It is October 2006 in Iraq

I have decided to vote Democratic this fall.

I am a conservative and a Republican party member. I believe in small government, free markets, strong defense, etc., but Bush’s snafu in Iraq is just too much. It overwhelms those issues which for 30 years have made me vote GOP. In addition to screwing up so far, there is zero evidence that he’s changed, or that he “gets it,” or anything. Kevin Drum has a piece today “if Bush gave this kind of speech, that might be different,” not for for Drum, but for some of us. Bush does not get it.

As a recent returning resident of Baghdad, I have witnessed firsthand the mismanagement of the peace. As a man who spent most of his adult life learning and training in the same Army as the General, I know of what he speaks. Much of what I saw and heard us doing over there was so bonehead stupid, I could only conclude it was on purpose. Intentional or not, I cannot excuse the horrendous assumptions which led to the woefully inadequate war plans made by the highest civilian and military authority in the land to commit our national treasure in money and blood to a war they have chosen to fight with less than our best effort. In the world of military leadership; that is sacrilege of the first order.

Some of those who planned and executed this war are friends of mine. Regrettably, I cannot give them a pass. Not this time.

Colonel, US Army (Retired)

"Where's the leader?" Bush, according to Woodward, has exclaimed in dismay about the Iraqi government's dithering. "Where's George Washington? Where's Thomas Jefferson? Where's John Adams, for crying out loud?"

Lowry:

If Rumsfeld had had his way, we might have had one foot out the door already. In a meeting earlier this year in Baghdad, Rumsfeld raised the issue of reducing U.S. troop levels with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki was shocked. “It’s way too earlier to be talking about that,” he said. Rumsfeld’s strategy isn’t outlandish in theory, but the fact is that the Iraqis haven’t yet proven they are up to the burden he wants to place on them.

The secretary of Defense has a tacit ally in minimizing the U.S. commitment in Iraq in top U.S. military commanders. Gen. John Abizaid believes that, according to Woodward, “the U.S. military had done all it could” in Iraq. Asked by his friends his strategy for winning, Abizaid responded, “That’s not my job.” When the general visited Rep. John Murtha, the cut-and-run Democrat, Abizaid put his fingers close together and said, “We’re that far apart.”

So it is that Bush’s stalwartness in the Iraq War never quite seems to be matched by the means he applies on the ground. His administration has been riven by debilitating divisions on Iraq for too long. Bush should appoint an Iraq czar, whose charge it is to do everything possible to win at this late hour, and who will have every resource of government at his disposal. Lest the next Woodward book cover how the U.S. handled its ignominious exit.

He adds:

This appointment would play as a new departure that would give the administration the room to try new things (perhaps—I'm just thinking out loud—a surge of more troops in the near-term, coupled with a set of deadlines for Iraqi political developments). Politically, such an appointment would play perfectly into the administration's theme of adapting to win. It would be a way to break up the deadlocked internal administration debate and to clear up the bureaucratic confusion. (I was talking to a high-level administration official not too long ago who has no idea who really has primary responsibility for Iraq policy.) I think Rumsfeld and the generals basically have a checkmate against any new departure in Iraq policy. Rumsfeld opposes more troops for long-held strategic reasons (because he thinks it will foster dependency on the part of the Iraqis) and the generals, I believe, oppose them for institutional reasons (they know what a terrible strain sending more troops will represent to the Army). We need someone who can break through all this. My nominee would be Zalmay Khalilzad, although he would be hard to replace on the ground in Iraq.

And some of the responses this got.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Monday she plans to ask Saudi Arabia to do more to help stabilize Iraq, encouraging it to influence Iraqi Sunnis to become more involved in the political process.

Speaking as she flew to the Middle East, Rice said she planned during her trip to talk to U.S. allies in the region about how they can assist the Iraqi and Lebanese governments as well as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Rice's trip to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and the Palestinian territories is her first journey to the region since a July visit at height of the war between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.

During the trip, she plans to have a group meeting with the foreign ministers of Egypt, Jordan and the six Persian Gulf Cooperation Council states -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.

"When Lebanon happened, I think (we) got in very stark relief a clear indication that there are extremist forces and moderate forces (in the Middle East)," she told reporters on the first leg of her trip.

"The countries that we are meeting ... is a group that you would expect to support the emerging moderate forces in Lebanon, in Iraq, and in the Palestinian territories," she added.

Saudi Arabia considers itself the bastion of mainstream Sunni Islam. But its support for Sunni tribes in Iraq is tempered by concern that Saudi Islamists who have gone to fight alongside insurgents could return to fight in Saudi Arabia.

"I want the Saudis' involvement in the stabilization of Iraq. I want the Saudis' involvement in the stabilization of Lebanon through resources and political support," she said.

I've heard President Bush repeatedly state he will send more troops to Iraq if the commanders on the ground ask for them. I think, having returned home from Iraq two months ago, that there must be a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line. Maybe units on the ground are painting too rosy a picture for the generals. Perhaps the generals aren't asking because it goes against the "can do" ethos of the Army. Possibly the military is being squeezed by the Pentagon to do more with less. Or maybe the White House doesn't want to admit more troops are needed. In any case, while I do not have the answers nor do I seek to place blame, it is painfully obvious there's a disconnect.

I volunteered to serve in Iraq because I believe in our mission there. I share the president's conviction about the Iraq war--we can and must win, for the Iraqi people, for the future of our country and for peace-loving people everywhere. But I'm frustrated. America is fighting with a hand tied behind its back. Soldiers have all the equipment we need--armored humvees, body armor for every body part, superior technology, etc.--but we simply do not have enough troops in Iraq, and we need them now.

...

I believe, as the president noted, that "the safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad." Why then do we have just enough troops in Iraq not to lose? Most of the people I've spoken with since coming home--those both for and against the war--believe we must finish the job in Iraq. Americans understand a defeat in Iraq would have horrible consequences for America and its allies for decades to come. America has the capacity to win and the will to support a winning strategy.

Why then are we pursuing a bare minimum approach?

---

First Lt. Hegseth served as an infantry platoon leader and civil-military operations officer in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division.

hilarity.

----

Bush and the Perception of Weakness

By George Friedman

There is good news for the Republican Party: Things can't get much worse. About five weeks from the midterm elections, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) asserting that the situation in Iraq will deteriorate in 2007 is leaked. On top of that, Bob Woodward's book is released to massive fanfare, chronicling major disagreements within the White House over prosecution of the Iraq war and warnings to U.S. President George W. Bush in the summer of 2003 that a dangerous insurgency was under way and that the president's strategy of removing Baathists from the government and abolishing the Iraqi army was a mistake. These events are bad enough, but when U.S. Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) -- the head of a congressional committee charged with shutting down child molesters using the Internet -- is caught sending e-mails to 16-year-old male pages, the news doesn't get much worse.

All of this is tied up with the elections of course. The NIE document leak was undoubtedly meant to embarrass the president. The problem is that it did, as it revealed the rift between the intelligence community and the White House's view of the world. The Woodward book was clearly intended to be published more than a month before the elections, and it was expected to have embarrassing revelations in it. The problem is that not a whole lot of people quoted in the book are denying that they said or did what was described. When former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card is quoted as trying to get U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld out of office and the assertion is made that first lady Laura Bush tried as well, and denials are not flying, you know two things: Woodward intended to embarrass Bush just before the election, and he succeeded. For all we know, the leak about Foley asking about a 16-year-old's boxer shorts may have been timed as well. The problem is that the allegations were true, and Foley admitted what he did and resigned.

These problems might be politically timed, but none of them appears to be based on a lie. The fact is that this confluence of events has created the perception that the Bush White House is disintegrating. Bush long ago lost control of leakers in the intelligence community; he has now started to lose control over former longtime staffers who, having resigned, have turned on him via the Woodward book. Bush appears to be locked into a small circle of advisers (particularly Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld) and locked into his Iraq strategy, and he generally appears to have suspended decision-making in favor of continuing with decisions already made.

Now, this may not be a fair perception. We are not in the White House and do not know what is going on there. But this is now the perception, and that fact must be entered into the equation. True or not, and fair or not, the president appears to be denying what the intelligence communities are saying and what some of his closest advisers have argued, and it appears that this has been going on for a long time. With the election weeks away, and the Foley scandal adding to the administration's difficulties, there is a reasonable probability that the Republicans will get hammered in the elections, potentially losing both houses of Congress if the current trend continues.

One theory is that Bush doesn't care. He believes in the things he is doing and, whatever happens in the 2006 elections, he will continue to be president for the next two years, with the power of the presidency in his hand. That may be the case, although a hostile Congress with control over the purse strings can force policies on presidents (consider Congress suspending military aid to South Vietnam under Gerald Ford). Congress has substantial power when it chooses to exercise it.

But leaving the question of internal politics aside, the perception that Bush's administration is imploding can have a significant impact on his ability to execute his foreign policy because of how foreign nations will behave. The perception of disarray generates a perception of weakness. The perception of weakness encourages foreign states to take advantage of the situation. Bush has argued that changing his Iraq policy might send the Islamic world a signal of weakness. That might be true, but the perception that Bush is losing control of his administration or of Congress can also signal weakness. If Bush's intent is the reasonable goal of not appearing weak, he obviously must examine the current situation's effects on his ability to reach that goal.

Consider a matter not involving the Islamic world. This week, a crisis blew up in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, which is now closely aligned with the United States. Georgia arrested four Russian military officers, charging them with espionage. The Russians demanded their release and halted the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia -- a withdrawal Moscow had promised before the arrests gave it the opportunity to create a fundamental crisis in Russo-Georgian relations.

Normally a crisis of this magnitude involving a U.S. ally like Georgia would rise to the top of the pile of national security issues at the White House, with suitable threats made and action plans drawn up. Furthermore, the Russians would normally have been quite careful about handling such a crisis. There was little evidence of Russian caution; the Russians refrained from turning the situation into a military conflict, but they certainly turned up the heat on Georgia as the crisis evolved on its own. The Kremlin press service said Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin talked about Georgia in a telephone conversation Oct. 2, and that Putin told Bush third parties should be careful about encouraging Georgia.

The Russians frankly do not see the United States as capable of taking meaningful action at this point. That means Moscow can take risks, exert pressure and shift dynamics in ways it might have avoided a year ago out of fear of U.S. reprisals. The Russians know Bush does not have the political base at home, or even the administrative ability, to manage a crisis. Both National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are obsessed with Iraq and the Washington firestorm. As for Rumsfeld, Woodward quoted the head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid, as saying Rumsfeld lacks credibility. That statement has not been denied. It is bad when a four-star general says that about a secretary of defense. Since the perception of U.S. crisis management is that no one is minding the shop, the Russians tested their strength.

There is, of course, a much more serious matter: Iran. Iran cut its teeth on American domestic politics. After the Iranians seized U.S. Embassy personnel as hostages, they locked the Carter administration into an impossible position, in which its only option was a catastrophic rescue attempt. The Iranians had an enormous impact on the 1980 election, helping to defeat Carter and not releasing the hostages until Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president. They crippled a president once and might like to try it again.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was involved in the hostage-taking and got a close-up view of how to manipulate the United States. Iran already undermined Bush's plans for a stable government in Iraq when it mobilized Shiite forces against the Baghdad government over the summer. Between that and the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, Iran saw itself in a strong position. Iran then conducted a diplomatic offensive, as a former Iranian president and the current Iranian president both traveled to the United States and tried to make the case that they are more moderate than the Bush administration painted them.

With five weeks until the U.S. congressional midterm elections, the Iranians would love to be able to claim that Bush, having rejected their overtures, was brought down -- or at least crippled -- by Iran. There are rumors swirling about pending major attacks in Iraq by pro-Iranian forces. There are always rumors swirling in Iraq about attacks, but in this particular case, logic would give them credibility. The Iranians might be calculating that if Iranian-sponsored groups could inflict massive casualties on U.S. troops, it would affect the U.S. election enough to get a Democratic Congress in place -- which could cripple Bush's ability to wage war and further weaken the United States' position in the Middle East. This, of course, would increase Iran's standing in the region.

The Iranian perception is that the United States does not have the resources to launch either an invasion or massive airstrikes against Iran. The Bush administration's credibility on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is too low for that to be regarded as a plausible excuse, and even if strikes were launched to take out WMD, that rationale would not justify an extended, multi-month bombing campaign. Since the Iranians believe the United States lacks the will and ability to try regime change from the air, Tehran is in a position to strike without putting itself at risk.

If the Iranians were to strike hard at the United States in Iraq, and the United States did not respond effectively, then the perception in key countries like Saudi Arabia -- a religious and geopolitical rival of Iran's -- would be that aligning with the United States is a dangerous move because the U.S. ability to protect them is not there, and therefore they need to make other arrangements. Since getting the Saudis' cooperation against al Qaeda was a major achievement for the Bush administration, this would be a major reversal. But if Riyadh perceived the United States as inherently weak, Riyadh would have no choice but to recalculate and relaunch its foreign policy.

Iran and others are feeling encouraged to take risks before the upcoming U.S. election -- either because they see this as a period of maximum American weakness or because they hope to influence the election and further weaken Bush. If they succeed, many U.S. allies will, like the Saudis, have to recalculate their positions relative to the United States and move away. The willingness of people in Iraq and Afghanistan to align with the United States will decline. If the United States is seen as a loser, it will become a loser. Furthermore, the NIE and the Woodward book create the perception that Bush has become isolated in his views and unable to control his own people. He needs to reverse this perception.

It is easy to write that. It is much harder to imagine how he will accomplish it, particularly if there is a major attack in Iraq or elsewhere. Bush's solution has been to refuse to bend. That worked for a while, but that strategy is no longer credible because it is not clear that Bush still has the option of not bending. The disarray in his administration and the real possibility of losing Congress means that merely remaining resolved is not enough. Bush needs to bring perceived order to the perceived chaos in the administration. Between the bad luck of degenerate congressmen and the intentions of the Iranians, he does not have many tools at his disposal. The things he might have done a year ago, like replacing Rumsfeld, are not an option now. It would smell of panic, and he cannot afford to be seen as panicky. Perhaps Bush's only option at this point is to remain self-assured and indifferent to the storm around him.

Whatever the perception in the United States, Bush's enemies overseas are not impressed by his self-assurance, and his allies are getting very worried that, like Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, his political weakness will not allow him to control the U.S. course.

We believe that, in the end, reality governs perception. But we are not convinced that, in this case, the perception and the reality are not one and the same; and we are not convinced that, in the coming weeks, the perception is not in fact more important than the reality. And if the Republicans lose the upcoming elections, the perception that Bush lacks the plans and political power needed for decisive action will become the reality.

For Bush to be able to execute the foreign policy he wants, his party must win the midterm elections. For that to happen, Bush must get control of the political situation quickly. To do that, he must change the perception that his own administration is out of control.

Easy to write. Harder to do.
---

The American military reported today that a roadside bomb killed four soldiers on patrol here on Monday, bringing the total number of American troops killed that day to at least eight.

The death toll was the highest so far for American troops in Iraq’s capital since American and Iraqi soldiers began a stepped-up military campaign to stem the violence here.

American troops, along with their Iraqi counterparts, have been conducting neighborhood-by-neighborhood sweeps of some of Baghdad’s most violent areas as part of the second phase of a new security plan for the capital. So far, however, the violence, much of it sectarian in nature, has continued, spiking over the last week with the start of the holy month of Ramadan.

Since the military operations began in Baghdad in August, the previous highest number of American troops killed in a single day in the capital was four in mid-September. But many days have seen just one or two deaths of American soldiers in the capital or even sometimes none at all.

“Obviously, this was a tragic day with eight killed in 24 hours,” said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman.

Iraqi authorities have taken a police brigade out of service and returned them to training because of "complicity" with death squads in the wake of a mass kidnapping in Baghdad this week, a U.S. military spokesman said Wednesday.

The kidnapping took place on Sunday, when gunmen stormed into a frozen meats factory in the Amil district and snatched 24 workers, shooting two others. The bodies of seven of the workers were found later but the fate of the others remains unknown.

And further:

Thirteen U.S. soldiers have been killed in Baghdad since Monday, the American military reported, registering the highest three-day death toll for U.S. forces in the capital since the start of the war.

The latest losses -- four soldiers were killed at 9 a.m. Wednesday by small-arms fire in northwest Baghdad -- are part of a recent spike in violence against U.S. forces that has claimed the lives of at least 24 soldiers and Marines across the country since Saturday, the military said.

The number of planted bombs is "at an all-time high," said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, a military spokesman, defying American efforts to staunch the vicious sectarian bloodshed in Baghdad that threatens to plunge the country into civil war.

"This has been a hard week for U.S. forces," Caldwell said at a news conference here, later adding: "This is not going to affect ongoing operations. Those will continue."

...

Fuck you. FUCK YOU.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/04/congress.iraq.ap/index.html

Rice says, “Democracy is not something that … is for America to impose abroad. And certainly democracy will look — will take on different cultural tones, different forms, in every single country on earth.”

Ah. And we're in Iraq because...

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a surprise visit to Baghdad today to support embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and urged the fragile Iraqi government to accelerate efforts on national reconciliation.

In a reflection of the deteriorating security situation here, however, Rice was forced to circle Baghdad for just under an hour because of a mortar attack near the airport.

Rice warned that the six-month-old government has reached a "critical time" and needs to make faster progress to diffuse the turmoil. Her visit came a day after U.S. military officials announced that the number of planted bombs in Iraq has reached "an all-time high" and 13 U.S. soldiers were killed in three days, the highest total for that time period since the start of the war.

"The security situation is not one that can be tolerated and is not one that is helped by political inaction," Rice told reporters traveling with her on the unexpected trip to Iraq, the fifth stop on her Middle East swing.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday offered a stark assessment of the situation in Iraq after a trip there this week, saying that parts of the country have taken "steps backwards" and that the United States is at risk of losing the campaign to control an increasingly violent Baghdad.

Sen. John W. Warner (Va.) told reporters on Capitol Hill that the Iraqi government is having trouble making strides and is incapable of providing even basic human necessities to people in certain areas of the country. Though Warner praised U.S. efforts to keep Iraq under control, he was far less optimistic about the situation there than he had been over the past three years.

Echoing the sentiments of several leading Democrats on his committee, Warner said he believes the United States may have to reevaluate its approach in Iraq if the situation does not improve dramatically over the next several months.

"I assure you, in two or three months, if this thing hasn't come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control and this government able to function, I think it's a responsibility of our government internally to determine: Is there a change of course that we should take?" Warner said. "And I wouldn't take off the table any option at this time."

Warner and other senators traveled to Jordan, Iraq and Israel this week to discuss the security situation and to evaluate the progress of the Iraqi government. He said U.S. military commanders believe there is no way to reduce the number of U.S. troops in the region in the foreseeable future because of a steady increase in the level of violence, and he added that it is important to acknowledge the civil insurrection, sectarian violence, "unacceptable level" of killings and "heavy casualties" among U.S. forces there.

Warner acknowledged that, before the invasion of Iraq, there was a lack of understanding among members of Congress about how much it would take to give Iraq full sovereignty. He blamed himself for not aggressively asking such questions before the war.

Hey, don't worry dude. Just a comma.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1889272,00.html

...and the apology is in the mail.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/images/condivest.jpg

this man is up to something

Far too positive a spin on W's mindset there.

So yesterday, amidst the Foley grime and slime, some more consequential news: Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-VA, returning from a trip to Iraq, offered a bleak assesment of the situation there.

"I assure you, in two or three months, if this thing hasn't come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control and this government able to function, I think it's a responsibility of our government internally to determine: Is there a change of course that we should take?" Warner said. "And I wouldn't take off the table any option at this time."

Now today comes word fom Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, that two other Senate Republicans have told him they'll break with the White House Iraq strategy.

But here's the hook -- they won't do so until after the November elections.

"Two leading Republican Senators have come to me," Biden recalled, and said that after the election "the need to protect the president will be nonexistent" and Republicans will be freer to break with the White House and call for change in Iraq.

That's all fine and good in terms of 'oh, no surprise there' -- but then this reporter proves to be the biggest naif in the universe:

Assuming Biden's tale is correct, it will be interesting to see which Republicans wait until after November 7 to break ranks with the White House on Iraq.

I wonder how a Senator who opposes the current Iraq war policy -- but hasn't stated so publicly -- calculates how many lives it's acceptable to have killed pursuing that policy before stating his opposition to it ….for the sole purpose of protecting his political party in an election.

How do you do the math on that?

Holding the Senate is worth, say, 500 dead? One thousand? How many US troops? How many wounded?

How do you justify it in your head?

"Well, my opposition won't change much on the ground there in the short term, anyway"...?

"I oppose the policy, but I don’t want President Bush to get miffed at me for helping the Democrats sweep Connecticut"...?

God, sometimes it's hard to work in this town and not grow deeply cynical.

Yeah, you'd think, buddy.

Charles Krauthammer calls the Iraqi government “a failure,” and Fred Barnes agrees: “Maliki has had his chance, he can’t do it.” Barry McCaffrey expects a new campaign after the election, and the routing of Moqtada al-Sadr. Bill Kristol thinks Maliki’s down and Rusmfeld is out—this year. Brit Hume trounces expectations of a change of course in Iraq.

er um no. this is really confused.

A former Iraqi minister has said that officials in the former interim government stole about $800m (£425m) meant for buying military equipment.

Former Finance Minister Ali Allawi told the US CBS network that about $1.2bn had been allocated for new weapons.

About $400m was spent on outdated equipment and the rest stolen, he said.

Mr Allawi said the UK and US had done little to recover the money or catch the suspects, who were "running around the world".

"We have not been given any serious, official support from either the United States or the UK or any of the surrounding Arab countries," he said.

"The only explanation I can come up with is that too many people in positions of power and authority in the new Iraq have been, in one way or another, found with their hands inside the cookie jar.

"And if they are brought to trial, it will cast a very disparaging light on those people who had supported them and brought them to this position of power and authority."

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/22/world/22baghdad1.600.jpg

...just seems to capture everything right now.

That's what I meant. I was just laughing the pundity types who use the language; this being a rare case when one actually just came out and actually said to blitz them.

The Iraqi capital, as the generals like to say, is the center of gravity for the larger American mission in Iraq. Their assessment is that if Baghdad is overwhelmed by sectarian strife, the cause of fostering a more stable Iraq will be lost. Conversely, if Baghdad can be improved, the effects will eventually be felt elsewhere in Iraq. In invading Iraq, American forces started from outside the country and fought their way in. The current strategy is essentially to work from the inside out.

“As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq,” observed Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, who commands American forces throughout Iraq.

Many ideas — new and not so new — are being discussed in Washington, like a sectarian division of Iraq (which the current government and many Iraqis oppose); and starting talks with Iraq’s neighbor, Iran (which the Iraqi government is already doing, but the United States is not). Some of these ideas look appealing simply because they have not been put to the test.

However the broader strategy may be amended, nothing can work if Baghdad becomes a war-torn Beirut. Baghdad security may not be a sufficient condition for a more stable Iraq, but it is a necessary condition for any alternative plan that does not simply abandon the Iraqis to their fate.

It is hard to see how any Iraq plan can work if the capital’s citizens cannot be protected.

Two weeks ago -- just over four months after the explosion in Afghanistan -- Wicks was using his restored brainpower to start making grand life plans. He wants to return to his sons and buy or build a bigger house. He wants to pass a fitness test for injured soldiers so that he can re-join the National Guard.

Wicks has to perform another five years of service -- only then will he be entitled to a full pension.

"He loved going out," his brother said. "He loved making people laugh. He was very outgoing, a very outgoing person."

"Reflecting on a month of unrelenting violence that has left hundreds of Iraqis and at least 89 U.S. soldiers dead, Casey said the situation in Iraq is "difficult . . . and it is likely to remain that way over the near term.""

"All this talk about rebuilding Iraq, but where is Iraq? Not here on this American base. Most of his audience are US soldiers."

"We become immune. Everyone is under threat in Baghdad."

"While the government wants you to think that they have no plan whatsoever, in fact they do have a plan. It is just the same stupid stay-the-course plan that has done us no good for three years running."

"Any move off the absolutes, with us or against us, stay the course vs. cut and run, and the whole thing starts to crack. Once the White House comes out for pragmatism and flexibility, that leaves them perilously close to embracing reality itself. And that, of course, is like the kryptonite of Bush's superherodom."

Over at NRO, Loyola pushes the patience line -- long after everyone else got tired -- but Lowry, in a classic 'too little too late' admission, says what was long clear:

For a president who talks so much about being a wartime leader and whose administration so emphasizes the prerogatives of the executive, Bush has been an oddly passive commander in chief. He often seems to be run by his government rather than the other way around. He rarely fires anyone. His deference to his generals is near total. He hasn’t acted at key moments to resolve debilitating bureaucratic battles within his administration. He might be the “decider,” but his deciding hasn’t reached down far enough to see that his strategic decisions are effectively implemented.

There is a crisis in Iraq for all to see. Bush has to make it plain that he sees it too, and that his government is going to react to it. If he doesn’t, his admirable resolve risks becoming a millstone around the neck of himself and his party.

And meanwhile:

Militiamen loyal to an anti-American cleric re-emerged yesterday in the southern city of Amarah, hunting down and killing four policemen from a rival militia in a brutal Shiite-on-Shiite settling of scores.

...

Now, I'm giving the speech -- you're asking me why I'm giving this speech today -- because there's -- I think I owe an explanation to the American people, and will continue to make explanations. The people need to know that we have a plan for victory. Like I said in my opening comments, I fully understand if the people think we don't have a plan for victory, they're not going to support the effort. And so I'll continue to speak out about our way forward.

We need to backtrack. We need to publicly admit we're backtracking. This is the opening battle of the ideological struggle of the 21st century. We cannot afford to lose it because of political inconveniences. Reassert direct administration, put 400,000 to 500,000 American troops on the ground, disband most of the current Iraqi police and retrain and reindoctrinate the Iraqi army until it becomes a military that's fighting for a nation, not simply some sect or faction. Reassure the Iraqi people that we're going to provide them security and then follow through. Disarm the nation: Sunnis, Shias, militia groups, everyone. Issue national ID cards to everyone and control the movement of the population.

If these three things are done, you can actually start the Iraqi economy again. Once people have a sense of security, they'll be able to leave their houses to go to work. Tell your American commanders that it's OK to pass up bad news--because part of the problem is that these issues are not reaching above the battalion or brigade level due to the can-do, make-it-happen culture indoctrinated into our U.S. officers. While the attitude is admirable, it also creates barriers to recognizing and dealing with on-the-ground realities.

James, there's a lot more to this than I've written here. The short of it is, the situation is salvageable, but not with "stay the course" and certainly not with cut and run. However, the commitment required to save it is something I doubt the American public is willing to swallow. I just don't see the current administration with the political capital remaining in order to properly motivate and convince the American public (or the West in general) of the necessity of these actions.

At the same time, failure in Iraq would be worse than a dozen Somalias, and would render us as impotent and emasculated as we were in the days after Vietnam. There is a global cultural-ideological struggle being waged, and abdication from Iraq is tantamount to concession.

It might be me, but I see the failure in doubtless heartfelt posts like these being one of assuming the solution -- for the problem as framed here, not necessarily as it's framed in general -- is just lack of 'political capital' when at heart it's human resources and the money to back it up. Persuasive power is not enough, which he acknowledges. But he's also basically saying 'draft' in so many words but can't actually say it, and the amount of expenditure for all that would be insane. This isn't a new conclusion but the sheer lack of understanding that the resources just *aren't* there to be magically called up by a speech or two is kinda astonishing -- then again, I can but presume they are seeing things through their own lens of 'Well heck, I'm still motivated, and I'm sure most people are like me.' Big problem right there...

"I affirm that this government represents the will of the people and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it," Maliki said Wednesday at a nationally televised news conference. "The Americans have the right to review their policies, but we do not believe in a timetables."

With less than two weeks to go before critical midterm elections in the United States, Maliki accused U.S. officials of election-year grandstanding, saying that deadlines were not logical and were "the result of elections taking place right now that do not involve us."

Maliki's comments followed a deadly, early morning military raid in Sadr City, a teeming Shiite slum in eastern Baghdad with 2.5 million residents loyal to the charismatic, anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The aim of the operation was to capture the leader of a Shiite death squad, according to a U.S. military statement. It was unclear whether the target was among the casualties.

The page for the 100 active-duty guys who are openly petitioning Congress to get pulled out, and are working on getting a petition of 2000 active-duty signatures by MLK Day, 2007.

In today’s Iraq, the president conceded, it is the enemy, and not the United States, that is defining what victory means.

The frustration in the room stemmed not so much from internal divisions and paralysis in the Iraqi government, or lagging indicators like oil and energy production. Rather, it came from the fact that American forces simply do not seem to be winning the war — on anyone’s terms — and that most Americans are disinclined to leave the troops in Iraq without some clear movement toward victory.

...

“People, most of them, are out there saying, ‘What are you doing? Get after ‘em,’“ Bush said.
He’s heard it himself. “I’m from Texas,” Bush continued. “My buddies are saying, are you doing enough, not are you doing too little. They want to know, are we winning. They want to know, this mighty country, are we doing what it takes to win?”

It would be fair to say that no one fully knew the answer to that question. At times during the conversation, the president seemed vexed — not beaten, not downcast, but vexed — by conditions in Iraq. Bush didn’t say so, but from his words it seemed hard to deny that in some significant measure the insurgents and the sectarian killers are in control in the country, and that the fate of the American mission is in their hands. “The frustration is that the definition of success has now gotten to be, how many innocent people are dying?” the president said. “And if there’s a lot dying, it means the enemy is winning.” He paused. “That doesn’t mean they’re winning.”

...

The latest plan to retake the offensive on defining victory is the so-called benchmark. “The idea is to develop with the Iraqi government a series of benchmarks — oil, federalism, constitutional reform, there’s like 20 different things — and have that developed in a way that they’re comfortable with and we’re comfortable with,” Bush said. Progress toward those goals would give the administration new ways to point toward overall progress in Iraq.

Beyond that, the president seemed to be considering a plan to refine the country’s governmental structure in a way that would accommodate the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd populations without dividing the country. “We’ve had a lot of people out there saying, split up the country,” Bush said. “That’s not going to work. But there are ways to achieve a more balanced federalism from what some people think is going to happen to them. There could be more — like Texas, we always want less federal, more state. And that’s the way — this balance can be achieved through negotiations. That’s what they’re trying to do.”

But in the end, there is still that frustration with a level of violence that U.S. forces don’t seem able to control. The consequences tear at Bush every day, but he remains convinced that the war will ultimately succeed. “If we can’t win, I’ll pull us out,” the president said.” “If I didn’t think it was noble and just and we can win, we’re gone. I can’t — I’m not going to keep those kids in there and have to deal with their loved ones. I can’t cover it up when I meet with a family who’s lost a child. I cry, I weep, I hug. And I’ve got to be able to look them in the eye and say, we’re going to win. I have to be able to do that. And I’m not a good faker.”

“And so what I’m telling you is — we’ll win this.”

What to say about this man. What to say. What HASN'T been said.

He'd better start getting better at faking then.

In a bit I didn't quote but I will now, Mark Steyn, who normally slobbers for anything right/Bush-like, says something direct and intelligent for once: "...it just seems to be a kind of thankless, semi-colonial, policing, defensive operation, with no end..." Which is exactly what it is! Sure he sets it up as a question to give Bush a chance to show something, but by obviously phrasing it that way, it can't but hang heavy, and Bush's answer is merely a lame 'well we're doing something but we can't tell you much about it' parry that answers nothing.

So if the U.S. chooses not to reveal how many of the enemy it has killed — and if, in any event, that death toll is not stopping the sectarian violence — then how does one assess what is going on? “I’ve thought long and hard about this, because it is precisely what is frustrating most people,” Bush said. “A lot of people are just saying, ‘You’re not doing enough to win. We’re not winning, you’re not doing enough to win, and I’m frustrated, I want it over with, with victory.’ And I’m trying to figure out a matrix that says things are getting better. I think that one way to measure is less violence than before, I guess…”

I feel better already.

The United States will increase its support for the Iraqi security forces, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday, saying it continues to be "enormously challenging" to quell the violence there.

Rumsfeld said he has done a new assessment of the progress of the Iraqi forces, and he was not satisfied.

"We intend to increase their budgets," he said, as well as their capabilities, and officials will work to help make the improvements more quickly. He did not cite any figures, however.

Rumsfeld also said people ought to "just back off" and stop demanding specific benchmarks or timelines for progress in Iraq, saying it is just too difficult to predict when the Iraqis can take control of their country.

As far as I can see, some of the Iraqis are doing a bang-up job of controlling various bits of Iraq. The basic problem is that they're not our bought and paid for Iraqis, but renegade Iraqis who got off the reservation.

"Nixon Steps Up Bombing Raids on New York Times"

The AP earlier reported that a Maliki ally said the prime minister told Khalilzad in a meeting Friday, "I am a friend of the United States; but I am not America's man in Iraq."

Snow responded to that today, saying "He's not America's man in Iraq. The United States is there in a role to assist him. He's the prime minister -- he's the leader of the Iraqi people."

Snow also said, "What you've got in Maliki is a guy who is making decisions. He's making tough decisions, and he's showing toughness and he's also showing political skill in dealing with varying factions within his own country. And both leaders understand the political pressures going on."

Part one

Part two

Remaining parts to follow this week.

He was no pacifist. His parents describe him as an unswerving Republican, and his own dispatches consistently defend the invasion of Iraq even as he anguishes over its dwindling prospects of success. "Don't mistake us for Cindy Sheehan," Pierre Secher told NEWSWEEK at his Memphis home (a reference to the California woman who became an iconic opponent of the war after her son's death in Iraq). "To me, pacifism could have led to Hitler's victory. We might have all been speaking German and Japanese right now." But as President George W. Bush speaks positively of setting benchmarks for Iraqi troops to "stand up" and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares that their training is going well, Captain Secher's messages from the front give a more complicated picture.

"I think Donald Rumsfeld is the best thing that's happened to the Pentagon in 25 years," Boehner said. "This Pentagon and our military needs a transformation. And I think Donald Rumsfeld's the only man in America who knows where the bodies are buried at the Pentagon, has enough experience to help transform that institution."

oh yeah, and the pentagon is opening (another) Ministry of Truth. No word on if Professor Griff is available to head it. They gunna counter all the negative IMs!

Oh well DONE.

A bustling market in Baghdad's Sadr City became the capital's latest killing ground early Monday when a bomb hidden amid trash and clutter exploded in a fiery inferno, killing at least 26 people and wounding 60, a spokesman at Iraq's Interior Ministry said.

The explosion occurred at about 7 a.m. at the busy Circle 55 intersection, a popular gathering point in the Shiite slum for construction laborers looking for a day's work. The blast spewed shards of metal, exploded three nearby cars and left a huge crater in the pavement.

U.S. and Iraqi forces had previously established a cordon around the teeming slum, which is controlled by the Mahdi Army militia, in an attempt to find a kidnapped U.S. soldier and a man known as Abu Diraa, who is considered Iraq's most notorious death squad leader.

Shiite leaders pointed to that U.S. operation Monday to accuse the Americans of complicity in the market blast, saying that because they were in charge of searching all vehicles going in and out of the area, they must have allowed in the bomb that was detonated at the market.

"It's going to affect Santorum," said Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), who lives in Hollidaysburg. "Voters who are turning against him are sending a clear message to President Bush about the war."

Shuster, a war supporter, expects to win his own race next week but frets that the vote will be as much as eight points tighter because of rising concerns about the war.

Brian Baum is less concerned about Republican political fortunes than he is about fraying local support for the war. "We can't pull out now — we can't leave," said Baum, a muscular security director for a local factory. "If we pull out now, what does that mean for all the guys who died? It's all for nothing?"

I'm really not sanguine about the future when it comes to attitudes like these.

The top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., predicted last week that Iraqi security forces would be able to take control of the country in 12 to 18 months. But several days spent with American units training the Iraqi police illustrated why those soldiers on the ground believe it may take decades longer than Casey's assessment.

Seventy percent of the Iraqi police force has been infiltrated by militias, primarily the Mahdi Army, according to Shaw and other military police trainers. Police officers are too terrified to patrol enormous swaths of the capital. And while there are some good cops, many have been assassinated or are considering quitting the force.

"None of the Iraqi police are working to make their country better," said Brig. Gen. Salah al-Ani, chief of police for the western half of Baghdad. "They're working for the militias or to put money in their pocket."

Ten months into a year-long effort to transfer control of Iraq's reconstruction to the Iraqis, federal auditors say, the government there is spending very little of its own money on projects, while the process for handing off U.S.-funded work "appears to have broken down," according to findings released yesterday.

The fledgling Iraqi government, in power since May, has about $6 billion this year to devote to major rebuilding projects, representing about 20 percent of its overall budget. But auditors with the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that beyond paying employee salaries and administrative expenses, only a small amount of money is being spent on actual work. Auditors blamed "bureaucratic resistance within the Ministry of Finance, which traditionally has been slow to provide funds."