Bush’s PR junket to Iraq was for domestic consumption not to show support for the new government to Iraqis. With 80% of Iraqis against our occupation, the Unity Government needs to distance itself from the Americans. That may be what this is, but it is putting a big red target on American soldiers (almost to say- ‘go after the invaders, not each other’). It sounds like a big deal to me.

No, it's the Iraqi government saying, "Go after the occupiers - not us."

And that's not a big deal since 1) it's not likely to work, and 2) it doesn't put US troops in much more danger than they are now.

I agree that we need to get out, but extracting ourselves from this catastrophe will only happen when it is politically possible. Of course, this amnesty plan would have no effect at this point since it is just a national reconciliation plan under consideration. But if that became the policy of the new government and it was broadcast, I think it could result in more attacks on U.S. soldiers. Signals are important in the fog of war and, as a political issue, this underlines the futility of our position in Iraq.

The pentagon has wasted no time in anointing the new Al Qaeda in Iraq leader (damn, another long name to learn and hate). These guys are a small part of the insurgency and, mostly, carry out suicide bombings on Iraqis. If the energies of even a fraction of the insurgents are redirected towards “Coalition” forces, it will have an impact. If combatants with mortars and APGs and suicide bombers redirect to new targets, they will have some successes no matter how dug in our troops are. Regardless, I don’t think more U.S. casualties would cause us to completely withdraw from Iraq. It might speed up the administration’s goal to pull back to permanent bases, though.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

White House says Zarqawi successor still unclear Reuters, 4 minutes ago

 U.S. identifies al-Zarqawi's successor AP

"Those sorts of milestones are no longer significant in that the impression is now already well established that the war has been a failure, that militarily we're stuck and that costs will continue to mount," Andrew Bacevich -Professor of International Relations and History - Boston Univ. (B.S., United States Military Academy; M.A., Ph.D., Princeton).

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

In case anyone missed it (Hillary, Harold Ford, Lieberman??), Rove has just dared the Democrats to nationalize the election.

See Democracy Corps answer.

The evidence is in--the GOP Congress is a bunch of zombies, not so much brain-dead as utterly in thrall to the day's political cant.

Remember when Democrats tried to get some perspective introduced to Iraq arguments by saying things like "We were terrorists as far as the British were concerned"? Get this, from Raw Story: “If they bore arms against our people," said Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, "What's the difference between those people [and those] that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What’s the difference between [them and] the Germans and Japanese and all the people we’ve forgiven?”

Or:Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) likened the granting of amnesty to former insurgents to efforts that earned Nelson Mandela a Nobel prize. "Forgiveness," he said, "has been a major factor in what has been a political miracle in Africa."

Terrorists no more, sorry about the accomodations at Abu Ghraib.

Most of the insurgents are there because...

OK, TH, a lot of what you say sounds sensible, but exactly how many insurgents have you interviewed?  I don't believe for a minute that "most of the insurgents" have any kind of a personal axe to grind; they are just warriors.  They are hearing the same kind of rhetoric that the Coulter-followers are succombing to. And they are majorly pissed off. Thank George Bush and his big crusade for that!

Although it is an OBVIOUS necessity, I don't expect any challenging, piercing questions about this policy of pardoning terrorists who only attack US soldiers, to Bush or the other word-master Tony Snow, but is it really too much to ask?.

Truly, how can anyone defend fighting for people who say it's ok to kill us?  OK, to this administration, our dead soldiers are just numbers, but to most of us, it is a tragically different story.

So Ann Coulter goes on Jay Leno (and MANY other sites) and says proudly that her book is number one, and she wears Liberal hatred as a badge of honor, and liberal children are "baptized in the rite of recycling," that 911 widows (harpies) are using  the catastrophe to their own ends (three words come to mind: pot kettle black) -- and Keith Olberman has to apologize for calling O'Reilley a "shit?"

We are forbidden by fiat from seeing our 2,500 flag-draped coffins, but Zarkawi's dead, semi-mutilated face is on every newspaper and tv channel and url site? 

I agree with your bottom line.  Let's get out because at some point we have to admit that we are making the situation (that we created) worse rather than better, and we could sure use the $$$ we are blowing there over here.

Let the 2,500 be a monument to our hubris and stupidity, and an oath -->  NEVER AGAIN!  Never again will we go to war without an actual resolution of war by the
Congress...not a pussy-footing resolution to let the president declare war, which is NOT even allowed under our Constitution.

Too much of a rush?  Remember when everyone rushed back to DC for Terri Shiavo?  Even Dubya left the arm-pit of Texas to return to sign on the dotted line for Terri.

The sad thing is, after seeing that that disgusting book is #1, I feel really discouraged.  On the other hand, I feel absolutely confident that most of its buyers never read books at all, and the rest of them are right-wing money-pits who buy the books to make her lood good ( did I say that?  Yuk! -- I meant it figuratively; not literally).

Jan Knaus

Not at all sure I agree. It has been my stated belief since day one that non-Iraqi jihadists were only tolerated by the Baath'ist Generals as long as they were useful. You can't tell me that the Security apparatus built up by Saddam and based on an elaborate network of informers couldn't identify and roll up networks on non-Iraqis at will. And probably have not forgotten their skills at hanging up people on meat-hooks.

I think al-Zarqawi wore out his welcome and word went out from Sunni leadership that leaking word about his location was no longer a violation.

As long as al-Zarqawi was willing to focus on the US military and Shi'ia collaborating with the US he was useful to Iraqi Sunni's. Blowing up Shi'ias and Shi'ia shrines simply to fire up civil war put him beyond the pale. The Mahdi Army and the Badrs at some point would move. And they did.

The remarkable thing about the Shi'ia militia in the first couple of years is that they largely listened to al-Sistani and held their fire. That has largely broken down in the year or so since, particularly with the blowing up of important shrines. And I suspect based on nothing at all beyond observing the sequence of actions, that with the formation of the government some deals are being cut: Sunnis agreeing to refocus action against the US in alignment with Shi'ia militia demands that the foreign Sunni's be squished like bugs.

As long as Sunni's were shut out of power that had no reason to support a clamp down on jihadists. Now that they have the Defense Ministry, effectively establishing a Sunni Army and a Shi'ite National Police (ironicaly in effect an American demand for Sunni participation), logic would suggest a simultaneous pivot against both groups of foreigners whose main output was Iraqis being blown up was obvious.

al-Zarqawi's death after months of successful evasion suggest, that he was just cut lose in either an implicit or explicit agreement that Iraqis killing non-Iraqis was a better deal long-term than Iraqis killing Iraqis.

Maybe I am delusional. The gap between al-Zarqawi declaring open war on Shi'ias as such, and Sunnis getting the Army back may have been marked by just too many people showing up with torture marks and single bullets in the head for everyone to agree to just make nice and agree that the only good foreign jihadist was a dead foreign jihadist and the same for coaltion GIs. But if this little announcement by al-Malki is really the result of a private deal I can certainly see "US troops in much more danger than they are now".

I can guarantee this was discussed by Bush with Maliki during the recent visit. And Bush agrees with it – it may even be his idea. The proof to me are Republican senators coming out for this “amnesty” option for insurgents. My Senator, Saxby Chambliss, was never more than, and never will be more than a water carrier and a coward. A suck up devoid of any original thought – sorry, I’m getting into another story here. Anyway, he wouldn’t do this without Bush telling him to.

Anyway, this is the trial balloon, and I hope it gets shot down with the nastiest of language and vitriol it deserves. TH thinks it won’t put our troops at any further risk. I disagree. It may not exactly be a “bullseye” on their backs, but it sure is a “kick me” sign. A sign supplied by Bush. This cannot have a positive effect on American troop morale when the troops learn that the guys who killed and maimed their buddies are going to walk. And low morale leads to mistakes and casualties – perhaps, even more atrocities.

But there is also no increased risk to an insurgent attacking our troops, either. In fact I think it is an additional recruiting tool for them. Maybe convince some who attack civilians to change their focus to our troops. Of course, there are also two practical considerations, which are problems: 1.) How can you tell whether an insurgent was only killing Americans (a good thing according to these Senators)? 2.) Isn’t it customary for the winner to offer amnesty? Just a thought.

Funny thing is I saw a GOP rep (whose name I forget--he may have been the head of the GOP Congressional Campaign Committee) on one of the Sunday gab fests saying over and over how this election would be about local issues. For him (I believe he was from CA) it would be immigration. He must have said it 6 or 7 times in a 5 minute interview. It was clear he was trying to do everything in his power NOT to make the election national. Perhaps the GOP isn't as together as we think.

By contrast, Republicans are brain-dead if they see nothing to discuss.

Brain dead?  I think some of them are Tom.  But many live in their neocon "reality is what we make it" alternate universe where they think they can still win the war "militarily".  I swear their hair could be on fire and they would deny it was a "reality"  because they refuse to acknowledge it.

We are not going to win the war in Iraq or any "GWOT" militarily...

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

That's LaHood's complaint and prayer. Keep it local. Rove on the other hand wants to wring another Bush win and mandate out of this one.

GWB once candidly admitted that 9/11 was his Trifecta. Rove was delighted when Kerry flipped and flopped and essentially dodged the Iraq debacle 2 years ago. If they can frighten the Dems into silence or double talk, he knows they'll keep the congress.

His "dare" is as much designed to frighten the Democrats as it is to rally the troops

It would seem as if the question that needs to be asked is: is the amnesty available for attacks on U.S. troops UP TO NOW, or for FUTURE attacks on American troops? Amnesty, in one form or another, will be essential just as you surmise but a line must be drawn as to who is eligible and who is not.

Perhaps the reason for the Bush approval of Iraq pardoning those insurgents who kill Americans is that it is consistent with his "fight them there and not here" policy. If the insurgents were to stop killing Americans we might find the courage to leave Iraq, and then couldn't "fight them there". Or as a Republican senator said today, then "they" will come back and "fight us here". So, our commander in chief is inviting Iraqis to kill our troops, with his approval of the premature amnesty policy in Iraq. Isn't that why we have a commander in chief?

Wow! I'm getting good at framing Republican talking points! Maybe I should tackle the one about bankrupting the country in order to bring prosperity here?

Hoppy in Sacramento

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

The Elephant in the Basement: Kurdish Weekly (Barzani's Party) Despairs for Iraq's Future

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Reality Check!

Iraqi prisons overrun by Shiite militias (AFP)  - 

They run about beating and killing prisoners, but everybody's gonna make nice? 

Back to my first comment - it was a good idea three years ago. It is propaganda now

Corvid

This prison story is enormous. And it fits in with two other absolutely enormous factors that tell us right now that the new Iraq is a failed state: Interior Ministry troops (like the prison personnel who are releasing Shiite criminals and summarily executing Sunnis) are riddled with bloody militias, and the Iraqi army is 30 percent absent--on average--at any given moment. Turns out that there's no such thing as AWOL in the Iraqi army; any soldier can bug out for however long he wants, whenever he pleases--even in the middle of an operation. This is universally and at all times gigantically, irrefutably and damningly true.

Now think of this: Our troops, at least 72 percent of whom want the hell out, have now been declared legitimate targets. But, unlike Iraqi troops who can throw up their hands at any given moment and go home to mama, Americans must continue to serve. Meanwhile, every single institution of any consequence (this excludes the Iraqi government and parliament) that we've turned over to Iraqis has not only utterly failed but is actively and massively contributing to the ongoing terror. All of Al Qaeda in Iraq is small fish compared with the enormous terror institutions that we have set up.

Now consider this: In the American media, we learn that Interior Ministry forces are the single biggest terror factor in Iraq, and it's just another story, a subsurface hum. We learn that Iraqi soldiers can desert any time they like with no penalty, and it's a one-day story. We learn that the prisons are in charge of Shiite militias, and it's another one-day story. We learn that American troops are declared legitimate targets by the worthless government, and it's barely noticed. But when the utterly marginal Zarqawi (the Lyndon LaRouche of the Middle East) is killed, it's a BIG DAMN DEAL.

In other words, the mainstream media are still tripping over one another to haul the administration's bilgewater, damn any facts that count. Iraq cannot be fixed, and neither can our media.

If al-Maliki is setting policy that that is in opposition to the US administration's it doesn't say much good about the relationship.

Or it says al-Maliki is clueless and inept.

Thanks, I should have been able to figure it out, but your clarifications helped!

Jan Knaus

The present Iraqi government is primarily Shia. The inhabitants of the oil producing regions of Iraq are primarily Shia (and Kurds) and the government has determined that proceeds from oil will go to the people who inhabit those regions, effectively creating a lot of very unhappy Sunnis. It's a safe bet that the US is seen by Sunnis as in cahoots with the Iraqi Shia - read oil. It has been suggested that the present government policy concerning oil is one of the primary causes of the civil/non/civil war and the insurgency. The solution to the problem is obvious as is the unlikelyhood that Bush and company would ever allow its adoption.

The Iraqi Prime Minister is making the right disinction between civil war and war against the US occupiers.

"...Those who target civilians - be they suicide bombers, or cluster bombers - are terrorists. ...

"But much of the opposition to the occupation appears to be legal under international law. People have a right to resist illegal occupation. In her report, "Terrorism and Human Rights," United Nations Rapporteur Kalliopi Koufa cited with approval the 1999 Convention of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference on Combating International Terrorism:

'People's struggles including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of international law shall not be considered a terrorist crime.'"

From Lawful Resistance to Occupation in Najaf
by Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
13 August 2004
http://www.ilaam.net/War/LawfulResistance.html

UN Charter, Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. ...

I don't think the appointment of Abdul-Qadir Muhammed Jasim as Defense Minister necessarily "gives the Sunni the Army." The Army per se is likely to be composed of members of both sects militias, as well as, presumably, former members of the Saddam-era military.

I think Jasim was the only person they could find who wasn't automatically a member of one of the Sunni or Shia militias and who also had some military credibility based on his participation in the Fallujah attacks - and that latter is not going to endear him to the Sunni insurgency.

A quote from 2004:

"raq's new army, formed after occupation authorities dismantled the armed forces that had served during the rule of Saddam Hussein, is taking part in the fight against insurgents in Fallujah, primarily as a rear element to help clear areas once U.S. forces have moved through. Marine commanders have declined to comment on the offensive, deferring to Iraqi officers. On Tuesday, Brig. Gen. Abdul-Qadir Muhammed Jasim characterized the offensive as "a holy task to fight for Fallujah people."

"We will fight to the last drop of our blood to free our people," he said at a news conference just outside the city. "We will fulfill the tasks we've been asked to do, with the cooperation of our friends."

Jasim said that resistance had been lighter than expected and that the Iraqi soldiers were in good spirits and eager to finish the operation.

"The operation is going very precise and with a very small number of casualties," he said. "In every place we finish an operation, our forces start to distribute aid, food, clothes, blankets and even money. . . . We are very sure that we are moving in the right way and will do the tasks we are asked to do very precisely." "

I agree that Zarqawi was probably dumped by his own people and/or the Sunni insurgency. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the insurgency is trying to "roll up the jihadists" - as yet anyway. This would suggest that Zarqawi was mostly dumped by his own people for hurting Al Qaeda's position in relation to the insurgency. Al Qaeda's goal probably includes remaining in Iraq after the US is forced out - this means they have to play nice with the insurgency. Whether it will work or not isn't relevant. But if Zarqawi was over-zealous in attacking Irsqis, that is likely the reason he was dumped.

Now, if the appointment of Jasim DOES result in a "Sunni Army" and a "Shia Police", then your analysis that the Iraqi government has essentially turned on the US may be correct.

However, as far as I can tell, the Iraqis - even outside the insurgency - consider the government to be mostly illegitimate. Maybe the senios Shia clerics like Sistani support it because it gives the Shia the majority of the power (as long as they can continue to make deals with the Kurds to out-vote the Sunnis), but I don't see any evidence that the insurgency has cut a deal - since they never did target Iraqis (except for cops and Iraqi military and other "collaborationists" - and those attacks had little to do with the level of sectarian violence against the Shia.)

The bottom line: I still don't see any evidence that attacks on US troops will significantly differ SIMPLY BASED ON the offer of an amnesty. There may be other factors, but the amnesty offer alone I think was just a trial balloon and/or a sop to the insurgency to get them to negotiate recognition of the Iraqi government.

In other words, as I said: "Go after the US troops - not us, the government."

And I doubt the insurgents will buy into that even if they have a Sunni at the head of the Army.

Jan, I agree it’s hard to believe, sometimes. Rove has taken media spin and dirty tricks to the WH and a new level (as his cuz, Tom Delay did in the House). If you’re a politician or PR person, the Swiftboating of Kerry must have been an awesome work of art. I think there are a few very, very small interest groups that would agree with what these guys are actually doing. But much of the country is clueless.

Today, the country is reading and hearing about the steadfast the Iraq war resolution passed in Congress supporting our troops and those unpatriotic Dems who argued against it (they won’t hear the actual arguments). It would be sad, if it weren’t so painful. But I take heart in the people at blogs like this and alternative media that are beginning to check the MSM. I think the tide has turned on Bush and I hope that filters through Congress and local politics. They’re running on Iraq (trying to reframe it) because they can’t run from it. I don’t think even Rove can get them out of this one.