Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Memo to George Will

Yo Willy!:

The people of Virginia elected Jim Webb to the United States Senate. If that bothers you then, as the Vice President would say, go f*** yourself.

Since you don’t seem to know the difference between boorish behavior and patriotism, allow me to remind you.

Here is what patriotism looks like:

And here is what boorish behavior looks like:

And some more of what boorish behavior looks like:

Literally yours,

Mash

Having failed to find any WMD in Iraq, George W Bush has resorted to his "freedom" agenda. Mr. Bush repeatedly claims that "democracies don’t go to war with each other." His prescription for lasting peace in the Middle East and the end of terrorism is spreading democracy (by force) to the world. In pursuing his "freedom" agenda, George W Bush, and his poodle Tony Blair, have undermined democracy in the West. Their single-minded pursuit of what they believe is just and right has now become an existential threat to western liberal democracy and our way of life.

As much of a violent and dangerous threat al Qaeda is to the United States and its allies, it has never been an existential threat. It seems inconceivable that a small group of thugs can violently destroy a political and economic power as massive as the United States. However, what al Qaeda can do is cause the United States to cannibalize itself as it undermines the pillars of democracy in its own perceived self-defense. To do so, al Qaeda needs an unwitting and fiercely ideological patsy - it has found one in George W Bush.

Bush’s notion that democracies do not war with each other is debatable at best. However, the argument, even if it is accepted, is based on the belief that the inherent restraints within democratic society prevent those societies from engaging in warfare, except as an absolute last resort. Rudolph J Rummel, one of the early proponents of the "democratic peace theory", based his theory on Immanuel Kant’s notion of "Perpetual Peace":

Rummel’s response when asked why he believed democracies didn’t fight was to recall Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace, published in 1795.

Kant’s theory is that democratic leaders are restrained by the resistance of their people to bearing the costs and deaths of war. And a democratic culture of negotiation and conciliation, plus the hurdles to taking swift action, favours peace.

George W Bush, however, is actively undermining the fundamental pillar of the very theory he touts by his "stay the course" policy in Iraq. Mr. Bush says that he is not constrained by public opinion because he knows he is right. By proceeding with his policy against overwhelming public opinion, he has undermined the ideological basis of his crusade.

As George W Bush, and his poodle Blair, strain to "stay the course" against the restraints of democracy, they are beginning to damage the foundations of democratic society. One such restraint, as explicitly declared in Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, is the absolute authority of the civilian leadership of the military:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

The continued pointlessness of the Iraq War is causing the military to publicly speak out against the civilian leadership that is asking them to sacrifice for a war with little or no public support.

Up until this week, most public opposition to the war has come from retired U.S. military generals. However, all that changed last week in Britain when Chief of the General Staff of the Army, Sir Richard Dannatt, spoke out against the Iraq War. Sir Richard called the coalition’s dream of bringing democracy to Iraq "naive" and he called for British troops to pull out as soon as possible. He also stated, rather unsurprisingly, that the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil is fueling terrorism.

Sir Richard’s candid comments sent shockwaves in London and Washington. By week’s end Tony Blair, to salvage his authority, had to declare that he agrees with his army chief and that what Sir Richard was saying was "the same as we all are." Tony Blair had in effect lost control over his military. The military leadership was openly questioning the policy of their civilian masters - a recipe for disaster in any democratic society. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair’s blatant disregard for the normal constraints of democratic societies in their quixotic pursuit of "peace" has led to this turn of events.

Another feature of a democratic society that leads to stability and not war, according to Rummel, is its guarantee of civil liberties. Recently Mr. Bush and his war machine have taken a giant bite out of our notion of civil liberties:

When President Bush rammed the bill on military commissions through Congress, the Republicans crowed about creating a process that would be tough on terrorists but preserve essential principles of justice. “America can be proud,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the bill’s architects.

Unfortunately, Mr. Graham was wrong. One of the many problems with the new law is that it will only make it harder than it already is to separate the real terrorists from the far larger group of inmates at Guantánamo Bay who were bit players in the Taliban or innocent bystanders. Mr. Graham and other supporters of this dreadful legislation seem to have forgotten that American justice does not merely deliver swift punishment to the guilty. It also protects the innocent.

…

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 makes it virtually impossible to contest a status tribunal’s decision. It prohibits claims of habeas corpus — the ancient right of prisoners in just societies to have their detentions reviewed — or any case based directly or indirectly on the Geneva Conventions. Even if an appeal got to the single appeals court now authorized to hear it, the administration would very likely argue that it cannot be heard without jeopardizing secrets, as it has done repeatedly.

The new law championed by Mr. Bush and the congressional Republicans allows the government to detain individuals without the right of those individuals to challenge their detentions. That is a license for abuse. This law prohibits habeas corpus, an idea the framers deemed so important, that they included it in the text of the Constitution itself, not in an amendment to the Constitution. Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution states:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

We are neither facing a rebellion nor an invasion. Yet, we have suspended habeas corpus.

Bit by bit, the fabric of democracy is being undermined by Mr. Bush’s "War on Terror" and his Iraq War. We are fighting them "there" while losing freedoms here. We are undermining our democratic institutions in trying to spread "democracy" abroad. At some point, our leaders must be held accountable if democracy is to be preserved.

We can start to hold our leaders to account starting November 7th. Have no doubt that we are now facing an existential threat to our democracy from within. As we face the real enemies from outside that seek to harm us, we must guard against the forces from within that strike at our very foundations. George W Bush and his rubber stamp Republican congress have brought this challenge to our democracy. On November 7th, we are called upon to defend our democracy.

This is huge. The Chief of the General Staff of the British army, Sir Richard Dannatt, has publicly broken with Tony Blair by calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. Sir Richard gave an interview to the Daily Mail in which he called for a withdrawal of British troops from Iraq and asserted what most sane people already know: that foreign troops in Iraq are making matters worse.

Here is an article from the BBC and one from The Guardian on the interview.

This is a stunning development and I need to digest this overnight to write a more thorough post -but I did not want to wait to get this post up. In the meantime, feel free to offer comments on the significance of this interview. There are many issues here, not the least of which is the military openly challenging the policy of the civilian leadership. I suspect Sir Richard will be forced to resign after his comments. I am not sure where it leaves the morale of the British soldiers in Iraq - it almost now seems inevitable that Britain will have to withdraw from Iraq. I can’t see how Tony Blair puts Humpty Dumpty back together again. And what will Mr. Bush do without his trusty poodle at his side?

Your thoughts?

Ehud Olmert’s two-week misadventure in Lebanon is coming to a close. The unexpected ambush in the town of Bint Jbeil and the shelling of the UN observation post may have become catalysts for a draw down of the conflict. These two tragic events, in retrospect, will be seen to have saved many Israeli and Lebanese lives.

This war was always a losing proposition for Israel and a strategic blunder. From the start, the most obvious outcome was an exchange of Lebanese prisoners for the captured Israeli soldiers. However, Olmert wanted to prove his bona fides to the Israeli public and took what should have been a relatively minor incident and escalated it into a conflict with no good exit strategy for Israel. Having now reached a decision point where Israel could either escalate or climb down, Olmert has now chosen to back pedal:

With no sign of a cease-fire soon, Israeli warplanes and artillery pummeled targets across Lebanon without letup Thursday, concentrating fire on the rocky border hills where Hezbollah fighters are entrenched. The Israeli government called up thousands of reservists but decided against expanding its onslaught into a full-fledged invasion as some military officers suggested.

Undeterred after 16 days of attacks, Hezbollah militiamen again fired volleys of rockets into northern Israel, igniting a detergent factory and lightly wounding seven people. More than 110 Hezbollah rockets landed across the north on Thursday, following the launch of more than 150 rockets on Wednesday. More than 1,400 rockets have landed in Israel since the conflict began. [Emphasis added by me.]

The shift in Israeli direction is subtle, but nonetheless it is there and it is significant.

Israel’s climb down and the eventual end to this conflict will be seen by Hezbollah and the Arab world as a defeat. The only thing left to do for Israel and the United States is to try to soften the strategic blow to Israel by searching for a best-case withdrawal plan. To that end, the wheels have already been set in motion.

Enter Tony Blair, George W Bush’s hapless poodle. Mr. Blair will make a show of urging for a ceasefire during his meeting with Mr. Bush:

Tony Blair will press George Bush today to support "as a matter of urgency" a ceasefire in Lebanon as part of a UN security council resolution next week, according to Downing Street sources.

At a White House meeting, the prime minister will express his concern that pro-western Arab governments are "getting squeezed" by the crisis and the longer it continues, the more squeezed they will be, giving militants a boost. The private view from No 10 is that the US is "prevaricating" over the resolution and allowing the conflict to run on too long.

But diplomatic sources in Washington suggest the US and Israel believe serious damage has been inflicted on Hizbullah, so the White House is ready to back a ceasefire resolution at the UN next week. Today Mr Bush and Mr Blair will discuss a version of the resolution that has been circulating in Washington and London. [Emphasis added by me.]

The US and Israeli position will be that they can now propose a ceasefire because they have sufficiently degraded Hezbollah’s capabilities. They will proclaim victory and exit stage left. After weeks of defending the ridiculous notion that negotiations must occur before a ceasefire, the Bush Administration is reportedly ready to reverse course on the main sticking point:

The draft peace deal involves two phases. In the first, Israel and Lebanon would agree a ceasefire and a small multinational force would be deployed on the border, allowing Israeli troops to withdraw. Then a much larger force of between 10,000 and 20,000 troops would be assigned to implement UN security council resolution 1559, agreed two years ago, under which militias such as Hizbullah would be disarmed and the authority of the Lebanese government forces extended to the country’s southern border.

As with all foreign policy stands this Administration has bungled, they initially talk tough and then wither when reality encroaches on their fantasy world. So too here, when the reality of a protracted guerrilla war or an escalating regional conflict faced them squarely in the face, they crumbled. But as with all such neo-con fantasies, the cost of bravado is paid in innocent lives lost.

Adding to the chorus of voices demanding an immediate ceasefire, former President Clinton and his first term Secretary of State today firmly endorsed the position held by nearly the entire world. Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, in particular, made the prevailing opinion on a ceasefire quite clear:

In the course of her trip, the secretary repeatedly insisted that any cease-fire be tied to a "permanent" and "sustainable" solution to the root causes of the conflict. Such a solution is achievable, if at all, only after protracted negotiations involving multiple parties. In the meantime, civilians will continue to die, precious infrastructure will continue to be destroyed and the fragile Lebanese democracy will continue to erode.

My own experience in the region underlies my belief that in the short term we should focus our efforts on stopping the killing. Twice during my four years as secretary of state we faced situations similar to the one that confronts us today. Twice, at the request of the Israelis, we helped bring the bloodshed to an end.

If only the current Democratic leadership had the courage to demand action instead of pandering for votes to save their political behinds. When this conflict is over and America’s prestige and influence in the world is further damaged the Democrats will have to share in the blame. In this instance the Democrats allied themselves with the Bush Administration, their neo-con friends and the End Timers for political expediency at the expense of America’s national security interests.

So, look for this war to draw down next week when the United Nations Security Council meets to debate a ceasefire. Look for a call for a ceasefire from the Security Council along with a carefully worded condemnation of Hezbollah and a plan to set up an international force to supplement UNIFIL in Southern Lebanon. Look for Israel to declare victory and begin withdrawing soon thereafter. Also look for the release of the Israeli soldiers followed by a discrete hand over of Lebanese prisoners a few weeks later. One might even find renewed talks on the hand over of the Golan Height and the Chebaa farms to get Syrian buy in.

Expect American pundits to flood the airwaves and declare the ceasefire to be a good outcome for Israel and a severe blow to Hezbollah’s capabilities. Expect the Lebanese to finally be able to bury their dead and begin the long path to recovery from this needless spasm of destruction.

What will be lost is a large chunk of Israel’s deterrence capabilities and some measure of America’s influence in the Middle East. What Hezbollah will have gained is adulation from the Arab masses and a greater stranglehold on Lebanese politics. What Syria will have gained is influence again in Lebanese affairs and momentum toward a resolution of the Golan Heights issues. What Iran will have gained is more regional power and clout.

All in all not a pretty picture for Israel. All of this was completely unnecessary. Ehud Olmert got his war and proved himself utterly incompetent.

As the Bush Administration rushes more bombs to the Middle East before those pesky peaceniks force a ceasefire, it appears that the Poodle just discovered that it is a poodle:

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has protested to the US about its use of a Scottish airport to transport bombs to Israel.

Amid the Lebanon crisis, Mrs Beckett said it seemed the US was not following the right procedures over arms flights.

She said she was "not happy" and she had talked directly to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about it.

The Lib Dems say reports of the bombs at Prestwick Airport suggest the US is taking the UK for granted.

Give the Poodle a nice scratch on its tummy and it will soon be licking its master’s boots. Good doggy!

May 25th, 2006 will be remembered as the day America acknowledged defeat in Iraq. In a press conference at the White House President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair signaled a humiliating end of the American and British intervention in Iraq that began on March 20, 2003. The pair were a picture of weariness as they repeated over and over again that, in spite of the setbacks, invading Iraq was the right thing to do and that we must "complete the mission." The phrase "complete the mission" has become code for "orderly withdrawal". The American and British mission is no longer about "winning" in Iraq, it is about not "losing" in Iraq.

This is a tragic day for the United States. American military might has been thwarted by a band of determined insurgents and a cabal of shrewd politicians. America has been used by the Islamists in Iraq to do their bidding and now the time has come to be shown the door. A tired Bush and Blair are quoted in The Washington Post as two defeated men:

"Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing," Bush said Thursday evening in a White House news conference with Blair. "Not everything has turned out the way we hoped."

For his part, Blair declared that after a meeting earlier this week with Iraq’s new prime minister, "I came away thinking the challenge is still immense, but I also came away thinking more certain than ever that we should rise to it."

Bush and Blair were asked about mistakes they might have made that they regret now. President Bush acknowledged what the rest of the world has known ever since Bush came into office - that you should "walk softly and carry a big stick" and not the other way around:

In unusually introspective comments, Bush said he regrets his cowboy rhetoric the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks such as his "wanted dead or alive" description of Osama bin Laden and his taunting "bring ‘em on" challenge to Iraqi insurgents.

"In certain pa[r]ts of the world, it was misinterpreted."

Mr. Blair for his part acknowledged what was obvious before the invasion:

Blair regretted the way in which Saddam Hussein’s political allies were purged from the Iraqi military and government soon after the fall of Baghdad. Critics have said the sudden purge left a security vacuum in Iraq and encouraged former regime loyalists to take up arms against the newly installed government.

Blair also said allies seriously underestimated the insurgency.

"It should have been very obvious to us" from the beginning, Blair said. [Emphasis added by me.]

Respectfully, Prime Minister, it was obvious from the beginning but the Administration chose to ignore the advice of its own experts in favor of wildly optimistic scenarios painted by Vice President Cheney and his merry band of neo-conservatives. Here is Vice President Cheney speaking 4 days before the Iraq invasion on March 16, 2003:

Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

From those carefree comments from Mr. Cheney to the confessions at today’s press conference, we have descended step by each humiliating step into defeat.

Today in Iraq sectarian violence claims the lives of about 30 innocent civilians every day. Bodies with drill holes in their heads are left on street corners like garbage to be picked up by the grim reaper. The islamist Dawa party slowly but steadily tightens its grip on the reigns of power in Iraq while their masters in Tehran rejoice in their good fortune. Ordinary Iraqis live in fear where the most mundane tasks of everyday life have become acts of fear and courage. Militias roam the streets and don the uniform of the Iraqi Police. Insurgents strike with impunity as their IEDs and suicide attacks continue to end lives and replenish the morgues. American soldiers retreat further into their barracks as it becomes increasingly more difficult to discern friend from foe.

There is nothing good in today’s news. The President of the most powerful nation in the world stood in front of the cameras today and looked for all the world to see to be a muddled schoolboy. Perhaps we have reached the bottom of the bucket of humiliation that is the American engagement in Iraq. Tomorrow promises to be the beginning of the American disengagement from Iraq. Tomorrow promises to also be the beginning of American abandonment of Iraq. American self-preservation will mean that Iraq will be left to suffer on its own for years to come.

Today is a milestone in an American and Global tragedy brought about by a President who fancied himself a cowboy. May the world see better days than this.