Sunday, January 28, 2007

Jim Webb and the immediate future for the Democratic party

As I mentioned before, Jim Webb's response to the State of the Union Address kicked ass. This post will discuss what I found most significant about his response. What struck me most was not the fact that Webb's response was a strong and direct--not to mention appropriate and deserved--criticism of what the Bush administration has generally done and, judging from the SOTU, looks to continue to do. What struck me most was not the way in which Webb skillfully used his words to avoid being insulting or combative and yet very forceful. What struck me most was not the fact that Webb's response took a unapologetic stand against the Bush administration. No, what surprised me most was that Webb was chosen to speak on behalf of the entire Democratic party.

I am hoping that the choice of Webb signals a change in the Democratic party.

Basically, ever since 9-11 the Democrats, as a party, have done few or none of the things Webb did in his response. There have been a few exceptions such as Social Security, but by and large the Democratic party--again, as a whole--has not taken a timely stand against the Bush administration.

The best example of the foregoing opinion is the whole issue of Iraq. Now I know what some of you are thinking, namely that the '06 election campaign was a strong stand against the Iraq war. To some extent that is true, but why did it take almost four years for that to happen? And did the party as a whole come out as strong as Webb did? Take a look at what Webb said about Iraq:
With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.
*******
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable--and predicted--disarray that has followed.
Indeed, as shown over and over on this blog and elsewhere, there were many warnings and the disarray was easily foreseeable. And yet, which Democrats were pointing out these matters out before the war and during the 2004 campaign? They were few and far between (Russ Feingold and Joe Biden among them), and the party was not doing anything. More on that in a moment...

Webb also pointed out what the Iraq war has cost this country, including "[t]he damage to our reputation around the world" and "[t]he lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism." Again, was the Democratic party--as a party--talking about these things in the 2004 campaign? Not really.

As I have discussed before (here and here), Kerry and Edwards did almost nothing like what Jim Webb did, and to the extent Kerry did anything like that in '04, it was too little and way too late.

There was, however, one Democratic candidate who in '03 and '04 did talk about the same things Webb mentioned in his 2007 speech, but more on that in a moment...

Webb concluded his remarks on Iraq with the following:
We need a new direction.

Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.
Gee, where have I heard that before? Oh yes, it was from the aforementioned Democratic candidate in '04, Wes Clark.

Wes Clark said the same things before the war and through his campaign. And how was he treated by the Democratic party? Like crap, that's how. He was marginalized and ignored by the party establishment and by the media. He was called a Republican. He was falsely accused of being inconsistent on Iraq. [NOTE: I can back up every statement in this paragraph.]

There was another Democratic candidate who took a strong anti-war stance. His name was Howard Dean, and he was not exactly embraced by the party. He was also among those that said Clark was not a Democrat.

I will admit that I am still bitter about the '04 Democratic primaries, but that is not the main reason for the preceding rant. My point is that in 2003 and 2004, Jim Webb would have been given the cold shoulder just like Wes Clark. The party would have rejected Jim Webb's views, and the powers that be (or were) never would have let him speak on behalf of the party, especially in a response to a State of the Union Address. Go back and check the Democratic responses to Bush's previous SOTU speeches. "Underwhelming" is the best thing I could say about them. They had none of the characteristics of Webb's response, both in terms of content and delivery. I now wonder whether 1) the fact that Jim Webb was chosen to give the party's response, and 2) the content and delivery of that response does actually signal a change in the Democratic party.

This is a significant question. If Webb's response does signal a change in the party as a whole, it could have an impact on the Democratic primaries in general, and it could have an impact on Hillary Clinton's campaign. As I discussed on January 20, Hillary has a big problem on the issue of Iraq. If Webb's views become the norm for Democrats, Hillary's pattern of not taking a strong stand, not admitting that the war was a mistake, and trying to please both the anti-war crowd and Bush-type Republicans could prove to be a loser.

If there is a change in the party towards Webb's views and approach, it could have a major impact on the general election. It is way damn past time that the Democrats as a party quit being scared about taking a stand, especially on the Iraq war. Had Kerry taken a strong, no apologies stand in '04 I think he would have won. I said it then, and I'll say that it applies now: in order for any Democrat to win the Presidency, that candidate will have to differentiate himself--or herself--from the Bush administration. Moreover, I don't think the voters are looking for someone who won't take a strong stand. And the single most important issue is still Iraq. The Democrats as a party failed to do this is 'o4 by going with a ticket that was basically no different from the Bush administration in many ways. A repeat performance will likely result in another defeat in '08. If the party follows Webb's example, the result might be a win.

See, Democrats, it is possible to take a strong stand without seeming like you are whining or being unreasonable. Jim Webb did it. Now the rest of you do likewise.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

John Kerry decides not to run in '08.

John Kerry announced today he would not make another run for the Presidency.

Thank goodness.

Over at the TPM Cafe (a part of the Talking Points Memo universe), there is an explanation for the decision, and the major factor was Kerry's botched "joke" at the end of last October about not doing well in education and getting stuck in Iraq.

At least something good came out of that incident.

Intial thoughts on SOTU

Here are my initials thoughts on the State of the Union Address:
  • Far more style than substance--and there was not much style.
  • Bush incorrectly described the current war in Iraq in two ways: 1) he is still trying to lump it together with the war on terror, and 2) what is going on right now is indeed "the fight we entered" in Iraq.
  • Where's the money for all the domestic programs he mentioned?
  • What was with the feel good stories and guests at the end of the speech? Man, what a weak and desperate way to finish.
  • Jim Webb's response kicked ass in a big way.
If you simply can't wait for my oh so insightful views, you can watch Josh Marshall's analysis here. I have some additional opinions, but I agree with everything Josh has to say.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Irving D. Dreibrodt: 1920-2007


This afternoon, legendary band director Irving D. Dreibrodt passed away.

Dr. Dreibrodt was a member of the Texas Bandmasters Hall of Fame, and a good biography of him and an excellent digital scrapbook can be found on that site.

Dr. Dreibrodt will be best known for his 25 years as director of the Southern Methodist University Mustang Band, and I had the privilege of being in the Mustang Band during his final three years as director.

There is no group to which I feel any greater commitment and loyalty than the Mustang Band. Being part of that group gave me some of my greatest moments of personal and collective accomplishment. The Mustang Band taught me more about going beyond perceived limitations than anything else I have ever done. The Mustang Band played a major role in shaping who I am today. It is difficult to adequately put into words what the Mustang Band continues to mean to me. Nonetheless, I can articulate at least two more things. First, there are many, many others that have these same feelings. Second, even though there are many others to whom I can give credit for my Mustang Band experiences, there is no question that the source for those experiences, feelings, and lessons was one man--Irving D. Dreibrodt. His vision and his spirit touched and strongly influenced everyone that has been in the Mustang Band since 1958.

The man we all called "Coach" was a uniquely savvy, colorful, and charmingly ornery character, even by Texas standards. There are so many stories that give witness to that fact, and perhaps sometime I will post some of them here. However, in the meantime, two more pictures of the inimitable Irving D. Dreibrodt will have to suffice.





UPDATE: Today is January 27, and Coach's memorial service happened yesterday. What a great day it was. I have never been--and probably will never go--to a memorial service in which there was so much laughter as well as love. And that's just the way Coach would have wanted it.

Bill Parcells retires.

The Tuna has just retired as head coach of the Dallas Cowboys. This means that t.o. is likely going to be back in Dallas.

Oh joy.

Super Bowl is set.

Congrats to the Indianapolis Colts and Da Bears from Chicago.

Chicago played a very good all around game yesterday, and the offensive line and Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson combined for a dominating running game. All that being said, if the game had been played anywhere but Chicago in late January, I think the New Orleans Saints probably would have won. The wet weather and poor field conditions really hampered the Saints' offense and marginalized the speed of the Saints' defense. Still, give the Bears all the credit for perfectly executing the game plan that was required by the conditions.

Last week I had a post about how the Patriots did it again, but yesterday, it was Peyton Manning and the Colts that staged a big comeback, and Tom Brady was the one who blew it at the end. The Colts trailed 21-3 in the 2nd quarter, and it looked like the game was all but over. Instead, the Colts staged the largest comeback in conference championship history. The Colts took their first lead of the game with 1:00 left in the 4th quarter, 38-34. The Patriots were in Colts territory with about 25 seconds and one timeout left. And then Tom Brady threw into triple coverage and the Colts intercepted. What Brady did not see was that he had another receiver ten yards further down field who was open. It was a highly uncharacteristic mistake by arguably the best clutch quarterback in the history of the game.

History was made yesterday. Previously, no team with an African American head coach had made it to the Super Bowl, and now two have. Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith are outstanding coaches and human beings. They also served on the same coaching staff in Tampa Bay and are good friends.

It should be a great game in Miami. I think it will come down to Da Bears' defense and running game, and I'm picking Chicago.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Some more on my Hillary views

I need to disclose some things.

In case it was not clear in the last post, I dislike Hillary Clinton.

I think she has overall done a good job in the Senate, but there is no way I want her to be President. Aside from what I have already written, there are some practical reasons for my strong feelings. If Hillary gets elected, that would mean that for at least 24 years, our Presidents would have been named Bush or Clinton. I don't like that. Moreover, it presents a chance for all the negative, personal political bullshit to continue. There is no question that the Republicans started all of that, beginning with Lee Atwater and then with Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr, and the utter bullshit of the witch hunt against Clinton. However, blame is in some ways irrelevant now. What is relevant is that a Hillary Presidency would present a chance for this pattern to continue and drag down the business of running the country, especially if the GOP could regain control of either part of Congress.

I also need to disclose (again) that I was a strong supporter of Wes Clark in the '04 campaign, and if he decides to run in '08, I will once again be a strong supporter.

And that presents a large potential dilemma for me. If Clark does not run and throws his support behind Hillary (or becomes her running mate), I will be highly vexed. I have not been following things over at Clark's website, so I have no idea what his plans might be, but I think I will start looking into that.

Hillary Clinton: "I'm in. And I'm in to win."

Hillary Clinton just announced the formation of a Presidential Exploratory Committee, and that means she is officially running for President.

Her announcement begins with "I'm in. And I'm in to win."

As I have said on more than one occasion, I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, and I really do not want to see her as the Democratic candidate in '08.

This is a going to be a bit of a free form riff, so I apologize now if what follows seems a bit disjointed.

There are many reasons I do not want Hillary to be the nominee. Where to start?

I don't like her on a personality level, and it is an epic understatement to say I am not alone in that regard. Without question, she has the intellect and experience to be President, but she does not have the temperament. And before anyone even tries to raise it, my previous statement has nothing to do with fact that Hillary is a woman. I don't care if the President is a woman or a man. I want the best person for the job.

Hillary has extreme electability problems. Whether she deserves to be this or not, she is the single most divisive person in American politics in the last 20 years--even more so than her husband. To Republicans, Hillary makes Nancy Pelosi look like Aunt Bea from "The Andy Griffith Show." I said it repeatedly during the 2004 campaign, and I think it is still true today and will be true in 2008--any Democrat who wants to win a Presidential election has to get some Republican votes. Of all the Dems currently in the race, the one who by far has the least chance of doing that is Hillary. Hillary instead will galvanize the GOP. In 2004, there were plenty of Republicans who were looking for a reason not to vote for Bush, but could not bring themselves to vote for Kerry. That sort of behavior would increase significantly if Hillary is the candidate. Maybe things could change, but for now I can say I do not know a single Republican (and being in Texas, I know a lot of Republicans) that would vote for Hillary. I think most Republicans would be more likely to vote for Ted Kennedy than Hillary--and that is not intended as hyperbole. And don't think that just because the Republicans collectively got their asses handed to them in November that negative campaigning is finished. The Republicans lost because so many of them were hypocritical a-holes and that fact was glaringly obvious. Negative campaigning is still effective, and the easiest target is Hillary Clinton.

And I can tell you something the Republicans will show over and over and over again. It will be the press conference that she and Charles Schumer (the other NY Senator) held after 9-11. There was Schumer, coming across as completely sincere, completely concerned, completely determined to do something. And standing next to him was Hillary, fidgeting and looking annoyed that she had to be there. I was shocked.

One of the things I dislike about Hillary is how she has methodically tried to rebrand herself as a centrist. If she truly had become a centrist, I would not mind. However, this centrist trend has been a deliberate and calculated sales job to the American public. In others words, I see it as disingenuous. For all politicians out there--be who you are and what you are. I know that is what I want to see and hear, and after this most recent election, I think more and more people want that as well. I will combine this thought with the gender issue. Although I do not agree with her on every issue, and even though at times she is too far on the liberal end of the scale for my liking, I would much rather vote for Barbara Boxer for President than Hillary. Boxer is a liberal, she is proud of it, and she never tries to be anything different, AND she never tries to turn away from being called liberal. She is sincere, and you know what you are getting from her.

For me, the prime example of Hillary's centrist ploy is the issue of Iraq. She voted for the war. She refuses to say that was a mistake or that she was in any way wrong in her support of the war. Instead she has tried to have it both ways. That is exactly the same bullshit Kerry tried in '04. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Even John Edwards, who was a big-time supporter of the war and unapologetic about it during the '04 campaign (which is a reason why he was a poor choice for a running mate), has stepped up and said he was wrong. He hasn't tried to rationalize or dance around the issue. He has flat out said he was wrong. And let me tell you, I have a lot more respect for Edwards now because of that. Hillary is trying to keep from offending Republicans while trying to show the anti-war crowd that she is being tough. After the '06 election, this approach is not going to work.
UPDATE on 1-21-07: Via one of the long time members of the Clark Community Network, I found a link to this analysis by Bob Harris on Hillary's Iraq problem.

Part of Hillary's personality is hard core personal ambition. She is power-hungry. I think that is a major, if not the major reason she stayed with Bill despite his years of infidelity. For those who think that view is uncalled for, unfair, and/or irrelevant, then look at how she got to the Senate. Before running for office, where had Hillary lived? Let's see...She was born and raised in the Chicago area. She went to college at Wellesley College, which is in Massachusetts. She went to law school at Yale, which is in Connecticut. She married Bill and then lived in Arkansas until 1992. Then she lived in Washington, D.C. for eight years. And then she decided she wanted to be a Senator from New York. C'mon. Before that, Hillary had never lived in New York and had no direct ties to the state. This was absolutely a calculated decision. New York had enough liberals that she had a chance to win, and being a Senator from New York would carry much more prestige and prominence than most other states. By the time Bill left office Hillary Clinton was as much a New York citizen as I was. I guess since I was a New York football Giants fan this year, I can run for Hillary's Senate seat in '08.

I'm not interested in having a power-hungry person as President. I've had enough of that since 2001.

There is certainly more to say on this topic, but for now, I'm done.


Anybody remember Afghanistan?

In It's all about the politics, I included this quote from Bush's January 10, 2007, speech: "America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan--and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq." I then noted briefly that this quote was ironic given that the Taliban was becoming resurgent in Afghanistan and that Bush ordered that one of the additional combat brigades going to Baghdad be taken away from Afghanistan.

I'll explain this in the context of what Bush said...By taking away resources from Afghanistan, Bush is creating a possibility that Al Qadea could re-establish its safe haven in Afghanistan.

This is so typical of the Bush administration. Let's review. Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. Al Qaeda was being sponsored, protected, equipped, etc. by the government of Afghanistan, which was the Taliban. We invaded Afghanistan damn near immediately after 9-11 and opened up many cases of whup-ass on both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Then, instead of truly finishing the job in Afghanistan, we invaded Iraq and sent almost all our resources there. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda (as opposed to Afghanistan and Iran). Iraq had no WMD. So, by diverting our attention and resources from the country that was directly responsible for 9-11 to a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, we have allowed the people responsible for 9-11 to still have a chance to make a comeback.

And just to prove a point, let's take a look at recent reports regarding Afghanistan. From a December 17, 2006, Washington Post article:
This year Taliban forces, flush with trainees, materiel, and bomb designs and tactics learned from al-Qaeda in Iraq, surged into nearby regions -- the southwest, heart of the illegal opium trade; the center-east, which includes Kabul; and the warlord-ridden northwest. Today 64 percent of Afghans report some Taliban activity in their own area. While 58 percent still call security better now than before the Taliban's ouster in 2001, this figure has fallen by 17 points since last year.

The Taliban's reappearance is cause for grave concern -- and not only to Americans. Afghans overwhelmingly prefer Karzai's government to the Taliban, 88 percent to 3 percent. But 57 percent call the Taliban the biggest danger facing the country -- up sharply from 41 percent last year. Its growing presence is broadly unwanted.
From a January 2, 2007, Reuters report:
The Taliban will step up attacks on foreign troops in Afghanistan this year and kill anyone who negotiates with the government, a top rebel commander said on Tuesday.

Taliban fighters staged a surprise comeback last year with the bloodiest violence since U.S.-led troops forced them from power in 2001. More than 4,000 people were killed on both sides in 2006 including nearly 170 foreign troops.

Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah said the new year would see more attacks on NATO and U.S. forces.
From a January 16, 2007, Reuters report:
Violence in Afghanistan surged last year to its worst since 2001. While fighting has tailed off since winter set in, big clashes have been taking place in the south and east and U.S. and NATO forces expect a fresh Taliban offensive in the spring.
*******
Bomb attacks in Afghanistan jumped from 783 in 2005 to 1,677 last year and suicide attacks surged from 27 to 139, according to U.S. figures.
And finally, here are some uplifting excerpts from a January 18, 2007, New York Times article:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that American and NATO military commanders in Afghanistan, worried about a resurgent Taliban insurgency, had asked for additional troops and that he was sympathetic to the request.
*******
American officials have said in recent days that Taliban fighters are mounting increasingly brazen cross-border attacks from Pakistan and are preparing to intensify attacks in the spring.

"There’s no reason to sit back and let the Taliban regroup," Mr. Gates said. "I think it’s very important that we not let this success in Afghanistan slip away from us."
Yeah, right. That's why we are taking troops away from Afghanistan--where they are needed--and sending them to Baghdad for a mission not likely to succeed. Brilliant.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking...The effort in Afghanistan is now under NATO command, so more troops can come from NATO. Guess again after reading another excerpt from the January 18 NYT article:
Mr. Gates met with Gen. David J. Richards of Britain, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, who has complained that unmet pledges of troops and equipment from NATO countries have left him 10 to 15 percent short of the forces he needs.
So pulling our troops away from Afghanistan represents a decrease in forces in contravention to what our own commanders say is needed and constitutes a loss that will not be replenished through NATO.

Brilliant.

Friday, January 19, 2007

It's still about politics, but it is also about blaming someone else.

I am still convinced that the goals of Bush's "new plan" for Iraq are strictly political, but as I was working on that post, I kept thinking that something was amiss even more than usual with a Bush administration plan. The more I read, the more it seemed that there was just nothing about the plan that was designed to succeed. There did not seem to be a way for anyone to even try to polish this turd. Even Tony Snow has resorted to bringing up other topics when asked about the plan.

And by the way, anyone who has been a regular reader here knows how I felt about the previous White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan. He was my #1 whipping boy. I miss Scotty Boy, and not because I miss criticizing him. I miss him because Tony Snow makes me want to vomit every time I hear him speak. What a slimy scumbag. At least with Scotty Boy there were times that you could see he knew he was speaking pure bullshit and had some regret over it. Snow has no conscious. He is the most shameless flack I have ever seen. But I digress...

The "new plan" for Iraq is so worthless, I have to wonder why in the world Bush ordered it. Sure, it makes it look like he is doing something, and that appearance is oh so important to Bush, but I felt like there was something else going on. As I was re-reading one of the articles I featured in It's all about the politics, one particular passage took on a new meaning for me. The article was "In Baghdad, Bush Policy Is Met With Resentment," and the passage in question was
A Shiite political leader who has worked closely with the Americans in the past said the Bush benchmarks appeared to have been drawn up in the expectation that Mr. Maliki would not meet them. "He cannot deliver the disarming of the militias," the politician said, asking that he not be named because he did not want to be seen as publicly criticizing the prime minister. "He cannot deliver a good program for the economy and reconstruction. He cannot deliver on services. This is a matter of fact. There is a common understanding on the American side and the Iraqi side."
When I first read this passage, I did not think it remarkable because I thought from the start that Maliki could not deliver on these matters. But then I realized there was another possible meaning and explanation therein.

Stay with me here...The "new plan" announced by Bush is heavily dependent on Maliki and the Iraqi government. In other words, the only way it can succeed is if the government, led by Maliki, does everything Bush has said it must do. If there is little or no chance of Maliki and the government doing these things, there is little or no chance the plan will succeed. Now, Bush has implied that there will be consequences if the Iraqi government does not meet the "benchmarks," and the obvious evidence and past experience strongly indicates that the benchmarks will not be met.

And maybe--just maybe--that is exactly what Bush wants to happen because then he has the excuse he has been desperately seeking to get out of Iraq AND blame it all on someone else. Bush has never accepted any responsibility or blame because hey, he always listened to the generals. The absence of WMD and ties to Al Qaeda were not his fault because he was just going on what the intelligence showed. And now he just might have the chance to get out of Iraq because now he can claim that it was all the fault of Maliki and the Iraqi government. Don't you see? It will not possibly be America's fault. We will not have cut and run. We will have done everything we could to help the Iraqis, but they just wouldn't help us to help them.

Sound crazy? Well, consider a few other things. Remember the quote from Secretary of State Rice in the preceding post? Rice testified before the Senate that Maliki's administration was on "borrowed time." If that was true, then why in the wide, wide world of sports would Bush then announce a plan that depended on Maliki's administration doing so many things? That makes about as much sense as Bush saying that only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and then announcing that we then need to send 20,000 more of our troops to do something only the Iraqis can do. Also, in an interview on "60 Minutes" which aired this past Sunday, this exchange took place between Scott Pelley and Bush:
PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

BUSH: That we didn't do a better job or they didn't do a better job?

PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.

BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

PELLEY: Americans wonder whether . . .

BUSH: Yeah, they wonder whether or not the Iraqis are willing to do hard work necessary to get this democratic experience to survive. That's what they want.
(emphasis added). Well, those ungrateful, lazy Iraqis. Tell me that Bush is not trying to sell the American public on the idea that if there is failure in Iraq, it is the fault of the Iraqis. I mean to say, all we did was invade their country and allow it to become FUBAR without doing squat to rebuild it, get the economy going, provide electricity, water and food, etc. But Bush takes no responsibility for the lack of security, the lack of planning, or the sheer bloody incompetence and corruption of what his administration has done, and instead questions whether the Iraqis are willing to do the necessary hard work.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Bush administration is trying to get Maliki out and have a government put in place that will do what Bush wants and says is necessary. However, if Maliki is tossed out as prime minister, how could anyone think that a new government will be in place quickly. Anyone who thinks that is possible needs to review just how long and difficult the process of getting the Maliki government in place was. If Maliki goes, there is likely to be more than a bit of chaos in the Iraqi government, which will increase the chances that the Iraqi government will not do what Bush says is necessary, meaning that the chances for the "new plan" failing become greater.

And that could be just the excuse Bush has been looking for.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

A follow-up on the previous post--Maliki might not be on board.

In the previous post, I discussed why Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki likely cannot or will not fulfill all his responsibilities--as defined by Bush--under the "new plan" for Iraq. Late last night I saw an article on the Washington Post website which provided further evidence as to this conclusion.

The basic theme of the article was that Maliki is pissed off at the Bush administration and is not going to simply do what he is told, as shown by these excerpts:
The head of Iraq's Shiite Muslim-led government defended his country's independence and sovereignty and called on U.S. leaders to show faith in his ability to lead.

Maliki disputed President Bush's remarks broadcast Tuesday that the execution of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein "looked like it was kind of a revenge killing" and took exception to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's Senate testimony last week that Maliki's administration was on "borrowed time."

The prime minister said statements such as Rice's "give morale boosts for the terrorists and push them toward making an extra effort and making them believe they have defeated the American administration," Maliki said. "But I can tell you that they have not defeated the Iraqi government."

Speaking through an interpreter to a group of reporters for an hour in his offices in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, Maliki found several ways to say that Iraq is beholden to no country. He defended Iraq's constitutional right to the death penalty, its commitment to dialogue with Iran and Syria despite U.S. opposition to those governments, and its determination to use Iraqi troops to lead the latest effort to pacify Baghdad.
That sure sounds like Maliki is determined to 1 ) make sure that Iraq, not the U.S., is in charge of the "new plan" for Iraq, and 2) show that he is not just going to do what the Bush administration wants.

Or is that just what the Bush administration wants? Tune in for the next post...and remember the quote from Rice.

Maliki also made it clear what he thought should have been done previously and must be done now in order for U.S. troops to leave:
"If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down. That's on the condition that there are real strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping them and arming them," Maliki said.
*******
In the interview Wednesday, Maliki said many American and Iraqi lives would have been spared if the Iraqi forces had been better equipped.
*******
One Maliki aide said the prime minister wants "heavier weapons" and is concerned that Iraqi security forces are outgunned by militias and insurgents.

"Basically the level of weapons in the current army is really a disgrace," said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. In many cases, gunmen are "definitely better armed" than the police and the army, the aide said.
Kevin Drum's interpretation of Maliki's statements is spot on: "Just give us all your guns and then get out. We'll take care of the rest."

But why is Maliki getting so pissed off in public? The answer given in the next post goes something like this: the Bush administration is setting Maliki up to be the scapegoat for our withdrawal, and Maliki is getting his shots in now in an attempt to keep from getting that blame.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

It's all about the politics.

Overview

This post will analyze some of the aspects of the military operations portion of Bush's new plan for Iraq. The plans for reconstruction programs will not be addressed.

Before reading the rest of the post, I recommend reading Bush's January 10, 2007, speech.

The objective of this post is to show that the new plan has little chance of achieving its military goals, and thus the new plan is based on political objectives. More to the point, those political objectives are targeted to a U.S. audience. In other words, the whole point of this "new plan" is for the Bush administration to score some PR points here at home.

A quick review

On January 5, 2007, I made my first post about Bush's "new plan." Of course, at that time, the plan had not been officially announced, but Bush administration officials were nonetheless discussing it publicly. In the January 5 post, I quoted a January 3, 2007, report from NBC's Jim Miklaszewski, and emphasized this portion:
Interestingly enough, one administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq.
I have often noted that the Bush administration bases all it actions on politics. It's all about image and keeping power. What might actually be good for America is not important. The political nature of the "surge" is just further evidence.

As shown in previous posts, people with military experience agree.

My first post showed that the Joints Chiefs of Staff were opposed to the "surge," and yet Bush was determined to order it. Why else would he do that other than for appearances sake, especially after he has insisted all along that he listens to and follows the advice of the the military commanders?

My view of politics taking priority in Bush's "new plan" is shared by Paul Rieckhoff and Jack Jacobs. Jacobs unequivocally said that this "new plan" was based on political, not military objectives. Rieckhoff explained that the troops who will be directly bearing the burden of this "new plan" "feel like this is more of a political move than a military one."

If you don't want to simply take the word of Jacobs and Rieckhoff on the political nature of the plan, look at the plan and decide for yourself if it can succeed. Rieckhoff, Jacobs, and Phillip Carter all gave straightforward reasons why this new plan is likely not to work. The discussion which follows uses their statements as a framework, and I reiterate that the analysis in intended to show that the plan cannot be based on military objectives and thus is based on political goals only.

In general--too little, too late


Jacobs, Rieckhoff, and Carter all said that basically 20,000 are not going to make a difference. Jacobs noted that the surge would increase forces by 15%, and then stated that in order to make a real difference, the current forces would need to be increased by at least 100%. Rieckhoff echoed those thoughts by saying "If you want to increase troops, you‘ve got to do it by hundreds of thousands," and then he added a key consideration, namely that "it‘s probably too late to do that anyway." Carter put it nicely by saying that he though this surge "seems like too little, too late[.]" As I have tried to explain before, post-war Iraq was always going to be a huge mess no matter what was done, but if there was going to be any chance to get it and keep it under control, that control had to be established early and definitively, and that meant troops, troops, and more troops. Gen. Shinseki pointblank said so before the war, and look how he was publicly ridiculed. Had there been many more troops in Iraq immediately after "major combat operations," there would have been a chance to establish and maintain control. Other things needed to happen--and none of them did thanks to the complete lack of planning by the Bush administration--but the primary element would have been lots more boots on the ground. The time to try to put more boots on the ground IS NOT almost four years later. And now after almost four years have passed, and your stated goal is to clear and hold areas, 20,000 more troops is not enough to get the job done. Was that level sufficient just a year ago? No. Why is it going to be sufficient now? Now I know what some of you are thinking. This time it will be different because there are greater numbers of Iraqi army and police. I will address the problem with that thinking later.

So, 20,000 additional troops is basically too little, too late, but that is far from the only reason why Bush's new plan has little chance to succeed.

From a strictly military operations perspective, the scope of the plan is too small, and it is being sold to the public on the basis of a dubious statistic.
  • The "80% statistic"
[Not to be confused with the "07% solution," although it sure seems like the Bush administration has been using that.]

Carter's post said that the plan was "too focused on Baghdad." He explained this further in his interview on CBS News, as discussed in the next section. However, first I want to address what will surely be one of the most-repeated reasons as to why the "surge" will work.

After Carter said the plan was too narrowly confined to really make a difference, Katie Couric came back with this:
But 80% of the insurgency that we’re seeing is happening within 30 miles of Baghdad, so why do you feel it is too narrowly focused?
The definition of "the insurgency" needs to be examined. See, we have been told at different times that the insurgents were Sunni extremists, Saddam loyalists, foreign (as in non-Iraqi) fighters, foreign terrorists in general, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in Iraq led by Zarqawi, sectarian militias...So I was curious as to the definition of the term, and I went to the Merriam Webster site and looked up the definition of "insurgency," "insurgence," and "insurgent," and here's what those terms boil down to: an uprising or revolt in opposition to civil authority, established government, or established authority. Under that definition, it does not seem that much of the violence in Iraq today is an insurgency. In the first years after the "end" of the war, there was definitely an uprising against the established authority, namely us. The majority of the violence now seems to be sectarian in nature, not political. The enmity between the Sunni and the Shia would exist regardless of whatever the governmental or authority structure might be, the point being that violence between the Sunni and Shia is not necessarily any kind of uprising against the government or civil authority. Moreover, in the case of present-day Iraq, an argument could be made that the sectarian violence is to some degree in support of the Iraqi government. The majority of positions in the government are held by Shia. The prime minister, Maliki, is Shia. Maliki was able to become prime minister because of the support of the largest Shia militia, the Madi Army, led by Muqtada al Sadr. Much of the killing has been carried out by Shia militias, and those militias have infiltrated governmental organizations such as the army and the police.

Bush did mention the 80% statistic. He initially said "Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis." Thus, it appeared that he was limiting this "statistic" to the sectarian violence, but then he went on to explain why past efforts to secure Baghdad had been unsuccessful, and in so doing muddled the issue: "Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: "There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents." So, are the sectarian forces also terrorists and insurgents? Are the terrorists and insurgents strictly sectarian? Who knows? There is no way of telling from these statements invoking the "80% statistic."

Here's the point of the preceding two paragraphs: When the Bush administration says that the "surge" should be limited to the Baghdad area because 80% of the insurgency is happening within 30 miles of Baghdad, don't take it at face value.

But what do I know? Let's take a look at the opinion of someone who has actually served in Iraq, namely Phillip Carter. When Couric brought up the "80%" statistic, Carter immediately responded with "I don’t know about that statistic. My experience was a little bit different."
  • And another thing...
I just have to point out another example of typical Bush bullshit. After his invocation of the 80% statistic, Bush said this: "Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people." Well, why are we then sending over 20,000 more troops to Baghdad to stop the sectarian violence? Anyone? Bueller?
  • Strategic and logistical reasons why securing only Baghdad is not enough.
In the CBS News interview, Carter then gave another reason why focusing only on Baghdad is not a winning plan.
What I’ll say is Baghdad is necessary, but not sufficient. If you are able to secure Baghdad, you may do so simply by squeezing the insurgents out to Anbar and Diyala and Saladin, and there are many other pieces to this puzzle.
In other words, while we may be able to secure and hold Baghdad, it is possible that the insurgents--whoever they may be--will simply leave Baghdad and set up camp in other areas. This is pretty much what has happened several times already. One way to stop this pattern is to clear an area, then leave troops there to hold it, which is to say make sure the insurgents cannot simply wait until the troops leave and then go back into the previously cleared area. Then there will be a need for other--which is to say additional--troops to go to other area to clear them, and once they are cleared, those other troops will need to stay there, and on and on. In other words, you need lots and lots of troops. At best, 20,000 might be able to clear and hold Baghdad, but not hold Baghdad AND clear and hold other areas. A January 15, 2007, New York Times article (discussed in more detail below) showed that there are still concerns in this regard:
Another concern is that the target of the new Baghdad plan—Sunni and Shiite extremists—may replicate the pattern American troops have seen before when they have embarked on major offensives — of “melting away” only to return later. Some officers report scattered indications that some Shiite militiamen may already be heading for safer havens in southern Iraq, calculating that they can wait the new offensive out before returning to the capital.

“This is an enemy that will trade space for time,” one officer said.
To be fair, the "new plan" is not just directed at Baghdad. Bush said that Anbar province has become the base for Al Qaeda in Iraq, that there have been gains made against Al Qaeda there, and that 4000 additional troops will be sent there. As Bush said,
These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan -- and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.
I will likely address in a separate post the full irony of Bush's statement, but for now I will simply say that 1) the Taliban--the government which allowed Al Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a safe haven-- has been staging a violent comeback in Afghanistan, and 2) Bush is taking away a combat brigade in Afghanistan and sending it to Baghdad.

The plan is highly dependent on conditions that likely will not happen.
  • In general
According to Bush's speech, the Iraqis have a lot to do in order for this plan to work. The basic question is whether the Iraqis can do these things. Regarding many of these matters, a better question is "what makes anyone think this time will be different?" The basic problem here was described by Carter in his blog post as follows: "We also seem to assume away the hardest problems, like the ability of the Maliki government to rein in sectarian violence, and the ability of the Iraqi security forces to function effectively." Michael Gordon of the New York Times stated the matter in a slightly different way in his January 11, 2007, article: "But the new plan depends on the good intentions and competence of a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government that has not demonstrated an abundant supply of either."

Bush also described the Iraqis' tasks as "benchmarks" that must be met. However, as the New York Times noted on January 8, 2007 (the plan had pretty much been disclosed in its entirety by then),
The Americans and Iraqis have agreed on benchmarks before. Indeed, some of the goals that are to be incorporated on the list of benchmarks have been carried over from an earlier list that was hammered out with the Iraqis and made public in October, but never met.
Again, what is going to be different this time? And more importantly, what happens if these benchmarks are not met? As I mention before, benchmarks must come with some sort of timetable and consequences for failure to meet the benchmarks. Otherwise, the Iraqi government not only has no incentive to meet the benchmarks, the Iraqi government has every incentive to do nothing and have us do all the work. Bush expressly said
I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people--and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.
And just what does "losing support" mean? Are we going to begin withdrawal of our troops? Are we going to stop spending money in Iraq? And if we are going to do those things, someone--anyone--explain to me how that would not be, under this administration's own rhetoric, cutting and running?
  • The crucial task for the Iraqi government
In describing again why this plan would succeed where previous ones had failed, Bush described perhaps the greatest task for the Iraqi government:
In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods--and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
(emphasis added). And he's done such a great job of it before when he said he would get control of the Shia militias. And chances are nothing will change this time. Two recent articles from the New York Times support the previous statement. John Burns and Sabrina Tavernise pusblished wrote the January 12, 2007, article "In Baghdad, Bush Policy Is Met With Resentment." As mentioned earlier, much of the sectarian violence is being carried out by Shia militias, and the largest and most powerful is the Mahdi Army, led by Muqtada al Sadr. Sadr and and the Mahdi Army control Sadr City, which is a very large area of Baghdad. The article noted that 1) it is Sadr's bloc in the parliament that put and keeps Maliki in power as prime minister, and 2) Iraqi officials said that the decision whether any forces are allowed into Sadr City will be left to Maliki. There will likely be no way to rein in the sectarian violence unless the Mahdi Army is controlled, and the two facts just mentioned don't make such control seem likely, now do they? Moreover, according to the article, after Maliki and Bush met in Jordan in November, Maliki wanted fewer, not more U.S. troops in Baghdad. So there's another indication that Maliki's government might not deliver on the pledge to eliminate sectarian and political interference. But wait, there's more...
  • Maliki's desire for fewer U.S. troops "was part of a broader impatience among the ruling Shiites to be relieved from American oversight so as to be able to fight and govern according to the dictates of Shiite politics, not according to strictures from Washington."
  • "Many Shiites said Iraq’s own security forces, which are predominantly Shiite, should be left to do the job of stabilizing the city[.]"
  • As of the date of this article, the plan was that the Iraqi general who would be in charge of the overall operation would report directly to Maliki--"outside the chain of command that runs through the Defense Ministry, which the Maliki government has long viewed as a bastion of American influence, and, because the defense minister is a Sunni, of resistance to Shiite control."
No signs of sectarian or political interference there, eh?

Three days later (January 15), John Burns had another article, "U.S. and Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans." The lead paragraph painted a non-pretty picture:
Just days after President Bush unveiled a new war plan calling for more than 20,000 additional American troops in Iraq, the heart of the effort—a major push to secure the capital—faces some of its fiercest resistance from the very people it depends on for success: Iraqi government officials.
The story just get gloomier from there. This paragraph near the end of the article described a general concern about the Iraqi government delivering on Maliki's assurances of no sectarian or political interference:
American officers say that only time will tell, but that they will be surprised if Mr. Maliki and his top aides change colors, despite the assurances the Iraqi leader is said to have offered President Bush. As described by American commanders, the pattern in the eight months since Mr. Maliki took office has been for the Shiite leaders who dominate the new government to press the Americans to concentrate on Sunni extremists.
And this concern was expressed in different ways in other parts of the article:
First among the American concerns is a Shiite-led government that has been so dogmatic in its attitude that the Americans worry that they will be frustrated in their aim of cracking down equally on Shiite and Sunni extremists, a strategy President Bush has declared central to the plan.

"We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem," said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. "We are being played like a pawn."
Maybe I am wrong in saying that Maliki will not make sure there is no sectarian or political interference. Perhaps he will make sure there is no interference when the targets are Sunnis. To put it differently, the Iraqi government--which is dominated by Shiites--could manipulate the operation in order to get American troops to carry a Shiite agenda. This possibility is increased by the nature of the Iraqi commander chosen by Maliki. According to Burns, that commander, Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, is a Shiite from southern Iraq (the Iraqi Shia heartland), and has been strident in his calls for Iraqis to be in charge of this operation. Burns also reported that the Iraqi chain of command issue (the commander reporting directly to Maliki rather than the usual chain of command) has not been fully resolved, but that a compromise has tentatively established a "crisis council" of which Maliki would be one member. Still, there exists a possibility that Maliki will be ultimately in charge, and if that happens, the chances for the "new plan" being used to implement a Shiite agenda go up.

What all this means is that it is likely that the Maliki government either cannot or will not make sure that any crackdown on violence will be evenhanded between Sunni and Shia. There are many reasons to believe the Iraqi government will push for the targets to be predominantly Sunni. If this happens, not only will sectarian violence as a whole not really be reduced, but the Sunni population will become further alienated, and that will further escalate sectarian tension and unrest.

Other problems
  • Logistical concerns
Bush said in his speech that "These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations--conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents." However, Burns's January 15 article pointed out that
in many areas, there are no police stations, at least none suitable as operational centers, so the planners are seeking alternate locations, including large houses, that will have to be fortified with 15-foot-high concrete blast walls, rolls of barbed wire and machine-gun towers.
In addition, there apparently has been no plan formulated as to who--Americans or Iraqis--will be responsible for supplying the fuel need for Iraqi humvees, troop transports, and other vehicles.
  • The Iraqi security forces
This topic could have been included in the discussion of "assurances of no sectarian or political interference," but I wanted to first focus on the government as whole as led by Maliki. This topic addresses a specific portion of the government, the Iraqi security forces--the army and the National Police.

Burns described the problem regarding the National Police succinctly when he wrote
The plan gives a central role to the National Police, viewed as widely infiltrated by Shiite militias and, despite an intensive American retraining program, still suspected of a strongly Shiite sectarian bias. One American officer said that the National Police commanders have been “dragging their feet” over their role in the new plan and that they could seriously compromise the operation.
There have been sectarian problems in the army as well, as described in a January 7, 2007, article from the Chicago Tribune.
The Iraqi army is believed to be less sectarian than the police but it too has faced accusations of Shiite dominance. U.S. military commanders in Diyala province exerted more control over the 5th Iraqi Army Division in October after that Shiite-dominated force conducted abusive, arbitrary sweeps of Sunni Arab neighborhoods. Shiite-dominated Iraqi army units have also been accused of human-rights abuses in Anbar towns like Fallujah and Rutbah.
Given that Maliki appointed as commander a Shiite general and wants that general to report to him rather than the Sunni defense minister, there certainly seems to be a good chance of sectarianism playing a role in what the Iraqi army does.

Conclusion

So much of this "new plan" on its face does not make good sense. The military, both past and present, was against it. And there is no question that success of the plan is massively dependent on the Iraqi government in general and Maliki in particularly following through on what Bush has described as their "strong commitment." Past experience strongly indicates that these benchmarks will not be met.

So why has Bush ordered this plan? Well, it makes it look like he is doing something. It gives an appearance that he is doing what people want, namely changing the strategy. Of course, it really isn't a change in strategy, but that is beside the point. Bush, as he always does, wants to conduct a sales job to the public in America to make us think that he is doing something good. This plan is such a steaming pile of crap, that there is no way that it has been put forward and ordered on the basis of what might actually work. Instead, it is politically motivated.

Image is everything.

Substance is irrelevant.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Quick football note: the Patriots do it again.

The Patriots made another 4th quarter comeback to beat the San Diego Chargers 24-21. The difference was that the Patriots did not do stupid things, and the Chargers committed a whole slew of boneheaded plays. A personal foul penalty for running over to a New England receiver and head butting him after your defense made a great play which could have ended a drive, but instead New England gets a first down and eventually gets a FG. Needlessly committing a personal foul after you kick an extra point so that you have to kick off from your own 15. Trying to pick up and run with a muffed punt instead of just covering the ball, which resulted in a turnover. Picking up a kickoff that was obviously going out of bounds and costing your team field position. After making an interception, then not protecting the ball and letting a New England receiver strip the ball, giving the Patriots the ball back, after which they go in for the tying touchdown and 2-point conversion. And that interception was on 4th down. Instead of intercepting the ball, the DB should have just knocked it down. And on and on.

Give credit to the Patriots for keeping their composure and coming back. They showed a major difference between a championship team and the wannabees. Championship teams don't do stupid things, and the Chargers gave away their chance to be a championship team by doing stupid things.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Why not go to war with the army you could have?

It is a fact that our troops went to war without adequate armor, both for themselves personally and for their vehicles. And it is a fact that Rumskull's response when asked by a soldier about this was "You go to war with the army you have."

And now there is evidence that our troops went to war without some equipment that they could have had, but, in order to protect a contract with Raytheon, our army decided not to use an Israeli system that could save the lives of our troops. The Israeli system, known as "Trophy," is a defense system against rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). It has been and is operational, but our military has refused to use it at all. Why? Well, it turns out that Raytheon has a $70 million contract to develop a similar system, and using the Israeli system might jeopardize that contract. If Raytheon's system was close to being operational, this might not be so bad. However, Rayhteon's system won't be ready until 2011.

Lisa Meyers and Adam Ciralsky of NBC News have done a series of four reports on this matter. Here are the dates and links of the reports:

Phillip Carter on Bush's new plan

A link to Carter's bio is in A plug for a good military blog--Intel Dump.

Today Carter posted his thoughts on Bush's speech. After saying that he thought Bush did a good job with the speech, he cogently expressed his concerns with the plan presented in the speech:
However, winning a war is easier said than done. As I shared with CBS News last night, I'm skeptical that this surge will work. It seems like too little, too late, and too focused on Baghdad to make a difference. We also seem to assume away the hardest problems, like the ability of the Maliki government to rein in sectarian violence, and the ability of the Iraqi security forces to function effectively. Many serious questions remain for me. And so I still see this plan as a gamble -- not a risk -- and I'm wary of gambling with our soldiers' lives when the odds are so long.
Carter gave further details in his appearance on CBS News, and I highly recommend watching that video.

At the risk of violating my promise to save my analysis for future posts, I will say here that Carter's post succinctly identifies the major problems with Bush's new plan.

Jack Jacobs on Bush's new plan

Jack Jacobs served in Vietnam and was one of the most highly decorated U.S. troops from that war. Among his medals is the Medal of Honor, the highest military decoration in the United States.

Jacobs has been and currently is a military affairs analyst for MSNBC. On January 10, 2007, after Bush's speech, Jacobs appeared on the MSNBC show "Scarborough Country." Here's what he had to say:
SCARBOROUGH: Let‘s bring in Jack Jacobs, he is an MSNBC military analyst and he‘s of course, retired U.S. Army colonel, and a Congressional Medal of Honor winner. Colonel, let‘s talk about the where the president stands tonight in relation to the Joint Chiefs, to the man that ran his war in Iraq for the past three years or so and in relation to a lot of other military officials. Is the president swimming against the tide militarily speaking?

COL. JACK JACOBS, U.S. ARMY, (RET), MSNBC ANALYST: Well, he‘s certainly painted himself into a corner, hasn‘t he? I mean, all the options that were available for the use of the military instrument three years ago are no longer available. It‘s not like we‘re going to stay there forever. We aren‘t going to pull troops out tomorrow because that puts them at a tremendous risk.

What‘s happened here is that the president has set, I think under pressure from very high-ranking military officers who really have a say-so in this very limited objectives here. A relatively small number of troops over a relatively short period of time for very, very small objectives. With fewer than a 15 percent increase here. It‘s not like large numbers of troops are going to go there, are going to sweep the country, kill all the bad guys, capture every one who isn‘t killed and turn over a completely pacified Iraq to the Iraqis.

Relatively small number of troops going into some neighborhoods in Baghdad, in parts of al Anbar Province, they‘re going to kill some bad guys, capture some bad guys, pacify some areas and turn those areas over to some Iraqi troops. And I think that‘s what the military establishment has dragged out of the president, limited objectives.

You could look at this at a matter of fact, as what the military calls a detachment left in contact. These people are there effectively to protect the rear and the flanks of the military already in Iraq that is eventually coming home. Make no mistake about it, I think both sides of the aisle want troops to come home and they will be coming home.

SCARBOROUGH: And of course the generals on the ground have said that they had a lot of concerns about this troop surge but it sounds like what you‘re saying is that the 20,000 troops may not be enough to effect great change over in Iraq and that this move may be more political, more based in politics than in military objectives.

JACOBS: In my judgment, you can bet on it. Because if really you were going to flood the zone, you wouldn‘t have a 15 percent increase in troop strength in Iraq, you would have a doubling or trebling of troop strength. And we‘re not going to do that. There is a huge political element to the insertion of these troops. And the only way that the president was able to get the military establishment to support this is to severely limit the objectives and I think that‘s exactly what you have here. I may be the only guy talking about it in this way but I think you‘ve got limited objectives, using limited number of troops and it‘s going to be for a limited amount of time.
(emphasis added).

Paul Rieckhoff on Bush's new plan

From his official bio:
Paul Rieckhoff is the executive director and founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), the first and largest organization for veterans of the War on Terror. During his time in the Adamiyah section of central Baghdad, he led his light infantry platoon on hundreds of combat patrols with the 3rd Infantry and 1st Armored Divisions. He continues to serve his country as an Infantry Officer in the New York Army National Guard.
Rieckhoff wrote a book about his time in Iraq, Chasing Ghosts. Here is part of the description of the book:
As a First Lieutenant and Infantry Platoon Leader for the U.S. Army National Guard charged with leading thirty-eight men in Iraq, Paul Rieckhoff followed in the footsteps of his father and grandfather. After Rieckhoff volunteered to take part in the invasion of Iraq, he and his soldiers spent almost a year in one of the most dangerous and volatile areas of Baghdad, where they struggled to maintain order, protect Iraqi civilians, track down insurgents, and defend themselves against sniper and roadside bomb attacks.

But it was clear to Rieckhoff almost from the get-go that America's mission in Iraq was deeply flawed - and that his platoon was overchallenged and underequipped. If there was a plan to stabilize Baghdad after the invasion, no one had let them in on it. And with so many obstacles to overcome, they faced enemies that included thousands of armed, angry, and unemployed men who had been unleashed into the streets when the U.S. government disbanded the Iraqi army.
In other words, Rieckhoff has firsthand knowledge of Iraq and, through IAVA, has continued to be involved with troops in Iraq. With this in mind, I present the following exchange between Rieckhoff and Keith Olbermann on the January 10, 2007, edition of "Countdown."
OLBERMANN: Senator Gordon Smith, the Oregon Republican, who memorably took to the floor of the Senate early in December to essentially withdraw his support of the war, today said the president‘s plan, quote, exalts hope over experience. What are your members and the active service personnel you‘re in touch with feeling about that?

REICKHOFF: They agree with the senator. It‘s clear that the president still doesn‘t understand the enemy we‘re fighting, and he doesn‘t understand what‘s going to work to fight them. This is not going to work. This plan to increase troops by 20,000 is really not going to make tangible difference on the security situation in Baghdad, or in the greater country of Iraq. It may work for a short time, but over time, this is really more just middling around the edges. It‘s too many troops for most Americans, and for the Democrats, clearly, it‘s too few to crush the insurgency.

If you want to increase troops, you‘ve got to do it by hundreds of thousands, and it‘s probably too late to do that anyway. So it really shows me that the president doesn‘t understand what our men and women are trying to do on the ground every day.

OLBERMANN: The “Military Times” poll, can you offer us some sense of what you are actually hear from rank and file military personnel right now, when so many of them are on second tours, third tours, now perhaps fourth tours? The suggestion that a majority now disapprove of the president‘s conduct of the war, is there an extra bit of information to that? Is there a conduct of the war they would prefer?

REICKHOFF: Well, they feel like this war‘s been done on the cheap throughout. And I think the president‘s new plan shows that that is not changing. This is another half cooked plan to try to middle around the edges and our people are frustrated. They don‘t see progress. And on the personnel side, divorce rates are up. The rate of suicide in theater has doubled over the previous year. Veterans coming home are facing post traumatic stress disorder and mental health issues. And there‘s a tremendous human strain to this war.

And that‘s the side you don‘t see on the news every day, people going back for a third tour is really unprecedented. The third infantry division may be going back for their third year in this war, coming up this year, and that‘s really putting a stress on our people, and they‘re not seeing progress on the ground, and their leadership doesn‘t understand the enemy they‘re facing, or how to fight it.

OLBERMANN: Do they sense—do they feel that they‘re filling some sort of historical gap now, that they are time servers in a time serving war, like the troops who were stuck in Vietnam after the 27th of January, 1973, when Henry Kissinger said peace is at hand and everybody had to wait it out until they got home?

REICKHOFF: Yes, they feel like this is more of a political move than a military one. If the president was serious about upping the troop numbers, he should have done it three years ago. And now they‘re just frustrated. They‘re tired of these half moves that don‘t really understand the new enemy that we‘re fighting. These are tactics from decades ago, not the enemy we‘re fighting today.

Politically, this may be very risky. And I said last week, people are calling this a Hail Mary. If we‘re going to use a football analogy, we‘re down in the fourth quarter. This isn‘t a Hail Mary, this is a draw play. It‘s even more stupid than a Hail Mary.
(emphasis added).

Three quick posts on military voices regarding Bush's new plan

I am going to publish three posts showing opinions of military people on Bush's new plan for Iraq. Two of them, Paul Rieckhoff and Phillip Carter, served in Iraq. The third is retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs, a military analyst for MSNBC. I will offer further analysis in separate posts. For now, I want the words of these veterans to appear on their own.

More thoughts on Bush's "new plan" that doesn't seem new

Kevin Drum read through the President's speech and Highlights of the Iraq Strategy Review, and came to the made the following observations:
There were a number of things worth commenting on in Bush's speech tonight, but I guess the biggest thing that leapt out at me is also the simplest: he really didn't make even a cursory effort to pretend that he was doing anything truly new. There was nothing about new military tactics, just an assertion that more troops would help us clear and hold neighborhoods. There was nothing very serious about reducing sectarian tension, just a laundry list of proposed Iraqi legislation accompanied by some platitudes about Prime Minister Maliki accepting responsibility for his own country. And there was nothing substantial about broader regional initiatives, just the usual pro forma warnings delivered to Iran and Syria.

It took me a couple of minutes to digest this, but there's nothing even remotely new here at all. Almost to the letter, it's the same stuff we've been trying for the past three years, except with about 10% more troops than before. Does Bush really think the American public is going to find any of this very convincing?
Actually, Bush did not merely propose Iraqi legislation. He insisted that such legislation would be enacted.
To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs...And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.
(emphasis added). Up to this point, we have not been very successful in telling the Iraqi government what to do and having that government actually do it, now have we? What is going to be different this time? I ask that question with sincerity. I really would like an answer. I have not found one in the speech.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Initial thoughts after Bush's speech

Overall, I did not hear enough specifics. There were more than in speeches past, but not near enough to show any well-defined plan.

Several times Bush tied the war in Iraq to the global war on terror. I am so tired of him trying to whip up support by lumping the two together. This is nothing more than an effort to divert attention away from Iraq. Is Iraq part of the war on terror? Yes, but not to the extent Bush wants us to believe, and to the extent it is part of the war on terror, it is due to the war we started.

And speaking of the war on terror, there was no mention of Afghanistan and the problems there. Focusing on Iraq and sending more troops and resources there takes away from our efforts in Afghanistan, and that is a hindrance to the war on terror.

Bush said that the mission of the extra troops in Baghdad and Anbar province would have a well-defined mission, and that we would succeed this time because now we will have the force levels to hold areas that have been cleared. Well, we weren't able to do that when we had more troops there before, so why is that going to succeed now? And even if it does succeed, how many troops will be needed and for how long in order to keep those areas cleared?

Bush stated that failure in Iraq would be disastrous for America. However, he did not say what would be failure. For that matter, he did not say what would be "victory."

Bush also basically said that if we were to withdraw now, the whole region would go into chaos. He might be right about that, but that was always highly probable before the war, and that probability was high regardless of any possible scenarios. And yet no one in the Bush administration paid attention to that.

Bush also said that the war in Iraq is the "decisive ideological struggle of our time." Once again, Bush uses terms that are so absolute that there is no room for options. That's a big part of what got us in this mess in the first place. Look, the ideological struggle with radical Islam is huge. However, to say that what is going on in Iraq is only about radical Islam is wrong. The situation is so much more complicated and multifaceted. In other words, even victory in Iraq will NOT win the struggle with radical Islam. Moreover, to put the Iraq war in these terms is to set us up for failure. Bush's language means that anything less than total victory in Iraq will be total failure.

Bush said this would not be an open-ended committed, but the lack of details, the lack of any description of what we will do if Iraq does not meet the "benchmarks" speaks to just the opposite.

I'll have more later, but the combination of a cold and antihistamines is giving me tired head.

What would be "victory" in Iraq?

I have been against the Iraq war since before it started, and the primary reason was--and still is--that it would end up greatly damaging America's interests and standing in the world. And I now defy anyone to explain how that has not happened.

What we have needed for a long time is some major help from other countries. While other countries have been involved in the war, England has been the only other country that has provided major amounts of troops, money, and other resources. The level of participation of other countries has diminished, and in some cases, evaporated. Moreover, of the members of the "coalition of the willing," the only one with the diplomatic resources to help has been England, and England has done nothing to help in that regard because Tony Blair has been Bush's bitch (a variation on Brit's calling Blair Bush's poodle).

The Bush administration has resolutely refused to allow any other countries to get involved, and now, even if they were asked, they likely would not respond. The Bush administration has been so arrogant and so rude to the international community that most countries are happy in effect to say "Hey, you got yourself into this, you can get yourself out of it." Up to this point, we have not solved the problems on our own, and if that continues, our interests and standing in the world will be further damaged.

If, on the other hand, some other country--say France, Germany, or Russia--steps in and ends up making a real difference, our interests and standing will still be damaged because one of those other countries will gain.

So, it might seem that we need to solve this ourselves. Well, that means that our military, our money, and our resources are going to continue to be tied up in Iraq. By that I mean we will not be able to apply our military, money, and resources to anything else. That means our own homeland security suffers. That means that we will not be able to control or influence events elsewhere around the world. That means that we will not be able to do things that could otherwise gain us friends and allies. All of this can harm us directly. Moreover, it can harm us indirectly because other countries can fill that vacuum and reap the benefits that we otherwise might have had.

For me, "victory" in Iraq has always been primarily about preserving American interests and standing, or, to put it another way, to keep from damaging America's interests and standing. I'm not talking about expanding those interests. I'm simply talking about preserving what we had. Now, unfortunately, it has become a question of trying to regain what we have lost.

UPDATE: I just heard on "Hardball" (6:49 p.m. CST) that Reuters is reporting that England is send 3000 troops home from Iraq by May.

Some thoughts before Bush's latest speech on Iraq

With just under two and a half hours before Bush gives his long-anticipated "new way forward" speech, I will give my reactions to what has been said about this new plan thusfar.

Assuming that sending more troops to Iraq is a good idea, 20,000 is way too little and way too freaking late. We should have gone into the war with 2-3 times more troops that what we sent initially. If (and that's a big "if") Iraq was ever going to be brought under control from a security standpoint, it had to be done early and decisively. If we had sent many more troops to begin with, there would have been a chance to have kept things from getting out of control in the first place. Instead, when the Army Chief of Staff (Shinseki) told Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be need to secure Iraq after the war, he was ridiculed by the Bush administration.

Even if Bush wanted to send many more than 20,000 troops, it could not happen because we simply do not have the resources. Now, if the Bush administration had not been such a huge bunch of assholes before the war, maybe we could have put together a true international coalition which would have provided meaningful amounts of troops and other resources (you know, like Bush's father did for the Gulf War), meaning there would have been a chance of controlling the situation in the first place. And then maybe we could get other nations to help supply troops and resources in levels sufficient to try to get the current situation under control (again, assuming that sending more troops is a good idea).

In case you haven't heard, one of the U.S. commanders in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, said the war--and the U.S. role therein--is going to last at least two or three more years.

The reports have been that Bush is going to push for "benchmarks" for the Iraqis to meet. This ain't new, folks. Whether called "benchmarks" or something else, we have been setting benchmarks to be met, and the Iraqi government has met almost none of them.

Any setting of benchmarks has to come with some sort of timetable and some sort of adverse consequence for the Iraqi government if benchmarks are not met. Otherwise, we will have exactly the same plan we have had (with 20,000 more troops), and that ain't exactly been getting the job done.

Regardless of what Bush proposes, there is a good chance it will not achieve whatever he perceives as "victory." The whole situation has become a clusterfuck of the most epic proportions. Outside of a massive divine intervention, I am not sure what can work in Iraq.

Nonetheless, I will listen to what Bush says tonight. Maybe he will prove me wrong.

UPDATE: I just read Kevin Drum's analysis of what has been revealed about the "new plan," and I really wish I had written it. Instead, I give Mr. Drum all the credit for expressing such deserved skepticism and sarcasm:
Hmmm. Sounds like the same old schtick after all: troops first, and then benchmarks. And we really, really mean it this time. If the benchmarks aren't met, we'll....um....we'll....set some new benchmarks! That'll show 'em we mean business.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Gators are national champs.

The Florida Gators won this season's college football national championship with a 41-14 win over the top-ranked and very much favored Ohio State Buckeyes.

The Gators embarrassed the Buckeyes. Other than giving up a TD on the opening kickoff, Florida absolutely dominated this game. It was a complete and thorough butt-whipping.

I was surprised. I really thought Ohio State would win. I thought that Florida's offense had been too inconsistent all year (especially in the line) and that Ohio State had just too many big-play weapons on offense that would negate Florida's team speed. An injury to Ted Ginn, Jr. after he returned the opening kickoff really hurt the Ohio State offense, but with the way the Florida defensive line was always beating the Ohio State offensive line, I am not sure having Ginn in the game would have mattered. And Ginn's injury did not affect the Ohio State defense, which Florida made look like a high school team.

One of my best friends from college is from Florida and grew up a Gators fan and is still a big fan. So, Trey, wherever you are, be loud and be proud, my Gator friend!

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Political portions of the Military Times survey

The Military Times survey also included a series of questions about political views and affiliations. The aspect of the survey which got some attention was that 46% of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans. This is down from two years ago (60%) and also down from last year (56%). Phillip Carter has a good post at Intel Dump about these results. Carter explains a little bit about the nature of the survey and why the results are significant.

I highly recommend reading his entire post.

At this time I will highlight one of his opinions, namely that "the majority of conservatives in the military are issue conservatives, not party conservatives." (emphasis in original). I tend to think he is correct, and if that view is correct, it shows that "What's changed is their support for the Republican Party, and this administration in particular, over the past few years. The survey clearly indicates that much of this shift owes to discontent with the management of the war and specific policies adopted by the administration." And that could in part explain the other survey results discussed in the previous post.

Military attitudes about the Iraq war

Toward the end of December 2006, the Military Times conducted a survey about how soldiers feel about the war in Iraq. Here is one summary of the results:
It's often written or said in the media that, despite public opposition to the Iraq war here at home, military personnel strongly back President Bush's handling of the conflict. But a poll for the Military Times newspapers, released Friday, shows that more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it.
*******
Barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the new poll for the four papers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times). In another startling finding, only 41% now feel it was the right idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place.

And the number who feel success there is likely has shrunk from 83% in 2004 to about 50% today. A surprising 13% say there should be no U.S. troops in Iraq at all.

This comes even though only about one in ten called their overall political views "liberal."
I was first informed about this survey via an email which said that Bush was losing the support and confidence of the military. Here was my response:
I don't find this surprising. It has been building for a long time. This is what happens when there is no plan for the post-war period, which directly put the troops in very dangerous and ongoing situations. This is what happens when the troops see private contractors and workers doing some of the same jobs but making 3-4 times more money. This is what happens when the soldiers on the ground recognize what the problems will be and how they should be addressed, but the guys in charge (Bush, Rumskull, etc.) either don't see that or ignore it. This is what happens when you send the troops to war without adequate equipment (such as armor for people and vehicles). This is what happens when the Secretary of Defense flippantly responds to the lack of such equipment with "You go to war with the army you have." This is what happens when the Commander in Chief refuses to attend even one funeral or memorial service. This is what happens when the troops are risking and losing their lives for an objective that is not clear. And on and on...