like pressing “1” for English. Another highlight was when John McCain asked aloud if anyone had had any better ideas and was met with hands going up and shouts of “Senator” from all parts of the stage.

I also would like to note that between the two debates, my dislike of Wolf Blitzer as a moderator almost overpowers the entire debate. The one question I have of CNN’s coverage is how does a question about conservation translate to “TOPIC: GLOBAL WARMING” on the bottom of the screen? Interesting that Giuliani, Romney, and Richardson all want an 'energy Apollo.' I'm not necessarily opposed, if it has a concrete goal like Apollo did.

Labels: 2008 Watch, Climate Change, Giuliani, Huckabee, Illegal Immigration, Iraq, McCain, Romney, Tancredo

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:20 PM | Permalink |