finally, someone grew some stones

oh wait — he isn't one of ours ... ?

hat tip to crooks and liars.

the speaker: order. order. the honorable leader of the opposition? opposition leader kevin rudd: thank you, mr. speaker. i seek leave to move the following motion: this house censures the prime minister — [scattered boos] rudd: — for his statement that al-qaeda is praying — the speaker: order! order! rudd: — for a democratic party candidate to win the next united states presidential election. two: his false statements today in parliament that his statement yesterday was restricted to one u.s. senator, and not the democratic party as a whole. three: the damage that this partisan comment has done to the united states-australia alliance and to australia's relationships with both american democratic and republican members of congress and four: the gross insensitivity in lecturing united states presidential candidates on iraq, when the war in iraq is responsible for the deaths more than 3,000 u.s. servicemen and -women, the wounding of 20,000, and expenditures exceeding 360 billion, and finally demands that the prime minister unreservedly withdraws this remark. the speaker: his leave granted. leave is granted. the honorable leader of the opposition: rudd: thank you, mr. speaker. how can the man who is prime minister of this country come into this parliament and say that he is a person of experience on the question of national security when within the last 24 hours he has made this statement, that when it comes to the operation of al-qaeda and its dealings in the world of international affairs today, that somehow al-qaeda is an organisation, a terrorist organisation that would prefer to see a democrat win the next presidential elections rather than any other representative of another political party? the prime minister today has inserted that in fact he was only making a reference to mr. obama, one of the us democratic party presidential candidates. it's important that we place this unequivocally on the record. yesterday the prime minister was asked this question, in relation to the obama plan: yes, i think he's wrong. i mean, he's a long way from being president of united states. i think he's wrong. i think that that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy iraq and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and to hope for obama victory. if i was running al-qaeda in iraq, i would put a circle around march 2008 and pray as many times as possible for a victory — not only for obama but also for the democrats. but also for the democrats. that is not an addition invented by the australian labor party. that's not an addition invented by anybody else. that was spoken yesterday — or would we dare say misspoken yesterday — by the prime minister of australia on a matter of great consequence — that is, the future of this country's relationship with the united states, particularly on the question of the future direction of iraq policy. to accuse the democratic party of the united states as being al-qaeda's party of choice, to accuse the democratic party as being the terrorists' party of choice — this is a most serious charge. to accuse the party of roosevelt, to accuse the party of truman, to accuse the party of kennedy and johnson of being the terrorists' party of choice. i cannot understand how any responsible leader of this country can say to the nation that it's his serious view that the democratic party of the united states is the terrorists' party of choice. but these are your words, prime minister. i did not invent them; they are yours. and in this parliament today we gave you every opportunity to say that you got it wrong — the speaker: order! order! the leader will refer his remarks through the chair. mr rudd: — we gave the prime minister every opportunity to say that it was wrong. it may have been that he got caught up in the flurry of the interview. it may have been that he didn't hear it clearly. it may have been that he didn't understand it clearly. i understand that these things can happen, but when you are given given not once, not twice but on three separate occasions in this place today an opportunity to say, "i got that wrong; i didn't mean that." and for him to pass each of those up i think says much about the partisan nature with which this prime minister now views the relationship with our great american ally. let us be absolutely clear about what is at stake here: not just an attack on a single u.s. senator, but an attack upon an entire political party. and here is where australia's national interest kicks in: this party, the democratic party, currently controls the majority in the united states house, it controls the majority in the united states senate, and within a year or so's time, may control the white house itself. and this is the party which this prime minister, in this country, and this parliament today, has reaffirmed he describes this party as the terrorists' party of choice. this is a serious matter. prime minister, could you imagine if i stood up in this parliament as the alternative prime minister and said to the people of australia that the terrorists would be advantaged if the republicans were to return to the white house at the next presidential election? ponder for a moment how that would be regarded. how would it be seized on by those opposite? [scattered assent] can you imagine the reaction from those opposite. if i stood at this dispatch box, if i appeared on national television and said that the republicans, if they won, would cause an eruption of joy on the part of al-qaeda and on the part of the terrorists? can you imagine the reaction from those opposite? [scattered assent] this is a grave mistake and i fear that it reflects a deep view on the part of the prime minister in turn to those with whom he may not share a view within the u.s. political system.

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.