Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

See if you can spot the stupidity:

Q But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?

THE PRESIDENT: I think so long — until they suspend and/or make it clear that they — that their statements aren’t real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it’s in the world’s interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian — if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

But this — we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we’ll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat. Plus we’ll continue working the financial measures that we’re in the process of doing. In other words, I think — the whole strategy is, is that at some point in time, leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, this isn’t worth it. And to me, it’s worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.

And secondly, it’s important for the Iranian people to know we harbor no resentment to them. We’re disappointed in the Iranian government’s actions, as should they be. Inflation is way too high; isolation is causing economic pain. This is a country that has got a much better future, people have got a much better — should have better hope inside Iran than this current government is providing them.

So it’s — look, it’s a complex issue, no question about it. But my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you, in the hopes that at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says it’s not worth the isolation.

Yes, ma’am.

I am so looking forward to the 2008 election.

Today the Democrats in the Senate, led by Joseph Lieberman, laid the groundwork for war with Iran. They passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution that will pave the way for war with Iran:

It is the sense of the Senate–

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

The vote was 76-22 in favor of this very dangerous resolution.

My senator, Jim Webb, voted against this resolution. He said of this resolution:

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good. … .. … We haven’t had one hearing on this. I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee, I’m on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war.

We have been on a long slide to war with Iran. Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker has been warning since last year that we are being led into another war. Today the Democratic Congress obliged. I wrote early last year:

I recall quipping to a friend a few weeks ago that I thought the way out of Iraq for this Administration was through Iran. What I meant at the time was that since this Administration had haplessly shifted the center of gravity of Iraqi politics to Iran, without Iran having to fire a shot, that the only way to exit out of Iraq with "credibility" was to attack Iran. Iran then becomes a continuation of a larger war "on terror" and it can then not be said that Iraq was lost since it will only become an unfinished chapter in a larger war.

It appears that the Iraq exit strategy is being implemented.

While America does gyrations over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s verbal fisticuffs at Columbia University, the Congress today took a significant step toward war with Iran. The sad part is this is not even major news on any of the mainstream media outlets.

This time no one can blame George W Bush. This war is owned by the Democrats.

United States officials in Baghdad were reported to be in possession of Iranian made weapons. In a brazen display of "intelligence", the Americans proudly showed off their Iranian-made weapons to reporters:

The BBC’s Jane Peel attended the briefing in Baghdad, at which all cameras and recording devices were banned.

Examples of the allegedly smuggled weapons were put on display, including EFPs, mortar shells and rocket propelled grenades which the US claims can be traced to Iran.

"The weapons had characteristics unique to being manufactured in Iran… Iran is the only country in the region that produces these weapons," an official said.

Someone call Michael Gordon.

At a briefing today in Baghdad, US officials accused Iran of arming al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Iraq:

The defense analyst said Iran was working through "multiple surrogates" — mainly "rogue elements" of the Shiite Mahdi Army — to smuggle the EFPs into Iraq. He said most of the components are entering the country at crossing points near Amarah, the Iranian border city of Meran and the Basra area of southern Iraq.

The US officials also neatly tied Iran into the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Kuwait and the trafficking in arms in Iraq:

Last week, U.S. officials said they were investigating allegations that Shiite lawmaker Jamal Jaafar Mohammed was a main conduit for Iranian weapons entering the country. Mohammed has believed to have fled to Iran.

The "evidence" against Iran and the Mahdi Army continues to pile up. But there is something fishy here.

The Bush Administration claims that Iranians caught in recent raids buttress clams of Iranian involvement. The targets of American ire appear to be Iran and the Mahdi Army. However, the Iranians were captured in Kurdish held Erbil and in Abdul Aziz al-Hakim’s compound in Baghdad. In both instances, the Iranians were working with American allies in Iraq - the Kurds and the SCIRI. In the Erbil case, Kurdish leaders protested the American operation and in the curious case of the raid on al-Hakim’s compound, pressure from SCIRI forced the US to release their prize.

Now we come to Mr. Jamal Jaafar Mohammed. Most reports of his involvement in the 1983 bombing gloss over his political affiliation. Mr. Mohammed was at the time of the bombing a member of SCIRI, the same group that is now an ally of Mr. Bush, and is currently a member of the Badr Organization, which is the current incarnation of the military wing of SCIRI:

An engineering graduate from Basra University in southern Iraq, he was active in the Shiite opposition to Saddam and was affiliated with the political and military wing of the Badr Brigade. He served as a top commander in the militia in the 1980s.

The brigade was organized and trained by the Iranians to fight against Iraq in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war and was led by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a key political figure here. Shiite officials say the Badr Brigade gave up its weapons and was transformed into a political movement after Saddam’s regime collapsed in 2003.

Mohammed ran for parliament on the Badr ticket. The organization is part of the Shiite alliance that also includes al-Maliki. Mohammed served as a political adviser to al-Maliki’s predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

I should also note that the attack on the American and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983 were conducted by the Dawa Party and the SCIRI, which are both now our allies in Iraq. The Dawa Party is also conveniently the party that helped set up Hezbollah in Lebanon:

There are at least five such groups here, known as Al Fajr, Jihad, Jundullah, Hizbullah and Harisullah.

According to Shiite political sources, they are linked with the Iraqi Shiite underground organization Ad Dawa, which has been working to set up Iranian-style Islamic republics in Iraq and other Persian Gulf countries.

It is possible, the analysts and diplomats said, that the pro-Iranian groups have abducted Americans to exchange them for the 22 Dawa members who have been tried and convicted in Kuwait for the bombing Dec. 12 of the American and French embassies.

The Bush Administration has indeed made a fine bed with terrorists in Iraq.

There is very little doubt that Iran is supporting the Shia factions and the Kurds in Iraq. However, the factions Iran is supporting are the same factions that the Bush Administration is supporting. The Shia faction that gets the least support from Iran, and that is ideologically the least aligned with Iran is the Mahdi Army. Yet, the Administration’s plan, as laid out in the Hadley memo, appears to be to isolate the Mahdi Army and empower the very factions, Dawa and SCIRI, that Iran has been helping.

The Bush Administration is spinning a story about Iran that is full of contradictions. The Bush Administration cannot claim to target Iran for arming the same groups that the United States itself is arming, without addressing its own behavior and alliances in Iraq. It has been clear from the start that the United States has put in power terrorists and thugs (Dawa and SCIRI) in Iraq. To support its drumbeat to war against Iran, it cannot now cry foul without addressing its own hypocrisy in Iraq. To the extent that they have both sponsored the same actors in Iraq, the Bush Administration and Iran have been allies.

So, when the Bush Administration claims that some Iranian arms have been found in the hands of Shia militia in Iraq, I am unimpressed. The United States has, over the last four years, armed the Shia militias to the teeth by equipping the SCIRI and Badr Brigade controlled Iraqi Interior Ministry. In the contest of arms shipments to Iraqi Shia militias, the United States wins the arms race hands down. Having armed, equipped and trained a party to a civil war, the Bush Administration has been the driving force of instability in Iraq. When the Bush Administration accuses Iran of fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq, it ignores the elephant in the room, that is, the United States.

Michael Gordon of the New York Times announces today that the "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is made by Iran". The pages of the Gray Lady once again beat the drums of war.

The "intelligence" is damning:

The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.

The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.

In interviews, civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies provided specific details to support what until now has been a more generally worded claim, in a new National Intelligence Estimate, that Iran is providing “lethal support” to Shiite militants in Iraq.

The focus of American concern is an “explosively formed penetrator,” a particularly deadly type of roadside bomb being used by Shiite groups in attacks on American troops in Iraq. Attacks using the device have doubled in the past year, and have prompted increasing concern among military officers. In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.

This is truly breathtaking "news". Iran is actively supplying weapons to Shia militias who are killing American soldiers. If there was ever a need for a casus belli to launch a strike against Iran, it appears one is in the making.

I am reminded of a similar headline in the New York Times on September 8, 2002. That particular headline read "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest For A-Bomb Parts" and offered up the following:

In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped.

The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq’s nuclear program, officials said, and that the latest attempt to ship the material had taken place in recent months.

It was the aluminum tubes that were a sure sign that Iraq was on the verge of going nuclear. It was better to attack Iraq first before a mushroom cloud appeared above an American city.

To emphasize the Iraqi threat, the article also offered up the chemical weapon scare, brought to us by Mr. Bush’s death squad leader White House guest:

Iraq’s nuclear program is not Washington’s only concern. An Iraqi defector said Mr. Hussein had also heightened his efforts to develop new types of chemical weapons. An Iraqi opposition leader also gave American officials a paper from Iranian intelligence indicating that Mr. Hussein has authorized regional commanders to use chemical and biological weapons to put down any Shiite Muslim resistance that might occur if the United States attacks.

The paper, which is being analyzed by American officials, was provided by Abdalaziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, an Iran-based group, during his recent visit with other Iraqi opposition leaders in Washington. [Emphasis added by me.]

The Bush Administration took the claims in the New York Times article and spun their false case for war with Iraq. The article was written by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon. That was then.

This is now. While Judith Miller has been much maligned, Michael Gordon has kept his credibility intact. Now that Ms. Miller has left the Gray Lady, Michael Gordon is left to carry the water for the Administration as it builds a fresh case for war against Iran.

Recently Michael Gordon let us know how he really feels on the Charlie Rose Show:

On Sunday, Calame dealt with a similar issue after Michael Gordon, the paper’s longtime chief military correspondent, spoke on the Charlie Rose show about the Iraq war. The offending incident occurred when Gordon said on the show that "I think, just as a purely personal view…the gap between the rhetoric of having a so-called strategy for victory, and then the reality of what’s going on in Iraq. And I’ve always felt that people in Washington were talking about a strategy for victory, but we actually never marshaled the resources and didn’t work effectively enough in Iraq to accomplish this.

"So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it’s worth it one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we’ve never really tried to win. We’ve simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it’s done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something." [Emphasis added by me.]

Clearly, a little extra effort will get us "victory" in Iraq and maybe a war with Iran.

But what do we make of the claim that Iran is supplying Shia militias with IEDs that are killing our soldiers? An astute reader might point out that up until now the reporting has been that IEDs were the weapon of choice for the Sunni insurgents and not Shia militias - that up until now we have been told that it was the Sunni insurgents that were killing American soldiers. If we are to believe Mr. Gordon, it is now Shia militias that are blowing up American soldiers with IEDs. An astute reader might question such a claim as somewhat incredible. An astute reader would be right.

It should, however, not surprise anyone that when building a case for war, small inconveniences such as facts should not get in the way. So, Michael Gordon, I say to you, carry that water - we know its heavy, but you know you can do it.

The Bush Administration is spiraling down into a major conflagration in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. To some extent, it is traveling on auto pilot. Left to its own momentum of inaction and massive overreaction, this Administration will almost certainly embark on a war with Iran.

It has been on this course for a long time.

Last Spring when Seymour Hersh first stirred up the pot, I wrote the following:

I recall quipping to a friend a few weeks ago that I thought the way out of Iraq for this Administration was through Iran. What I meant at the time was that since this Administration had haplessly shifted the center of gravity of Iraqi politics to Iran, without Iran having to fire a shot, that the only way to exit out of Iraq with "credibility" was to attack Iran. Iran then becomes a continuation of a larger war "on terror" and it can then not be said that Iraq was lost since it will only become an unfinished chapter in a larger war.

It is now becoming apparent that the way out of Iraq, for this Administration, is indeed through Iran.

The eternally confused cheerleader of the Iraq invasion, Kenneth Pollack, was quoted in the New York Times stating the obvious:

“The administration does have Iran on the brain, and I think they are exaggerating the amount of Iranian activities in Iraq,” Kenneth M. Pollack, the director of research at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, said Sunday. “There’s a good chance that this is going to be counterproductive — that this is a way to get into a spiral with Iran that leads you into conflict. The likely response from the Iranians is that they are going to want to demonstrate to us that they are not going to be pushed around.”

Mr. Pollack is half right. The Administration does have Iran on the brain, but Iran is not likely to respond so easily to such provocations. I think the latter statement is a little bit of wishful thinking on Mr. Pollock’s part.

Last week, in a confusing and contradictory speech, Mr. Bush went squarely after Iran (and threw Turkey a much overlooked bone regarding the Kurds):

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge.

This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.

We will expand intelligence sharing, and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

Since then his loyal surrogates - Bob Gates, Condi Rice, Stephen Hadley and Dick Cheney - have spread out across the world beating the drums of war.

Mr. Cheney, emerging from his secure undisclosed location, found it easy to replace "q" with "n" in his doomsday messages:

“So the threat that Iran represents is growing,” he said, in words reminiscent of how he once built a case against Mr. Hussein. “It’s multidimensional, and it is, in fact, of concern to everybody in the region.”

We can expect the bombs to start flying when the threat from Iran goes from "growing" to "grave and gathering".

This latest bravado is not only a signal by this Administration of defeat in Iraq; it is also a signal of defeat to Iran. The United States has been outmaneuvered by Iran, both in Iraq and on the nuclear issue. Having lost the war on the geo-political battlefield, the Bush Administration’s only option left is to lob missiles and drop bombs. The Bush Administration is out of its depth when it comes to foreign policy. Its only weapon, which it has so far failed to wield effectively, is the military option.

Mr. Bush’s plan to interdict Iranian agents inside Iraq is ill-conceived and naive. Iran’s power in Iraq does not come from supplying IEDs or other weapons to attack American troops. The Sunni Iraqi insurgents, those who make up the bulk of the force attacking American troops, are not supplied or supported by Iran. Most of Iran’s support structure in Iraq has been decades in the making. It is not limited to a few agents supplying arms to Shia militias. Iran has been, for decades, supporting Shia parties in Iraq. The most prominent of these are the SCIRI and the Dawa party - both of which hold the reigns of power in Iraq. They control many of the key ministries, including the Ministry of Interior. SCIRI’s Badr Brigade has become fully integrated into the Ministry of Interior and regularly carries out its death squad activities under official sanction. The SCIRI and the Dawa party were founded and trained by Iran in the 1980s. Most of the leaders of the two parties were exiled in Iran, if not Syria, for much of the last two decades - and a significant number of these leaders speak Persian as well as Arabic. When the SCIRI and Dawa party leaders speak of foreign interference in Iraq’s internal affairs, they are not talking about Iran, they are talking about the United States and the Sunni Arab countries.

Iran’s support does not end with the Shia. Iran has also been supporting elements within Iraqi Kurdistan since the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war. Iran’s roots in Iraq run deep and wide. It is fortified each year with millions of Iranian pilgrims who descend upon the Shia holy sites in Iraq. So, when Stephen Hadley asserts that the United States is resisting Iranian "hegemony" in the region, he is remarkably naive. Iran already has hegemony over much of Iraq, and the odds of the United States countering that hegemony are slim to none.

The irony is that when Mr. Bush talks about going after death squads in Iraq, he is talking about going after Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Iran would like nothing better. Although al-Sadr is Shia, he is also an Arab nationalist. He is against partitioning Iraq to form a southern homeland for the Shia. By going after al-Sadr, once again Mr. Bush would be doing Iran’s bidding. To add further to the mess of Mr. Bush’s policy, Mr. Bush’s latest best friend in Iraq is Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of SCIRI. al-Hakim also happens to be Tehran’s man in Iraq, and for an independent Shia homeland in the south. By eliminating al-Sadr’s influence and positioning SCIRI to take over the leadership in Iraq, Mr. Bush will have ensured Iranian dominance of Iraq.

The political outlook in Iraq does not look good for Mr. Bush. The die was cast on this course when the first American bombs started falling on Iraq in 2003. There is now only one option for Mr. Bush to avoid defeat in Iraq - and that is to attack Iran. Mr. Bush and his coterie of advisors certainly knows their machinations in Iraq will not effectively counter Iranian "hegemony". So, they are going through the motions and getting ready to go for the jugular.

Mr. Cheney warned yesterday about Iran:

They are in a position where site astride the Straits of Hormuz, where over 20% of the world’s supply of oil transits every single day, over 18 million barrels a day.

There is really one solution to Mr. Cheney’s geographic quandary. That solution is to wipe Iran off the map so they no longer sit "astride the Straits of Hormuz".

Today was a very sad day. I worry about George W Bush. I know many will not share my concern. I will grant that watching Baghdad George bizarrely assert that he will deploy Patriot missiles and perhaps launch an attack on Iran to try to hide his failures in Iraq was alarming. However, I worry that the man in the White House is suffering from delusions.

Below is the transcript of the speech Baghdad George delivered to the American people. You decide if he is delusional:

The lunatic is on the grass.
The lunatic is on the grass.
Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs.
Got to keep the loonies on the path.

The lunatic is in the hall.
The lunatics are in my hall.
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
And every day the paper boy brings more.

And if the dam breaks open many years too soon
And if there is no room upon the hill
And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too
I’ll see you on the dark side of the moon.

The lunatic is in my head.
The lunatic is in my head
You raise the blade, you make the change
You re-arrange me ’til I’m sane.
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There’s someone in my head but it’s not me.

And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear.

And if the band you’re in starts playing different tunes
I’ll see you on the dark side of the moon.

"I can’t think of anything to say except…
I think it’s marvelous! HaHaHa!"

So, I plead with the American people to be gentle on Baghdad George. He needs our support in these trying times.

The long awaited, much anticipated, and often pre-judged Iraq Study Group report was finally unleashed on Washington. Predictably, it was trashed, even before the ink was dry, in the progressive blogosphere for failing to call for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. However, I think dismissing the report as a "dud" or ridiculing it ignores the very real and consequential substance in the report.

It is important to realize that this report is an intervention. I cannot recall any other time in modern American history when a sitting president has been so publicly and so stunningly rebuked in a time of war. The ISG report strikes at the heart of the American President’s article II power as the commander-in-chief. It accuses President George W Bush of orchestrating, by his own choice, the destabilization of the Middle East and, if left unchecked, the destabilization of the global economy. Make no mistake, this report is an intervention. It is designed to save not the President, but the Presidency and the American body politic. George W Bush has abused his commander-in-chief powers in the prosecution of the Iraq war and this report aims to relieve him of his duties. Regardless of what occurs between now and the end of George W Bush’s term in office, he is no longer driving the ship of state. Mr. Bush has effectively been impeached.

The report itself has two parts. The first part, "Assessment", surveys the current mess in Iraq. The second part, "The Way Forward - A New Approach" lays out the much talked about 79 recommendations for extricating the United States from Iraq. There is also a GWB-sized executive summary, a letter from the co-chairs, and an appendix to the report. In this post, I will cover the first part of the report and the supporting documents. I will do a separate post on the 79 recommendations tomorrow.

 The goal of the report is national consensus, not Iraqi national consensus, but American national consensus:

U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure - as is any course of action in Iraq - if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country toward such a consensus. [Letter from the Co-Chairs, p. x]

The implicit charge in the report is that George W Bush has embarked on a foreign misadventure without the consent of the people of this democracy. That kind of behavior may work in a dictatorship, but cannot be sustained in a democracy.

The very first two sentences of the Executive Summary paint a bleak picture for Iraq:

The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved. [Executive Summary, p. iii]

The ISG report does hold out the hope that all is not lost and the United States can still influence events there, although it may not be able to do so in the near future:

The ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing. [p. 1]

I have argued before that the United States has already lost the ability to influence events positively in Iraq. By staying in Iraq, I believe, the United States acts as a force for continued instability. The ISG apparently believes there is still time to salvage the situation. This belief may be a result of hope and obligation rather than rational analysis:

Because events in Iraq have been set in motion by American decisions and actions, the United States has both a national and a moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis an opportunity to avert anarchy. [p. 2]

While I agree with the statement above, it does not necessarily follow that the national and moral interest is served by staying in Iraq and making one more go at it.

The flaw at the center of the report is the belief that America can control events in Iraq. The report concedes that combat operations by the United States military will not rescue Iraq. Indeed, it calls for a complete withdrawal of all American combat troops by early 2008. However, the report then subscribes to the misguided notion that the problem in Iraq can be solved by training Iraqi security forces:

The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. [Executive Summary, p. vi]

The problem with Iraqi security forces is not training. Before the United States invaded Iraq, the country had a functioning military and police force, so I doubt they are incapable of training themselves. As the report readily admits, the security forces are infiltrated with sectarian militias - you simply cannot train the "sectarian" out of a militia member. There is also the problem of perception. If the United States remains in Iraq in large numbers and successfully trains the Iraqi security forces (that is, succeeds in making the security forces non-sectarian), those security forces and the government who controls them will be perceived as American puppets. American training, in either instance, will be counter-productive. We will either train militias or we will train American puppets - both will have tragic consequences (as no doubt the incoming Secretary of Defense knows from his experience in Central America).

There is also a puzzling contradiction in the report. In an attempt to avoid an open-ended commitment of American forces in Iraq, the report warns:

If the Iraqi government demonstrates political will and makes substantial progress toward the achievement of mile-stones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should make clear its willingness to continue training, assistance, and support for Iraq’s security forces and to continue political, military, and economic support. If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government. [Executive Summary, p. vii]

It is not clear to me why it makes sense to pull out of Iraq if the Iraqi government underperforms. If as the report claims, Iraq is "vital to regional and even global stability", why then would the United States pull out if the ISG believes the United States should stay to stabilize Iraq. To put it another way, according to the report an underperforming Iraqi government will cause the United States to throw in the towel.

While the report fumbles somewhat in charting a viable exit strategy from Iraq, it quite clearly is focused on extricating the United States from Iraq. The report examines a number of alternative approaches and points out their flaws. Most notably the report categorically rejects the "stay the course" policy of George W Bush. It points out that staying the course in Iraq endangers our national security. The report points out, in a section entitled "Staying the Course", that:

Current U.S. policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing national reconciliation. Making no changes in policy would simply delay the day of reckoning at a high cost. Nearly 100 Americans are dying every month. The United States is spending $2 billion a week. Our ability to respond to other international crises is constrained. [p. 38]

That leaves only Barney and Mr. Bush on the "stay the course" bandwagon.

The report also rejects a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq as too risky. However, it does not discuss a more orderly withdrawal as an option. The report also rejects John McCain’s plan to send more troops to Iraq as unrealistic:

Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. [p.38]

Finally, the report rejects Joseph Biden’s idea of a partition into three regions due to potential for ethnic cleansing and the inconvenient fact that most of Iraq’s cities have mixed populations. Iraq cannot be so cleanly carved up without a massive movement of people.

The report lays out the facts on the ground that should make it clear to even George W Bush’s dog that Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy has been a failure across the board. It paints a picture of a country in chaos with mass human suffering:

The United Nations estimates that 1.6 million are displaced within Iraq, and up to 1.8 million Iraqis have fled the country.

Six percent of Iraq’s population have been internally displaced and seven percent have fled the country. That means that 13% of the country’s population have fled their homes. Those are staggering statistics.

The report reminds Mr. Bush that both the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade, which have infiltrated the police, are engaged in sectarian violence and the Badr Brigade in particular is involved in death squad activity. Perhaps if the report were released earlier, Mr. Bush might have chosen not to host a death squad leader at the White House last Monday.

The Iraqi economy is predictably underperforming. The freedom Mr. Bush has given Iraqis has led to misery:

Instead of meeting a target of 10 percent, growth in Iraq is at roughly 4 percent this year. Inflation is above 50 percent. Unemployment estimates range widely from 20 to 60 percent. The investment climate is bleak, with foreign direct investment under 1 percent of GDP. Too many Iraqis do not see tangible improvements in their daily economic situation. [p.23]

To compound the problem, reconstruction funds for Iraq have dried up as the Administration struggles to manage the security situation in Iraq:

The administration requested $1.6 billion for reconstruction in FY 2006, and received $1.485 billion. The administration requested $750 million for FY 2007. The trend line for economic assistance in FY 2008 also appears downward. [p.25]

As for the two countries in the Middle East that the Bush Administration does not want to talk to, Mr. Bush’s muddled policy in Iraq serves these two countries just fine:

Iran appears content for the U.S. military to be tied down in Iraq, a position that limits U.S. options in addressing Iran’s nuclear program and allows Iran leverage over stability in Iraq. … One Iraqi official told us: "Iran is negotiating with the United States in the streets of Baghdad."

…

Like Iran, Syria is content to see the United States tied down in Iraq. [pp.28-29]

In the short term, both Iran and Syria benefit from the chaotic American presence in Iraq. Only by leaving Iraq does the United States focus the attention of Iran and Syria on the need to have a stable neighbor in Iraq.

The report makes clear why there was a need for intervention to save the United States from its president:

If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe for Iraq, the United States, the region, and the world.

…

If the instability in Iraq spreads to the other Gulf States, a drop in oil production and exports could lead to a sharp increase in the price of oil and thus could harm the global economy.

…

Terrorism could grow. As one Iraqi official told us, "Al Qaeda is now a franchise in Iraq, like McDonald’s."

…

The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends further into chaos. Iraq is a major test of, and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial capacities. … And the longer that U.S. political and military resources are tied down in Iraq, the more the chances for American failure in Afghanistan increase.

…

If Iraqis continue to perceive Americans as representing an occupying force, the United States could become its own worst enemy in a land it liberated from tyranny. [pp.33-35]

Far from bringing stability to the Middle East and showing American might to its adversaries, George W Bush has weakened America in the eyes of the world. His war of choice has endangered America, the Middle East and the world.

The reality that the report lays out will be hard for Mr. Bush to ignore. The conversation in Washington is no longer how to win in Iraq; it is how to salvage America and Iraq from George W Bush’s blunders. That is the importance of the report. There can now be no denying the stark reality of failure. The discussion has now moved to how best to bring our soldiers home and leave behind some semblance of stability. To that end, the report’s recommendations, however imperfect, can be a starting point for the discussion. The authors of the report readily admit that events on the ground may overtake the recommendations of the report. I believe that Iraq has already reached that point and American presence there is now counterproductive - the authors of the report disagree, at least for now.

Today Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki met with President Bush at the White House. Tomorrow evening he is to address a joint session of Congress. The Democratic leadership in the Senate are up in arms because Maliki has  condemned the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. I have news for the Democrats: Duh!

CNN reports why the Democrats have their knickers all in a bind:

Last week, al-Maliki said that Iraq was urging the international community "to take a quick and firm stance to stop this aggression against Lebanon, to stop the killing of innocent people and to stop the destruction of infrastructure."

"What is happening is an operation of mass destruction and mass punishment and an operation using great force that Israel has — and Lebanon does not," he said.

They want him to take it all back. They want him to eat his words. Harry Reid was positively livid today:

In a letter to al-Maliki, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York called the Iraqi leader’s comments troubling.

"Your failure to condemn Hezbollah’s aggression and recognize Israel’s right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," the letter said.

The senators said some Democrats are considering boycotting al-Maliki’s speech before Congress.

"I want the prime minister to denounce what Hezbollah has done," Reid said at a news briefing. "I will lose a lot of confidence in al-Maliki if he does not denounce what Hezbollah has done."

I have news for Senator Reid. Prime Minister Maliki is not in the minority among world leaders to condemn the Israeli action in Lebanon. It is the United States that is in the minority. To expect an Arab leader to not condemn Israel for attacking Lebanon is a little much, don’t you think? It’s also a little disingenuous. When the Iraqi parliament speaker accused the US forces of "butchery" this week, where the heck was the Democratic leadership? Why aren’t they trying to boycott Mr. Maliki over his government’s position on the "butchery" of American forces? Yet, they are all up in arms when Maliki condemned (quite legitimately I might add) Israeli bombing.

I think its pathetic and its also par for the course. American national interest is being sold down the river for a few extra votes.

The real irony here is that the fact that Maliki won’t condemn Hezbollah should have been obvious to these clowns from the very start. I have written before about how Hezbollah and Maliki’s Islamic Dawa party are quite connected. Hezbollah in fact grew out of the Dawa party. Dawa introduced the world to the modern car bombing by blowing up the American and French embassies in Kuwait. The bombing of the American barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was committed by a precursor group of Hezbollah consisting of the Islamic Jihad offspring of the Dawa party. With such a history is it any surprise that Maliki and Hezbollah would have some affinity for each other?

The Bush Administration and our Democratic opposition in both houses of Congress have conveniently glossed over the history of the party they put in power in Iraq. Now they are reaping its consequences. Freedom is definitely on the march.

The Bush Administration has put in power in Iraq a Shia Islamist alliance with strong ties to Iran. This has helped Iran along in its quest for regional dominance. That dominance is now challenged by Israel’s actions in Lebanon. The Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are beside themselves trying to figure out how to stake out a position that is anti-Israel and yet does not give Iran even more regional power. Throw Syria’s shaky alliance with Iran into the mix and you have the makings of a regional powder keg. This powder keg has fuses in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Any one of these fuses can be lit to create a regional conflagration. The matter is very serious and has far reaching consequences for the region, the world and the United States.

Yet, are the most prominent liberal bloggers discussing it? With a few notable exceptions, the answer is no. It is as if the war in Lebanon was not happening. Some liberal bloggers have now come out to explain their silence. It would have been better if they had remained silent. Because their excuses are juvenile.

The excuse for not covering the Israel-Lebanon war from the liberal bloggers appears to be that it is "complicated", that it is "complex", that it not in the area of their expertise, and that it does not have any domestic impact. Like I said, it would have been better to remain silent.

If bloggers ever decided to not cover any "complex" issues, then they would have to stop blogging about stem cells, NSA wiretapping, the Iraq war, the Iranian nuclear issue, the search for WMD, al Qaeda, global warming, the CIA leak case, etc. (Did I leave anything out?). If bloggers stopped blogging about things that were not in their area of expertise then, well, I am afraid most bloggers should stop blogging. Most of these bloggers are citizen journalists, not "experts" - yet they opine on many things of interest to them. Finally, the suggestion that this war does not have domestic implications is simply laughable. The United States funds Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year. It is the largest recipient of US foreign aid in the world. Our tax dollars and our missiles are being spent on the bombing of Lebanon - that makes it a serious domestic bread and butter issue. Oh, and one look at the gas pump should also give you an indication that this war has domestic ramifications.

The most unconvincing defense I have read so far comes from The Poor Man Institute:

I’ve said nothing about war in Lebanon or Ethiopia because I have nothing to add, and also because - as you may or may not be aware - the United States is actually involved in a hugely bloody war right now, and this is more of a pressing concern to me personally. I don’t know the secret formula for unshitting any of these beds - I promise I wouldn’t be shy if I did - but I currently only have to sleep in one of them; and, as it turns out, that’s the one bed where I actually have some miniscule chance of influencing the situation. So that’s my concern.

He may have nothing to add. I am sure he might reconsider when the conflict widens to warrant his attention.

Just like the Democrats in the Senate today, a lot of our prominent liberal bloggers are acting as if they are running for something.

Sometimes silence is golden.

Seymour Hersh wrote in the New Yorker last April:

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack.

Last week Israel launched its massive bombardment of Lebanon ostensively to rescue two kidnapped soldiers from Hezbollah. However, within a few days it became quite apparent that Israel had wider goals. Israel says that its goal is to destroy Hezbollah once and for all. However, as I pointed out in an earlier post, that goal is unlikely and Israel certainly knows it is unlikely. In fact with every bomb that falls on Lebanon, Hezbollah becomes politically stronger as the beleaguered population turns to them for protection and for essential services. Thanks to Israel, Hezbollah has been resurrected once again as Lebanon’s resistance movement. That is a tremendous price in long-term security for Israel to pay for short-term revenge.

But it can’t simply be revenge. The massive bombardment and the misery caused the Lebanese people is being pursued at the service of a broader military agenda. This is the Doctrine of Preemption at its most naked form. Hezbollah is Iran’s primary deterrent against Israel in the event of an attack. Israel knows that it cannot defeat Hezbollah with aerial bombing or another long and protracted ground invasion of Lebanon, but it can certainly degrade its capabilities in the short term and cause Hezbollah to go to ground. That may be quite enough to prepare the ground for an American or Israeli attack on Iran.

When the Seymour Hersh article came out, there was public concern that the Bush Administration was set on a path to war with Iran. Those concerns have not been allayed by recent events. In fact, recent events suggest that war with Iran is only a matter of time. Responding to Mr. Hersh’s article I wrote this at the time:

The Israelis have been pushing the notion of a point of no return, or "turning point", for quite some time, arguing that even though the actual bomb may be sometime away the date on the calendar that we should be concerned about is much sooner when the Iranian program reaches a technical threshold that once achieved cannot be reversed. Israel has chosen a timetable for attack by the United States by the end of this year by indicating if this attack does not happen, they will launch the attack unilaterally. Israel has also been at the forefront of the nuclear strike option.

The timetable set by Israel for the United States dovetails nicely with the November Congressional elections. An attack on Iran would politically rescue Mr. Bush and the Congressional Republicans from the disaster in Iraq. The actual attack does not have to occur before the elections, in fact it is better politically that the attack take place after the elections. The drumbeat to war and the tension and fear it will generate for the public is much more useful as a political tool than the war itself. By this time in early November, with any luck for the Republicans, the daily death toll in Iraq, the Congressional scandals, the NSA spying and the fallout from the NIE leaking should all take a backseat to the coming war with Iran. With these constraints, the likely strike date on Iran will be in late November or early December of this year, just in time for the Christmas season.

I think the Bush Administration is right on schedule for an end-of-year/election time attack on Iran.

The usual suspects are out in full force. Bill Kristol is foaming at the mouth with talk of war with Iran. All fingers are pointing at Iran as the real problem. The White House has given Israel time to "defang" Hezbollah and is oddly silent as the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon grows. Mr. Bush’s chief Anti-Diplomat at the United Nations brushed aside Kofi Annan’s call for a cease-fire with the standard mantra:

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John R. Bolton, reacted skeptically to the proposals, saying the United States wants a cessation of hostilities to be part of a "comprehensive change in the region" and does not see how a cease-fire agreement can be reached "with a group of terrorists."

The American position is becoming very hard to defend as more Lebanese continue to die. Yet, here we are and now we are also seeing Iranian tourists at North Korean missile launches. The rhetoric and the military plans are coming together rather nicely. A pliant Congress and a public outraged at Iran for "orchestrating" the kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers will make for an easy ride into Tehran.

What happens after the bombs land in Iran remains the real concern. But just like in Iraq, an exit strategy is not part of Mr. Bush’s war chest. I have always said that the way out of Iraq for Mr. Bush lay through Iran. In other words, he can make the conflict in Iraq a footnote by starting a wider conflict in the region. It may not be the smartest foreign policy move for the United States, but it is likely to be a political winner come November.

The response of the United States to the letter sent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad amounts to the Superpower version of "Talk to the hand". In my previous post on the subject I had suggested that perhaps a better approach might be to actually talk to the Iranians. But the Bush Administration seems to never miss an opportunity to look monumentally incompetent on the international stage. Thus, with characteristic bravado the Administration dismissed the Iranian letter (the first of its kind from Iran since 1979). I am sure that the chicken hawks in the Administration are patting themselves on the back for their machoness in rubbing the noses of the Iranians in the dirt. The rest of the world however saw the Iranian letter and its rejection by the United States as a missed opportunity. From the Administration’s point of view there is really only one thing left to do: Bomb Iran.

It wasn’t always like this. Back in 1998 the Clinton Administration sent a similar letter to Iran through the Swiss Government in an attempt to begin direct talks with the Government of Iran. CNN reported at the time:

The Clinton administration recently sought to open a government-to-government dialogue with Iran, sources said, sending a secret letter to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami through diplomatic channels in the second week of August.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the sources said Iran did not reply through those same channels, but U.S. officials viewed Khatami’s moderate statements about respect for the American people, made last month and again in a CNN interview this week, as the answer to the U.S. overture.

…

The letter to Iran, sources said, contained no provisos and simply asked the Iranians if they were ready to conduct talks with the United States.

The sources said such a letter would have been signed by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. It was written, they said, after a long administration debate in which one camp argued that Washington should wait for Iran to make the first approach.

In the world of diplomacy events can sometimes move at a glacial pace. With that in mind, the letter from Ahmadinejad may actually have been a reply to the 1998 letter. There may also have been back channel talks between Iran and the United States during the Clinton years:

Contrary to a Washington Post report Friday, sources said, the Swiss channel has been much used for practical communication, not just angry ideological exchanges.

The Swiss government represents U.S. interests with the Iranians. The sources said the Swiss Embassy in Washington regularly spends up to 20 percent of its time on Iranian contact on behalf of the United States. [Emphasis added by me.]

I am probably not in much danger of being incorrect if I believe that these back channel contacts with the Iranians ceased when George W. Bush became President of the United States. The new Administration apparently treats diplomacy as if it’s an unwanted stepchild. They pay lip service to diplomacy being the first option while they are busy undermining it. Secretary Rice, our chief diplomat, had this to say about talking with Iran:

Rice asserted yesterday that "the absence of communication is not a problem with the Iranians" because there have been plenty of proposals advanced through the Europeans and the Russians. But, alluding to Iran’s alleged failure to respond constructively to those proposals, she asked: "What is to be gained if Iran is not prepared to show that it is ready to accede to the demands of the international community?" [Emphasis added by me]

The chief diplomat of the United States is not doing her job. Instead, she has out-sourced U.S. foreign policy to the Europeans and Russians. This Administration wants us to believe that we are in the midst of a dangerous nuclear standoff with Iran and yet it is not even willing to communicate with Iran. Mr. Bush’s assertions that the United States considers diplomacy the primary option vis-à-vis Iran rings kind of hollow in light of Dr. Rice’s bizarre statements.

The Washington Post reports today that Foreign Policy experts from both sides of the aisle as well as foreign diplomats are speaking out and urging the United States to resume direct talks with Iran. The Germans, one of the Europeans who Dr. Rice is relying on, are venting their frustration with Washington:

Germany is one of the three European Union countries that have jointly held inconclusive talks with Tehran. German officials have made little secret of their belief that diplomacy will not succeed without direct U.S. intervention. Ruprecht Polenz, the influential chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the German parliament and an ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, lashed out last Friday against the administration’s policy after returning from a two-day visit to Iran. "Washington’s refusal to join direct talks with Iran won’t make it any easier to achieve a diplomatic solution to the current nuclear dispute," he said. [Emphasis added by me.]

Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who last month wrote an opinion piece jointly with 5 former European foreign ministers urging President Bush to open direct talks with Iran, explained rather succinctly how diplomacy should be practiced:

But Albright said yesterday that the letter, despite its invective and religious musings, should be viewed as an opportunity both for a dialogue with Iran and to influence world opinion. She likened it to President John F. Kennedy’s choosing to selectively respond to — and ignore — conflicting messages from his Soviet counterpart during the Cuban missile crisis.

"In diplomacy, you make your opportunities," Albright said. "Acting in a dismissive way doesn’t get you anywhere." [Emphasis added by me.]

I find Madam Albright’s comparison to President Kennedy’s deft handling of Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis to be very appropriate and instructive here. The Administration would do well to heed these calls for dialogue.

The Bush Administration however does not respond well to good advice. The Bush Administration is likely to dig in further on its hardline stance against Iran. In doing so it is likely to further isolate itself in the diplomatic dance with Iran. The military option, for the Bush Administration, will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. War with Iran is the likely outcome as long as this Administration and its policy of petulant diplomacy continue.