this is the song of cliven bundy

cliven bundy
deadbeat on monday
rebel on tuesday
fox news hero on wednesday
racist on thursday
doubled down on friday
cast out on saturday
forgotten by sunday
and here ends the song
of cliven bundy

birthers on books

who says birthers can't read? ^[1]

concerned citizen youtuber LoneStar1776, who provided some post-conviction pizzazz to the wrap-up of december's birther court-martial, has returned to the limelight (as a federal "person of interest", most likely) with a review and a question for preemptively debunked conspiracy author jerome corsi:

alright — hey guys, i hope everyone is doin' well. this is rudy.

hey, uh, see this book here? where's the birth certificate by jerome corsi? y'see that? ok, um, i've started to read it, i haven't read the whole thing yet. um, one thing i noticed, is that, uh, i looked in the index — i don't see lt. col. terry lakin's name. i don't see pastor james david manning's name. i don't see walter, ah, fitzpatrick, cmdr. walter fitzpatrick. i don't see cmdr. kerchner. i do see orly taitz and phil berg, which are two, uh, lawyers and so that's a good thing and i'm not here to get on jerome corsi's case, but ... y'know the title of this video is are you willing to die?, right, and that's what it's gonna take and so i hope jerome corsi is willing to die. because that's obviously what's it's gonna take to bring the tu— truth out in the atmosphere that we have today.

and a lot of people have asked me and i know a lot of you people, uh, like trump and quite a few of you people don't like trump. and so, you have to ask yourself, y'know — trump pushed the issue — he obviously released a forged, fraudulent piece of crap. anybody that knows anything about computers knows that that, uh, adobe pdf document is not a scan of a real document, that it's a computer-generated fraudulent piece of junk, right? but people have asked me what do i think about trump? well, trump did push the issue and he was very bold so there's only, there's one of two things: either he was in on it, right — that's one possibility, i dunno the man's heart — one possibility is that trump was in on it and that, uh, y'know, he's been promised some big payoff like he gets to built his casino somewhere, y'know, he gets some kind of government, uh, okay or whatever. i don't know what the big deal is with buildin' a casino somewhere, but let's just say that that was a possibility, that he was in on it and now he gets to build a casino.

the other option is — that they threatened him, right? that he actually was threatened. okay, either one of those options. either one of those options, whether he was in on it, right, or he was threatened ... i don't like donald trump. the reason i don't is, when he pushed the issue, to the point, uh, y'know, and, and got, and he took, took up the mantle and he stood on the backs of giants. he stood on the back of pastor james david manning. he stood on the back of lt. col. terry lakin. he stood on the back of orly taitz. he stood on the back of phil berg and he became, uh, the flag-bearer, for the birth certificate and the constitutional eligibility bearers. when donald trump did that, he shoulda been willin' to die. and if he was threatened and he backed off, then he's no leader of mine.

so, if he, if he's in on it, he's total scum, he needs to be hung, until dead, from the nearest tree, and if he was threatened and he backed off, he's still scum, because he shoulda been willin' to die.

now many of you people will say, "well, it's easy for you to get behind a youtube camera and to play mr. tough guy." and i would agree with you. it's easy for people to get behind youtube cameras and to play mr. tough guy. uh, but i would just offer for your consideration: it's up to you to discern whether somebody's bein' truthful or not. and i would offer that pastor james david manning has been at this for three years and i know, just from my association with him and following him that pastor james david manning is willin' to die and i would feel a whole lot more comfortable with pastor james david manning being the flag-bearer for the constitutional eligibility issue and also the, uh, birther issue. i would feel much more comfortable with him in the driver's seat, rather than this corsi guy.

is, is corsi a good guy? is he willin' to die? uh, i hope he is, because that's what it's gonna take. has he wroten a book and prost — and uh, progressed the issue? yes, and i thank doc, uh, dr. jerome corsi. i thank him for that. right? but i ain't gonna bow down to him if he's not willin' to die.

uh, we got people that are being deployed by a, uh, leader and a, ah, leader and thief, right? a constitutionally ineligible president that is the head of our military. that's deployin' our military around and engaging them in activities, and he's not even constitutionally eligible to be president. and, and, and, when you go, uh, address somethin' like that, you better, you better have it fixed in your heart and you better know with 100 percent certainty that you're right and you better be willin' to lay your life down.

and if you're not willin' to lay your life down, then get the hell outta the way and let somebody step up to the plate who is willin' to do what it takes and to risk what it takes, and to put their life on the line to do what's right! that's what i gotta say about that!

and if jerome corsi, if he's gotta, if he's got the heart for it, and he's, he's, and he's willin' to fight the fight, then i applaud him and i thank him. but if he's gonna back down when they threaten him, or if they threaten his family, then i'm asking jerome corsi to get the hell outta the way! GET THE HELL! OUT! OF! THE WAY! AND LET SOMEBODY GET UP TO THE MICROPHONE THAT'S WILLIN' TO DIE! THAT'S WILLIN' TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT! THAT'S WILLIN' TO, UH, TO RISK ALL THEIR TREASURE! ALL OF THEIR LIFE! ALL OF THEIR FRIENDS! TO BE RIDICULED IN THE MEDIA AND TO TELL THE TRUTH! AND JEROME CORSI, IF YOU'RE THAT MAN, I WILL APPLAUD YOU AND I WILL THANK YOU! BUT IF YOU'RE NOT THAT MAN, GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY AND LET PASTOR JAMES DAVID MANNING UP TO THE PLATE! LET CMDR. KERCHNER UP TO THE PLATE! LET, LET, LET LT. COL. TERRY LAKIN UP TO THE PLATE! BECAUSE THESE MEN WILL RISK EVERYTHING THEY GOT! AND I HOPE JEROME CORSI IS THE MAN OF HEART AND OF COURAGE AND OF TRUTH! AND IF HE'S NOT, THEN I WILL SPIT ON HIM BECAUSE HE IS A PIECE OF SHIT!

that's all i gotta say about that! god bless every one of ya and my question, my question to jerome corsi is: are you willin' ta die?

---

[1] ok, like most folks, i may have said as much, to someone, somewhere ... somewhat often.

domino theory

kobayashi morituri

the rest of task force 141 brought in the ACS, allen. two men took down an entire base. i ask much more from you now. yesterday you were a soldier on the front lines, but today, front lines are history. uniforms are relics. the war rages everywhere and there will be casualties. this man makarov is fighting his own war and he has no rules, no boundaries. he doesn't flinch at torture, human trafficking or genocide. he's not loyal to a flag or country or any set of ideals. he trades blood for money. he's your new best friend. you don't wanna know what it's cost already to put you next to him. it will cost you a piece of yourself. it will cost nothing compared to everything you'll save.

that was your mission commander speaking. you're a covert cia operative inserted into a freelance russian terror group.

their plan: kill everyone in a busy moscow airport during broad daylight.

your mission?

for some reason, you're never actually told.

and that's the set-up to the graphic and controversial airport massacre scene in infinity ward's latest first-person shooter call of duty: modern warfare 2.

*** warning: spoiler alert ***

the faint of heart have the option of skipping this mission. those who choose to participate have only two options: to idly watch or to shoot. you may shoot bystanders or you may shoot your teammates.

either way, the scene ends the same. you die.

star trek fans will be reminded of the kobayashi maru scenario:

the infamous starfleet academy test challenges the cadet to rescue a defenseless ship under enemy attack. however, despite the superficial similarities, the airport massacre is no kobayashi.

that's because your mission is not to save innocent lives and/or to stop the terrorists. you're not there to learn how to conquer fear in a no-win situation. you're not there to stare down death and go out a hero.

your mission is to die, so that your corpse can trigger the next world war.

according to the game's story arc, each of the characters you inhabit is only the unwitting pawn of your mission commander, who is ultimately exposed as a traitor. at the end of the airport massacre, the terrorists leave your corpse as evidence of american treachery, which provokes the new ultranationalist government to launch a massive surprise invasion of the U.S.

so the airport scene was made a no-win situation not as a character-building exercise. it's no-win because the game simply can't move forward without it, even if you are allowed to skip it. and unless you enjoy the methodical, withering, loud and joyless mowing of screaming civilians, you might want to.

life is cheap

... and after the bankrupt ruin of the invasion of iraq, so are neocons.

fred kagan, brainchild of george bush's "surge strategy" escalation gamble, on iraqi indifference:

... the interesting thing is that when we were fighting those battles and doing that damage, on the whole the iraqis were not bitching about collateral damage. you had nothing like the degree of upset about how many civilians were being injured and how much damage was being done to the infrastructure in iraq at a much higher level of destruction than you have in afghanistan at a much lower level of destruction. i think there's a cultural reason for that: afghans don't fight in their cities. iraqis do. for good or ill, iraqis expect to fight in their cities. that's where the insurgents dug in, saddam hussein planned to dig in to the cities or lure us into an urban fight. it's sort of understood that the battlefield is going to be there, that doesn't mean that they don't complain about it, that doesn't mean that it's not a problem, but it does mean that when the insurgents dig in and we root them out, the iraqis don't on the whole say "darn it, you shouldn't have blown up all of our houses." they sort of accept that. afghans do not.

shorter kagan:

the oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does the westerner. life is cheap in the orient. — general william westmoreland, “hearts and minds” (1974)

... which is why we shouldn’t feel bad about killin’ lots 'n' lots of ‘em, amirite, freddy boy?

fireworks guaranteed

britain's times online gives the onion a run for its money:

'disneyland' comes to baghdad with multi-million pound entertainment park ... mr [llewellyn] werner, chairman of c3, a los angeles-based holding company for private equity firms, is pouring millions of dollars into developing the baghdad zoo and entertainment experience, a massive american-style amusement park that will feature a skateboard park, rides, a concert theatre and a museum. it is being designed by the firm that developed disneyland. "the people need this kind of positive influence. it’s going to have a huge psychological impact," mr werner said. the 50-acre (20 hectare) swath of land sits adjacent to the green zone and encompasses baghdad’s existing zoo, which was looted, left without power and abandoned after the american-led invasion in 2003. only 35 of 700 animals survived — some starved, some were stolen and some were killed by iraqis fearing food shortages. ... mr werner, who has been sold a 50-year lease on the site by the mayor of baghdad for an undisclosed sum, says that the time is ripe for the amusement park. "i think people will embrace it. they’ll see it as an opportunity for their children regardless if they’re shia or sunni. they’ll say their kids deserve a place to play and they’ll leave it alone."

indeed, in baghdad, what better time?

round-up of daily violence — monday 21 april 2008 around 8 am, three ieds planted in three cars targeted employees of the cabinet office. the first one was in dora and the employee was driving his own car the bmw when it exploded and he was injured in that incident. the second one targeted another employee who was injured as he was driving his hyundai car with another passenger who was sitting by him. the third one targeted a female employee’s car at alawi neighborhood. she was injured in that incident. around 10 am, two roadside bombs targeted two cars near the red crescent in mansour neighborhood. no casualties reported. around 11 am, random clashes took place at rubayee street of zayuna (east baghdad). six people were killed including a woman in that incident. around 3:20 pm, mortars hit the green zone (iz) in central baghdad. no casualties reported. around 4 pm, a roadside bomb targeted a kia mini bus near the oil marketing headquarter at zayuna neighborhood (east baghdad). one person was killed and five others were injured in that incident. around 4 pm, a mortar shell hit mashtal neighborhood (east baghdad). two people were injured in that incident. around 4 pm, clashes took place at mashtal neighborhood (east baghdad) between the iraqi army and the mahdi army. five people were injured in that clashes. around 6 and 6:30 pm, two katyusha missiles hit the supreme council headquarters. no casualties reported. around 6:10 pm, a katyusha missile hit the salhiyah compound (central baghdad). no casualties recorded, but some cars were damaged in that incident. police found 4 dead bodies in baghdad today: (3) were found in east baghdad (risafa bank); 1 was in zayuna, 1 was in husseiniyah and 1 was in mashtal. while (1) was found in dora.

baghdad green zone blasted under cover of storm militants bombarded baghdad's green zone with rockets on sunday, taking advantage of the cover of a blinding dust storm to launch one of the heaviest strikes in weeks on the fortified compound. ... iraqi police said eight missiles or mortars had hit the green zone and another 14 fell in other parts of the iraqi capital before nightfall in several quick bursts, killing two people and wounding 20. ... several more missiles were fired late on sunday evening but it was unclear if there were any casualties. militiamen have fired 700 missiles and mortars over the past month in baghdad, but u.s. forces had said they believed they had reduced the fighters' ability to strike the green zone by occupying the part of the sadr city slum closest to it. u.s. forces normally respond rapidly to missile firings with helicopter strikes, but those are impossible in dust storms.

quality of life indicators, april 20 2008 iraqi unemployment rate 27% to 60% where curfew not in effect consumer price inflation in 2006 50% iraqi children suffering from chronic malnutrition 28% in june 2007 percent of professionals who have left iraq since 2003 40% iraqi physicians before 2003 invasion 34,000 iraqi physicians who have left iraq since 2005 invasion 12,000 iraqi physicians murdered since 2003 invasion 2,000 pre-war daily hours baghdad homes have electricity 16 to 24 hrs average daily hours baghdad homes have electricity 5.6 hrs in may 2007 average daily hours iraqi homes have electricity 1 to 2 hrs number of iraqi homes connected to sewer systems 37% iraqis without access to adequate water supplies 70%

quote of the day

born-again democrat john cole @ balloon juice:

my iraq war retrospective i see that andrew sullivan was asked to list what he got wrong about iraq for the five year anniversary of the invasion, and since i was as big a war booster as anyone, i thought i would list what i got wrong: everything. and i don’t say that to provide people with an easy way to beat up on me, but i do sort of have to face facts. i was wrong about everything. i was wrong about the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. i was wrong about iraq possessing wmd. i was wrong about scott ritter and the inspections. i was wrong about the un involvement in weapons inspections. i was wrong about the containment sanctions. i was wrong about the broader impact of the war on the middle east. i was wrong about this making us more safe. i was wrong about the number of troops needed to stabilize iraq. i was wrong when i stated this administration had a clear plan for the aftermath. i was wrong about securing the ammunition dumps. i was wrong about the ease of bringing democracy to the middle east. i was wrong about dissolving the iraqi army. i was wrong about the looting being unimportant. i was wrong that bush/cheney were competent. i was wrong that we would be greeted as liberators. i was wrong to make fun of the anti-war protestors. i was wrong not to trust the dirty smelly hippies. i mean, i could go down the list and continue on, but you get the point. i was wrong about EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. THING. it is amazing i could tie my shoes in 2001-2004. if you took all the wrongness i generated, put it together and compacted it and processed it, there would be enough concentrated stupid to fuel three hundred years of weekly standard journals. i am not sure how i snapped out of it, but i think abu ghraib and the negative impact of the insurgency did sober me up a bit. war should always be an absolute last resort, not just another option. i will never make the same mistakes again.

turnips in the morning

it's what's for breakfast every day in iraq: today so far, six bodies turned up in baghdad, eight turned up in mosul, one turned up in kirkuk ...

(photo courtesy of InvisibleParadigm)

aye, there's the rub

stephen colbert picks apart ben nelson, the last man standing of the democratic senators who still support the war in iraq:

colbert:	how, uh — how would you change the game plan in iraq?
nelson:	what we would do is transition the mission. ah, and that would include taking the combat troops out of fighting the civil war — or the sectarian violence, as you choose — ah, and redeploy them into certain areas. fighting al qaeda is one of them, in al anbar and all over. i think we have al qaeda on the run ...
colbert:	so you wouldn't withdraw them? ... so you wouldn't, wouldn't withdraw them?
nelson:	... wouldn't be withdrawing —
colbert:	why wouldn't you withdraw them?
nelson:	— them. we wouldn't, wouldn't withdraw ... we wouldn't try to micromange the war. you would just change the mission. you'd also, ah, redeploy the troops to the, ah, to the borders, to protect the borders in case ...
colbert:	but what if the president doesn't want to do that?
nelson:	well ... that's the problem. the president doesn't want to do that.

hmm ... yes, that would be a bit of problem, now wouldn't it, ben?

without overlooking the illogic in ...

(a) nelson's cutely-alliterative "transition the mission" game plan, which sounds less like a strategy for victory than another attempt to find busywork for keeping the overstretched troops in iraq and

(b) his argument against withdrawal, which he frames as "micromanaging the war" (while eloquently borrowing one of the republicans' favorite talking points). but wouldn't withdrawal unequivocably end our involvement in the quagmire, thereby leaving us nothing to "micromanage" ... ? doh!

... i want to applaud this comedian for confronting nelson with the grand conceit afflicting all the armchair generals who think they have the grand strategy for iraq (even if they do).

and that grand conceit is this: that their plans mean squat if the commander-guy isn't going to implement them. so what's the point of supporting this war one day longer if it's never going to be waged in the way that you think will win it?

i've been carping on this point for a while:

unfortunately (and i do say this with the utmost respect to all those who have been applying the necessary brain-power and wisdom that's been heretofore lacking in this debate) all these plans represent nothing more than idle academic masturbation. they're all quite pointless. and that's why you'll find no trademarked and patented "aarrgghh plan" on this site. because unless the first step in your grand strategy reads:

my grand strategy for iraq by carping know-it-all 1) remove george bush and dick cheney from office.

... then your plan is nothing but toilet paper. because unless you're willing to let events continue to spiral for at least another two years, george bush will give your precious plan all the due consideration he gave to the over-anticipated iraq study group report — that is, as steve gilliard remarked, he'll "wipe his ass" with it. which leaves us with only one plan — the only one that matters — the kagan plan, more fondly known as "the surge" ...

it's a point that i've been taking to other blogs:

probably the biggest conceit of those cheerleading the "surge", whatever their particular reasons, is the illusion that getting one more bite of the apple means that the occupation will be finally getting it right this time, whatever that ultimately means. the surge, they insist, will work as long as [fill in your personal cure-all here ], and as long as we give it time. the reality of course is that the surge cheerleaders are not in charge. they're not going to get the chance to run the type of surge they think will finally produce that pony. the folks in charge are the same criminals, starting with the commander-guy, responsible for the mess-o'-potamia, and they really don't care what anyone else thinks. and they certainly won't be applying [ your personal cure-all ] to the problem. it's been oft said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, but the real insanity of supporting this escalation is expecting the same idiots, with such a record of failure, to do anything different. nothing will change as long as they are in charge. which means either another year and a half before even preparing for withdrawal — or impeachment now.

unfortunately, as long as fantasists like nelson remain in congress, this will be a point i'll have to keep jabbing in people's eyes for the foreseeable future. at least somebody with a megaphone is finally helping out.

it's not easy being green

... in fact, it "sucks big time."

(image © will sherman)

juan cole: on tuesday, guerrillas launched some 20 katyusha rockets and mortar shells into the green zone in downtown baghdad, killing 3 persons, including a us soldier, and wounding 25 persons. the green zone was originally supposed to be the safe place in iraq, with the area outside it (everything else) called the "red zone." the us embassy in baghdad appears to have forgotten what the phrase "green zone" means, since a spokesman there told [the la times], "there's fire into the green zone virtually every day, so i can't draw any conclusions about the security situation based on that ..." let me draw the conclusion. if you've got fire into the friggin' green zone every day, then we can draw the conclusion that the security situation in baghdad sucks big time. when you've got people killed and a large number of people wounded in the one place in iraq that was supposed to have a "permissive" security environment, then security in general is the pits. now you might say that we can't draw many conclusions from the events of a single day. and, being able to lob mortar shells over a wall doesn't speak to that much organization. but then what about these two nuggets in [the la times] story? 1) there were about 39 attacks [on the green zone] in may, compared with 17 in march, according to a u.n. report. 2) tuesday's attack came the same day gunmen kidnapped iraqi police col. mahmoud muhyi hussein, who directs security inside the green zone ... in other words, the security situation in the green zone is spiralling down at an alarming pace, and the guerrillas have such good inside knowledge that they can kidnap the very person responsible for security in it, as he drives in jadiriya. that, my friends, is an inside job. and such an inside job doesn't bode well for future security in the green zone. for one thing, presumably they are "debriefing" col. hussein as we speak, looking for weak points. people i know and respect are in the green zone, so i'm pretty distressed by this situation, and not amused by the embassy spokesman's attempt to blow smoke up our posteriors. this looks bad.

mission creep

for those of you who haven't been paying attention, jim henley @ unqualified offerings has been keeping score:

defining catastrophe up a rhetorical change i'm noticing since the isg [iraq study group] report came out is that we have to stay in iraq "to prevent a wider regional war," aka "the new thirty years' war" and so on. that suggests that our mission is no longer preventing "full-blown civil war," which used to be what we had to prevent, or "increased sectarian strife," which is what we had to prevent before that, or "increasing insurgent violence" which is what we had to prevent before that. the pattern has always been: declare that we must stay in iraq to prevent some bad thing from happening. bad thing happens anyway. declare that we must stay in iraq to prevent some worse thing from happening. worse thing happens anyway. reiterate sequence. at no point does the "sensible center" consider that the previous failures implicate our ability to fulfill the new mission, which is always paradoxically grander in scale while being a retreat from previous ambitions.

henley did leave out a crucial step, however, one that the administration has never missed — signaling its utmost importance — the step that falls between the last bad thing happening and the next declaration of commitment:

• launch a grandiose speaking tour to roll out our minty fresh new war slogan!

a special holiday rebroadcast

beyond the fact that my non-blogging duties have reduced my output to a minimum during the last two months, it's actually getting harder to come up with original material, given that so many events have evolved so predictably over the still-short lifespan of this blog. (though not predictably enough for the mainstream press.)

i've never been particularly fond of listening to myself repeat myself, but given the denouments of this month, the midterm elections and the violence in iraq, i thought it was safe to indulge in a few classic reruns, with only the mildest hint of schaudenfreude.

regarding the midterms, i present first this graphic from my march post "karl rove: super-genius":

is there really anything more that needs be said?

---

also from march, i present "cry uncle", my death knell for the republican majority:

so much for the radical conservative plan for a permanent republican majority. it doesn't appear to have had any more staying power than the "thousand-year" reich. i guess a taste of absolute power — or as much as could be had within our system — over both the government and the media will do that to a movement as morally bankrupt as this one proved to be. if i could isolate the hamartia, the single critical flaw responsible for the downfall of the conservative agenda i would point to its rampant cronyism. cronyism is of course nothing unique to this administration, nor is it inherently evil; it is quite natural for people to want to extend their largess to those whom they like, a characteristic that makes cronyism impossible to eradicate. cronyism is typically harmless when its beneficiaries are rewarded with positions that exist in title only, even if those positions do contribute to administrative bloat. but tangible harm looms when qualified people are prevented from assuming or are forced out of positions where their expertise is mandated. people like former treasury secretary paul o'neill, who disagreed with bush on his tax cuts. people like former counter-terrorism advisor richard clarke, who disagreed with bush on the threat of al quaeda. people like retired generals anthony zinni and eric shinseki, who disagreed with bush on invading iraq. cronyism breeds incompetence when it elevates unqualified and untalented people into positions of importance and influence. people like former nasa press director george deutsch, who attempted to turn the science agency into a propaganda organ. people like former fema director michael brown, whose incompetence in the face of hurricane katrina delivered fatal consequences. people like president george walker bush, who of course needs no further introduction. the bush administration is a potemkin government: by virtue of their elevation of politics over policy and appearance over substance, they eventually and inevitably reveal themselves to be completely inept in every instance where actual governance is required. disaster follows them like a love-sick dog. it is actually quite amazing the speed with which the hard-line conservatives have burned through their so-called "capital". after forty years in the wilderness, they blew their gains in just ten years. so it looks like it's back to the desert for this sorry crew. the lesson has become painfully obvious to all, even to the members of a party so practiced in the art of denial: time.com: former speaker of the house newt gingrich, who masterminded the 1994 elections that brought republicans to power on promises of revolutionizing the way washington is run, told time that his party has so bungled the job of governing that the best campaign slogan for democrats today could be boiled down to just two words: "had enough?"

---

lastly, regarding iraq, i present, in condensed form, another march post, "can't stand up for standing down", an examination of bush's "strategy for victory in iraq":

while efforts to recruit and train iraqis into a competent, independent and professional fighting force have been purportedly ongoing, with halting progress, since the overthrow of saddam hussein, at the end of last november the president officially declared these efforts to be one of the linchpins of his exit strategy, during his "strategy for victory in iraq" tour, a series of speeches aimed at once again shoring up his dying support among increasingly skeptical americans... his strategy has been compared to "vietnamization", nixon's handing over of military operations to the south vietnamese army — a comparison the administration understandably has ignored, not wanting to evoke unsettling images of the fall of saigon. ... meanwhile, either because of or in spite of the explosion of full-blown chaos after the bombing of golden dome, the newly-elected iraqi government remains stillborn amid intense sectarian disagreements, among them ibrahim jaafari's re-nomination to prime minister. it seems incapable of forming a "unity" government ... and the non-"civil war" rages on unabated with its clearly ethnic bombings, reprisals and executions, with the continuing participation of iraq's security forces ... can "iraqization" succeed under these conditions? not bloody likely. in at least one crucial aspect it is a very different process from "vietnamization". the government of south vietnam, corrupt and unpopular as it was, was not wracked to the core by sectarianism. the south vietnamese government could reasonably count on the loyalty of its troops, if not their strength. there has been almost no reportage whatsoever on the issue of troop loyalties. to me it seems to be one of the elephants in the room regarding bush's exit strategery. in order for "iraqization" to succeed, first, the mutually antagonistic elements of the duly elected iraqi government must come together as one and begin governing. until then it is a government in name only. second, the mutually antagonistic elements of the iraqi military and police forces will have to put loyalty to the government and its laws above loyalty to their particular family, tribe and imam. unfortunately, i don't see that happening with the current generation, certainly not while ethic violence continues in a self-consuming orgy. loyalty to the government cannot be taught in eight weeks of boot camp. what the bush administration calls "standing up", i call building american-trained and american-armed death squads. if american troops are going home anytime soon, it won't be because the iraqi army is ready to "stand up". (image courtesy of get your war on.)

time to shit

as reported in my post "has it been six months yet?", tom friedman has a problem with deadlines. but matthew yglesias, who's currently playing guest host in josh marshall's stead at talking points memo, reports that he's not the only one dithering:

yglesias: beyond poking fun at people, there's a serious issue here. voters are upset about how things are going in iraq. so democrats want to criticize the bush iraq policy. this means they must agree that things are going very badly in iraq. but the consultant class along with various others has determined that calling for withdrawal is a losing strategy. consequently, democrats find themselves arguing that iraq is perpetually on the brink of total disaster as a result of bush's policies, but never, ever, ever actually goes over the tipping point of becoming the sort of lost cause where the main american goal has to be cutting our losses.

i think an important distinction needs to be made between those like friedman who insist that we're always six months away from the crucial deciding factor for staying or withdrawing from iraq, and those insisting that iraq is always on the brink of disaster. while it's certainly possible that a situation can teeter precariously for an indefinite period, it's certainly not practical to allow a period for making a crucial decision to remain open indefinitely. the first concerns conditions that may be outside one's control, but the second is about conditions when one actually takes control.

so those who continue to claim that iraq is at the tipping point could still be right (although i personally don't believe so; i believe civil war began last year); but friedman proved himself wrong years ago. either iraq has hit his magic milestone, obligating us to stay, or iraq hasn't, obliging us to leave, but to continue to move the goalposts and insist that it's not yet time to make a decision is to indulge in a most disingenuous and deadly game of procrastination.

friedman's six months has expired five times already. so, to paraphrase nixon, it's time for everyone to shit or get off the pot.

groundhog day

yes, america, you can stop pinching yourself, this, unfortunately, is not a bad dream. as you know — to paraphrase secretary of defense donald rumsfeld — you get to relive the past you have, not the past you might want or wish to have at a later time.

april 11, 2003: rumsfeld addressing the press regarding the growing alarm over the continuing violence in iraq:

i picked up a newspaper today ... and i couldn't believe it. i read eight headlines that talked about "chaos!" "violence!" "unrest!" and it was just henny penny, "the sky is falling!" i've never seen anything like it ...

those pesky newspapers — just a bunch of noisy old ladies. chaos? violence? unrest? puh-leez!

and we all know how that so-called chaos, violence and unrest never materialized, don't we?

now fast forward three years later to the very same day ...

april 11, 2006: rumsfeld addressing the press regarding the growing alarm over a preemptive nuclear strike against iran:

you know, someone comes up with an idea ... runs it in a magazine or a paper, other papers pick it up and reprint it, editorialists then say: "oh, henny penny, the sky is falling!" and opine on this and opine on that ...

those pesky newspapers ...

i just can't wait for april 11, 2009. assuming we're all still here, of course.

hat tip to crooks and liars; video courtesy of jon stewart's the daily show.

can't stand up for standing down

while efforts to recruit and train iraqis into a competent, independent and professional fighting force have been purportedly ongoing, with halting progress, since the overthrow of saddam hussein, at the end of last november the president officially declared these efforts to be one of the linchpins of his exit strategy, during his "strategy for victory in iraq" tour, a series of speeches aimed at once again shoring up his dying support among increasingly skeptical americans:

as the iraqi security forces stand up, their confidence is growing. and they're taking on tougher and more important missions on their own. as the iraqi security forces stand up, the confidence of the iraqi people is growing, and iraqis are providing the vital intelligence needed to track down the terrorists. and as the iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down. and when our mission of defeating the terrorists in iraq is complete, our troops will return home to a proud nation. — president bush, annapolis naval academy, november 30

his strategy has been compared to "vietnamization", nixon's handing over of military operations to the south vietnamese army — a comparison the administration understandably has ignored, not wanting to evoke unsettling images of the fall of saigon.

the exact number of trained and ready iraqis once again became controversial in february when the only battalion — comprising 700 to 800 men — with a "level one" rating, meaning that it should be able to fight on its own, was downgraded by the pentagon to "level two", meaning that it requires support from coalition forces. "level three" battalions must be chaperoned by coalition forces.

in october the pentagon raised the number of iraqi battalions at level two to 53 from 36. 45 battalions are at level three. almost 100 iraqi army battalions are considered operational, and more than 100 iraqi security force battalions — those "under the direction of the iraqi government" — are operational at levels two or three. according to this accounting then, there are between 68,600 and 78,400 iraqis under the coalition's wing and at least 70,000 or more than 80,000 iraqis available to the iraqi government. (one question: those iraqi security force battalions at level three, therefore requiring a chaperone, are they under the command of the government or the coalition? my bets are on the coalition.)

meanwhile, either because of or in spite of the explosion of full-blown chaos after the bombing of golden dome, the newly-elected iraqi government remains stillborn amid intense sectarian disagreements, among them ibrahim jaafari's re-nomination to prime minister. it seems incapable of forming a "unity" government:

ap: leaders offered a myriad of reasons for the delay in forming a government, and their reasoning often reflected their religious or ethnic loyalties. shiite leaders accused american officials of interfering too much, saying the americans want to give sunnis more power than they earned in the election. sunnis charged that the other parties are not committed to a national unity government and are unwilling to share power.

beyond the simple act of opening parliament, the government is long overdue to perform any of its mandated duties, the very first being the naming of the speaker of the house:

juan cole: the iraqi parliament opened on thursday [march 16], and the 275 members took their oath of office, administered in the absence of an elected speaker of the house (on whom parliament could not decide) by senior statesman adnan pachachi (on the grounds that he is the oldest mp). some of the members objected to the form of the oath administered by the chief justice, on the grounds that it differed from the text that had been distributed beforehand, and some said it the way it had been written (-al-sharq al-awsat). the autnorities [sic] decided to let that pass. pachachi attempted to make a speech from the floor, lamenting the recent sectarian violence, but was interrupted by shiite cleric abdul aziz al-hakim, who said it was inappropriate for pachachi to do more than swear in the members of parliament.

and the non-"civil war" rages on unabated with its clearly ethnic bombings, reprisals and executions, with the continuing participation of iraq's security forces:

ap: also since the start of march, gunmen — mostly masked, many wearing police uniforms — have stormed at least six baghdad businesses. on wednesday, eight people were killed at the al-ibtikar trading company when they were lined up against a wall and shot, and six others were wounded. at least 90 workers have been kidnapped and tens of thousands of dollars stolen in the five other assaults.

can "iraqization" succeed under these conditions? not bloody likely. in at least one crucial aspect it is a very different process from "vietnamization". the government of south vietnam, corrupt and unpopular as it was, was not wracked to the core by sectarianism. the south vietnamese government could reasonably count on the loyalty of its troops, if not their strength.

there has been almost no reportage whatsoever on the issue of troop loyalties. to me it seems to be one of the elephants in the room regarding bush's exit strategery.

in order for "iraqization" to succeed, first, the mutually antagonistic elements of the duly elected iraqi government must come together as one and begin governing. until then it is a government in name only. second, the mutually antagonistic elements of the iraqi military and police forces will have to put loyalty to the government and its laws above loyalty to their particular family, tribe and imam. unfortunately, i don't see that happening with the current generation, certainly not while ethic violence continues in a self-consuming orgy. loyalty to the government cannot be taught in eight weeks of boot camp. what the bush administration calls "standing up", i call building american-trained and american-armed death squads.

if american troops are going home anytime soon, it won't be because the iraqi army is ready to "stand up".

(image courtesy of get your war on.)

changing the storyline

abc news washington correspondent jake tapper discussing charges of media bias in the persistently bleak coverage of iraq with howard kurtz, host of cnn reliable sources, march 19 2006:

kurtz: jake tapper, in this morning's washington post, donald rumsfeld, the defense secretary, has an op-ed pieces which says, in part, "history is not made up of daily headlines, blogs on web sites, or the latest sensational attack. history is a bigger picture." now, since you are just back from iraq, do you believe the journalists provided a distorted picture, or did it seem different to you when you got there than you might have expected? tapper: it's a very complicated question, obviously. what journalists, when, who, what are you talking about specifically? i think that there is a lot of violence still in iraq, and i think that if you listen to commanders on the ground and if you go to iraq, you'll see that that security situation is an incredibly important one. and as much as the pentagon may not want to talk about it or may want to talk about the positive, the parliament and the elections and the things that are being achieved, which are tangible achievements, the violence makes it very difficult to get past, you know, the daily boom. let me just — one quick story. we wanted to do a story about the freedom of the press in iraq, and we went to the set of a new iraqi sitcom that they're filming, because there's been — there's all this entertainment now, and it's one of the things that the ambassador there has trumpeted. kurtz: so what happened? tapper: we got there, and the guy who had set it up with us — we shot — we shot for a little while, and the guy who had helped us arrange it was assassinated the very morning while we were there on the set. and so our cameras were rolling while the director and the producer and the cast and crew found out that the guy that had green-lit the show and the guy that had set up our being there was killed. so no matter how hard we try to cover the positive, the violence has a way of rearing its head. kurtz: talk about changing your storyline.

why are we still there?

(cross-posted at daily kos)

iraq: dateline, february 2006.

insurgents. jihadists. militias. suicide bombers. death squads.

at least 30,000 and up to 100,000 or even more dead; many tortured, executed. over 40,000 injured. perhaps 1,000 more each month.

in the midst of this abbatoir: a 20-something, over-extended guardsman from anytown u.s.a. who doesn't speak the language, doesn't look like the locals. her assigned task: "security". what can she secure? according to respected middle-east scholar juan cole, not much, not even her own safety:

"sunni arabs in iraq blamed us troops for not protecting sunni mosques and worshippers from violence. the us military ordered the us soldiers in baghdad to stay in their barracks and not to circulate if it could be helped. (later reports said some us patrols has been stepped up.) this situation underlines how useless the american ground forces are in iraq. they can't stop the guerrilla war and may be making it worst [sic]. last i knew, there were 10,000 us troops in anbar province with a population of 1.1 million. what could you do with that small force, when the vast majority of the people support the guerrillas? us troops would be useless if they hcad [sic] to fight in alleyways against sectarian rioters. if they tried to guard the sunni mosques, they'd have to shoot into shiite mobs, which would just raise the level of violence they face from shiites in the south."

it seems crystal clear that u.s. forces have been reduced to serving only one function in iraq: target practice. the majority of iraqis feel that attacks on u.s. troops are justified. with reconstruction effectively halted, and no further funds forthcoming, guess who bears the brunt of civilian frustration? as long as u.s. troops stay in iraq, they remain too convenient as scapegoats for everything there that continues to go wrong:

"on saturday, al-sadr's movement joined sunni clerics in agreeing to prohibit killing members of the two sects and banning attacks on each other's mosques. the clerics issued a statement blaming "the occupiers," meaning the americans and their coalition partners, for stirring up sectarian unrest." (AP)

having successfully alienated all the rival factions, the u.s. no longer can find any meaningful candidate to partner with. cooperation with the u.s. has become the literal kiss of death in iraq, delegitimizing and rendering impotent any iraqi that might still wish to help implement any american plan for recovery.

there have been many calls, out of feelings of both guilt and pride, to, in so many words, clean up the mess that iraq has become. such calls, even if somewhat narcissistic, might be lauded for their acceptance of our ultimate responsibility. others call for us not to allow iraq's oil infrastructure to become incapacitated or be altogether destroyed. such calls are compelling for their sobering practicality. still other calls demand that we keep the conflict from engulfing the entire region, for the sake of stability and security. but our guilt, pride, practicality, stability and security cannot be helped by staying in iraq if in fact our presence has no positive influence whatsoever.

withdrawal from iraq removes both a focus for much iraqi anger and an easy excuse for iraqi dysfunction. most importantly, withdrawal will save lives that can be saved. the time for withdrawal is long overdue.