It's April 2006 in Iraq

Rumsfeld should have his genitals pickled in a jar as a keepsake. However, barring that, an apology would be a good start.

Cheney should be Lyndie Englanded non-stop by anyone willing to wait in line for the opportunity, with second and third helpings allowed. However, barring that, an apology would be a good start.

George Bush the Lesser should be branded on the forehead with the Mark of the Beast and live the rest of his miserable life, shunned by society and eating out of garbage cans. However, barring that, an apology would be a good start.

Maybe.

There may not be rioting in the streets but you can damn well be sure that the GOP (and for that matters the Democrats) are calculating potential down the road impact later this year and 2008. People aren't bored, but they're not necessarily as vocal about it.

To give you an idea of how at least one ideologue reads it, consider Andy McCarthy today thinking about Geracht's piece. He's hardly sanguine:

I think it's possible Americans could be persuaded that we must step it up and achieve an unambiguous military victory in Iraq to prevent terrorists from winning a share of power in an outcome that would be a humiliating defeat of the U.S. (which would be seen as confirming bin Laden's claims that we lack resolve). That is a national interest that people can support, ardently, if the case can be made convincingly.

But that case would have to be made. And making it would be an uphill battle at a time when (a) the debate at home has become about drawing down our presence, (b) the public case for why military victory in Iraq is crucial to success in the overall war on terror has long been neglected, (c) the administration has told the country that major combat operations are over and establishing a democratic Iraqi government is what matters, (d) the American people have understandably come to view Iraqis as not nearly grateful enough for all we have sacrificed on their behalf, and (e) Iraq is looming so large in the coming mid-term elections.

I'd love to be wrong, but I am not optimistic that the will exists to overcome all of this.

This type of view will continue to gain more traction the longer this grinds on. You've got the various chirpy types still somehow convinced that just because Bush says something that therefore it is true but they're having to deal with alternate interpretations from their side that they can't dismiss as 'typical' liberal talk or whatever.

i'm reading the excellent book "wake the town and tell the people" and i was struck by a reference to the political violence between supporters of manley + seaga in jamaica in the late 70s / early 80s. the author briefly mentions the 800 or so political murders between 1978 and 1980 and refers to it as near "civil war" in its proportions.

i am fairly certain (w/o having any hard-and-fast numbers) that by now the sectarian violence must easily surpass that rate.

what was the violence like in yugoslavia during their civil war? how does it compare to iraq?

i guess what i am getting at is why and how people decide what constitutes a civil war? does it have to do w/ a breakdown of infrastructure? are we so generous about this situation because the infrastructure isn't much more fragmented under the current political order in iraq than it was under saddam?

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

The site compilers note that this is drawn from news reports rather than specifically verifiable statistics.

These questions are generally referred to the International Board of War Standards for adjudication.

As for Yugoslavia - about 250,000 people died between 1992 and 1995. But it's difficult to compare the two. Frankly (looking at that link Mr Raggett posted) if fighting in any other country was posting deaths of 340 a week we'd be saying that the country had - to use a cliche - 'descended into anarchy'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4908948.stm

-- Aimless (aimles...), April 1st, 2006.

Someone was quoted in the James Risen "State of War" book as saying that Wolfowitz is the only one of the war's planners whose consience troubles him (he is known to visit many wounded soldiers) but I wouldn't expect any McNamara-ing from him until after all the troops have left Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4936530.stm

"Shortly after his nomination, Mr Maliki pointed out that the constitution calls for militias to be merged into the official security forces."

How does that work exactly?

It depends. One hopes it means that the militias shall be subsumed into a new Iraqi army, thereby contributing to Iraq's security, rather than causing instability, while providing the vital manpower for a professional national force, dedicated to the creation of democratic and prosperous Iraq.

Or maybe it means that the mullah with the most guns and men wins.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. It's an honor to have you here. I'm a first-year student in South Asia studies. My question is in regards to private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions.

THE PRESIDENT: I was going to ask him. Go ahead. (Laughter.) Help. (Laughter.)

Q I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. (Laughter.) Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws, much less against -- over our American military contractors. I would submit to you that in this case, this is one case that privatization is not a solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that very much. I wasn't kidding -- (laughter.) I was going to -- I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I've got an interesting question. (Laughter.) This is what delegation -- I don't mean to be dodging the question, although it's kind of convenient in this case, but never -- (laughter.) I really will -- I'm going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That's how I work. I'm -- thanks. (Laughter.)

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=164532&keyword=contractor&phrase=&contain=