If we had gone into Iraq because Saddam really was going gangbusters with his WMDs, or he was planing to steal Kuwait again when we weren't looking, or the Bush administration geniunely cared that Saddam was a rotten tyrant and that the Iraqis deserved a decent government, Mr.Traub, I'd be sweating all those questions, too. Unfortunately, none of those things were ever true.
Everything about this war was bent from its very inception. Now, along with the War on Terror, the Iraq War is twisting the US into something awful. The question is not how we can "save" Iraq; it's how can we save our country. Iraq isn't the problem, it's the symptom of something much worse, and that something is happening here.

This is so right.

I came at it a little differently but see your approach as more direct. My take was to think about what the U.S. was actually capable of doing. It was then that I saw that what has happened in this country has drastically limited what this country can do.

What can be done is to try and uncover and recognize openly why we actually went to war in the first place. Why? Because that will show us who we've become and how power is being directed. Then, maybe some action can take place to save our country.

Extending the health care metaphor: We are not physicians, we are part of the disease. Our hubris and greed allowed our country to slip away from the ideals of democracy and freedom as those very ideals were so cavalierly used to justify idiocy. "Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country."

You expect Bush to lay out a "plan"? And a "new plan" at that?

He might well mention the word "plan" a few times (along with a liberal sprinkling of words like "victory", "liberty", "sacrifice", and "Iraqi responsibility"), but it will only be in the normal course of laying out his rube-proof propaganda.

"There was another outbreak..."

I think the triage example is useful, and also the comparison to a contagious disease.

Also, consider that the disease is mutating.

The problem of Iraq has already spread outside the borders of Iraq, because of the refugee problem.

The issues raised by the refugees are not getting much discussion, not just because we are in the habit of fighting the last war, but also because the situation in Iraq is so fluid that we can hardly comprehend what the options for the refugees actually are. Perhaps the refugees have not caused much trouble, yet. But they will.

To digress a little on the refugee issue, disease is a very real consideration. Kenya, with good reason, has closed its borders to Somali refugees.

The only infectious disease that has been eradicated in the wild is smallpox. Not surprisingly, the last known case of the most virulent form (Variola major) was in Somalia although the final Variola minor case was in Bangladesh.

Most epidemiologists believe that the next disease that is a reasonable target for eradication is polio. Several cases of polio have been detected in Somali refugees in Kenyan camps. The Kenyans are understandably scared.

A special problem for Iraq is that many of the refugees are not the desperately starving and poor, but the educated and skilled people needed to rebuild the country.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It's not simply a matter of having to choose among bad choices. We just don't have the power to make things better, no matter what we choose. So things will get worse no matter what we do.

If we stay, we will break our Army and Marines, and eventually we will have to leave anyway, with even less power to deal with the consequences of this disaster, or, for that matter any other problem that might arise in the world.

So to do the least amount of harm? Leave. As soon as possible.

But even if, unlike President Bush, we agree that the American people have delivered a decisively negative verdict on the war, how much weight do we think he should give to that view? Surely we can’t admire Tony Blair for bucking British public opinion—and in the process destroying the most impressive political career in the Western world—and nevertheless insist that the President should submit to popular opinion even if the long-term consequences of doing so would be disastrous?

I can't realy understand this sentence, James. Is it your view that we should admire Tony Blair for defying public opinion, and that it would thus be hypocritical to admire Blair and yet demand that the US Congress accede to public wishes? Well forgive me if my breast does not swell in admiration of that lying, damned, authoritarian fool on the other side of the Atlantic.

Call me naive, but I tend to think that especially in the matter of war and peace our elected leaders and representatives should be obedient to the public will. Our tax revenues fund the killing; our children do the dying. So war or peace is our call.

Even if we conclude, on balance, that phased-withdrawal-starting-now (or very soon) is best for us both in the short and long term, are we prepared to accept the yet-greater-mayhem this will likely provoke in Iraq?

We should not "accept" any mayhem. But we should also avoid false dichotomies. So the question is how we avoid that mayhem. In my view, it is a gross error to think our choices are between staying and limiting mayhem, on the one hand, and leaving and unleashing mayhem on the other. Let's begin to think about how we can leave and work to stabilize Iraq at the same time. Surely there is at least a prima facie case to be made that freeing Iraq of a foreign occupation force, if done correctly, might be part of the solution to Iraqi instability, rather than the cause of deeper problems.

Assume the United States embarks on a phased withdrawal. How will that withdrawal occur? Over what period of time, and with what kinds of intermediate redeployments? With what sorts of diplomatic intitiatives will it be combined? Who in Iraq, if anyone, will be funded and armed as the US withdraws? What is the most effective means of protecting the various Iraqi populations? How do we forge a common regional consensus on a future for Iraq? What role, if any, should the current Iraqi government play in that future? How do we encourage the states in the regions to use their many networks of connections and their good offices among their natural allies in Iraq to push those allies toward a consensus settlement? What can be done to involve high profile regional religious leaders in an inter-sectarian dialogue on the restoration of peace among the warring sects and religious organizations in Iraq? How do we involve the broader international community in the forging and implementation of a coordinated plan?

Of course, to enlist the constructive involvement of others in the solution, we are going to have to ask them for their input and give weight to their interests. That seems to be something many of our leaders have a great deal of trouble doing.

Our national leadership has barely begun to consider these questions, because they are yet to wrap their heads around the notion that these are the questions we should be asking. So instead we get crude debates about escalating or staying the course vs. rapid withdrawal.

My observation lately is that while many of the war's one-time supporters have decided that we should now begin winding down the war, instead of stepping up with a constructive plan B, or plan C or plan Q, they are adopting a petulant "oh, let's just get out now" approach. Perhaps they are secretly hoping for mayhem so that they can make a come back later mounted on an "I told you so" horse. Or maybe they are just too busy crying in their beer to give a shit.

Returning to the questions I raised, the executive branch of our government will never begin to address these questions seriously until they are forced to do so. So long as they think they will be able to engineer an escalation or an open-ended commitment to staying the course, they will avoid facing reality. The Congress is going to have to do something to cut of funding, and force the White House to stare into the abyss, before it can succeed in concentrating their attention.

It is relevant that we have a civil war in Iraq. That's because we don't just have a civil war, but an escalating civil war. We don't just have a situation in which ethnic cleansing is going to occur in Baghdad, but in which most of Baghdad already hasbeen ethnically cleansed. Exactly how much violence is the US preventing?

For what appear to me to be mainly political reasons, the highest levels of the US government are unwilling to consider constructive engagement with Syria, Iran and any other states on the neocon hit list. They are also unwilling to consider major peace initiatives in Palestine which, though not directly related to Iraq, could do much to repair US diplomatic fortunes in the Middle East and the world, and generate some momentum for a constructive and multilateral regional approach to issues of common concern - like Iraq. They won't do this, and have instead put Palestine policy is in the hands of maniacs like Elliot Abrams, who is now pursuing a Hamas/Fatah civil war agenda which is opposed by almost anyone of policy-making consequence in the US, Israel and the Arab world. It is supported only by some folks at the highest levels of our reigning wingnut administration.

If the US government refuses to engage with Iran because some US officials have more concern with the preferences and interests of reactionary Saudis or hardline Israelis than they do with the interests of Americans and Iraqis, then those officials will bear the responsibility for that failure to engage. History will judge those who ignored the dictates of reality and sacrificed the American interest to political cowardice and expediency.

You rightly note that "few of us are in a position to say what in fact will be the consequences of making this or that choice from among our dreadful options." This in itself speaks to the deplorable dysfunction at the heart of our republic. These are a few people who do have much more of the information needed to make these decisions in an intelligent way - or at least have access to that information, even if they do not aggressively seek it out. Our government is outfitted with a menagerie of intelligence agencies amassing mountains of relevant information. The problem is that almost all of these agencies work for the President and the executive branch of the government - they don't work for us. They prepare endless briefings and reports for the President, the Secretary of State, the chiefs of the armed forces and others. But none of them are required to deliver information to the rest of us.

The result is that you, and I, and about 300 million other people are required to grope around in the dark, read tea leaves, and make out as best we can from news reports in the public media what is actually happening in Iraq, Iran and the rest of the Middle East. And yet this perverse, antidemocratic, authoritarian monstrosity of a governing system is the one we seek to export to the world in the name of democracy? How can we possibly make informed decisions when we are systematically kept in the dark by our own government and governing elites?

One thing we could all benefit from right now is full and accurate information about conditions in Iran, the workings of the Iranian government and the outlooks and intentions of the different compnents of that government. Flynt Leverett tried to fill us in on some facts of vital relevance to informed public decision-making on Iran. And the White House responded by censoring him, apparently because this news he had to bring is incompatible with the official White House line on Iran.

"the educated and skilled people needed to rebuild the country"

Like Mohamed Atta, or Amhed Chalabi, these are the kinds of people who, when disaffected, become loose cannons on the deck.

There are some starting points for making information available, at virtually no cost. The current policy has been that the generally excellent (and unclassified) reports written by the Congressional Research Service are not available to the public. Quite a few are given to organizations such as the Federation of American Scientists, but there's no central repository.

In point of fact, the reports are online within the Capitol Hill networks. Yes, more bandwidth and server capacity would be needed if those networks were opened, but it would be of minimal cost if access were simply granted to universities, think tanks, media, and others who will do secondary distribution. There's precedent for somewhat more sensitive information, the unclassified reports of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service -- some universities get it, but otherwise, one contractor provides access for healthy fees.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I do think there was a tendency a few weeks ago, among some quarters of the Democratic establishment, to recommend an innocent bystander policy based on standing around between now and 2008, insisting loudly, repeatedly and unrealistically on abject congressional powerlessness over the course of events in Iraq, and allowing Iraq to descend further into savagery and chaos, so that Bush could then be blamed fully and unequivocally for the wreck in the end. This approach was accompanied by the "it's Bush's war" and "it's the Republicans' war" talking points.

This line had all the earmarks of a typical made-in-Washington political strategy developed by soulless political operatives. I am incredibly heartended by the fact that since then the majority of Democrats seem to have rejected these amoral counsels of passivity, and most have instead chosen a more pro-active course aimed at influencing the course of the war and the course of Iraq policy. Some are still a bit too timid, but things are moving in the right direction.

Howard,

I have read some of these CRS reports from time to time, and they do seem quite good. But they are reports that tend to take a broad summary view in space and time. I would suggest that the public still needs something more akin to daily and weekly intelligence updates, with more timely information about evolving facts on the ground, and analytical interpretations of actions and motives. The media provides some of this, but the media's ability to get access to the necessary infomation is very limited.

I understand the usual reservations about providing intelligence to the public, and the argumets for classification: protecting sources and method;, protecting operational secrets; deceiving adversaries about strategies and tactics and avoiding boosting the morale of adversaries by revealing news of various kinds of US failures and enemy successes.

But I suspect the chief motive for most of the secrecy and classification that takes place is the government's drive to control us and exercise unimpeded sway over the course of events, to deny us the information we need to intelligently challenge or frustrate administratiuon plans and to escape accountability by preventing us from learning about their many cock-ups.

Some argue that a legitimatre function of the government in wartime is maintaining morale and public support of the war effort, and defend lying and secrecy on that basis. I would argue that those are not legitimate functions of a democratic government. We are supposed to be citizens of a self-governing democratic community, not the children of some Great Father in Washington. Elected officials work for us, and our morale is our own business. We are entitled and required to reevaluate continuously our commitments and policy preferences in the light of accurate information.

Yeah, I get what you're saying but what I fear is that we'll "get out" but not get out. Take a look at what TPM posted yesterday which mentions the oil concessions we are seeking. These concessions as well as many other aspects of why we are there are also discussed in Antonia Juhasz' article that I've mentioned in other threads. As you can see, we are enmeshed in Iraq and the Middle East in ways that are not obvious.

The quickest way to actually get the troops home may in fact be to expose the whole truth about why we are there. Then we can hope to act where it counts and not, once again, become dupes of the Vice President's Energy Task Force and others.

How much money? Deploying 10,000 military personnel to Iraq costs us $1.2 billion. That would be a tidy sum to add to reconstruction of the country which I agree with you is what we should be focusing on.

Adding an additional 20-30,000 troops has been done twice before to no avail. Is there any evidence that the third time will work? Will Bush or anybody give us some hard, fast and realistic information on what's different now, on what was not true then but is true now as to conditions on the ground and/or in the Iraqi government where adding more troops now would be beneficial?

I would also like some real info on what affect, if there is one, the presence of American troops on the ground has on the civil war. Does there presence exascerbate the problem, foreinstance.

We really know so little about anything having to do with Iraq that we are really spinning our wheels when it comes to what to do or what not to do in that poor beleaguered country.

Let's also keep in mind that George Bush is incapable of being humilitated. If not, he would have gone home to Crawford with his tail between his legs long ago. Humiliation requires an ability to see the big picture objectively and to have basic personal honesty. I don't see one iota of those qualities in him.

I also object to the tenor or the quotes cited. Bush has not achieved one aspect of governing that has been successful as far as I am concerned, and the very large majority of what he has done has been incalculably harmful to our country and the world.

His motivations have been to enrich war profiteers, oil-men, and to gain personal power. If there are other motivations, they are very well hidden.

I think Mr. Traub is accusing Dems of "Playing the Blame Game," and I for one am sick of those trite phrases; even when they are dressed up in an essay.

Yes, I truly cannot stand George Bush, but if he came up with a plan that I believed would save lives I can honestly say I would embrace it whole-heartily. That said, I do feel suspicious of him when he does speak, because...you know -- fool me once..................................

Jan Knaus

When you say that the villagers attacked when they thought the doctors and nurses were spreading the disease, are you actually comparing the US forces to doctors and nurses in an epidemic???

So we really didn't need to take over the whole country, then. We just needed to take out Saddam's security forces?

Models, HA! That's one of the main problems with this whole mess, Howard. People applying the Grand Strategy "Models" of what they think the situation SHOULD look like and respond to.

Howard, stick to what you know, and know well- don't pontificate about the pain that you can neither feel, nor measure.

I sing the song of the colorectal surgeon Misunderstood and much maligned Slaving away in the heart of darkness Working where the sun don't shine.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

This piece reflects some of the misgivings and ambivalence that I've felt about a full American withdrawal from Iraq.

At least seven months ago the atrocities in Haditha helped me decide that the US was doing more harm than good in Iraq. I read about how Americans had become just one more militia in Iraq, killing Iraqis.

The choice was a hard one. And I still had my doubts, despite the convincing prose of Luttwak's decision (two years ago) that we should leave:

American forces continue to suffer casualties in combat against factions that should be confronting one another instead. Perhaps what the new Iraqi state needs in order to achieve stability is precisely a certain amount of civil war. Preventing it may impede a natural and perhaps very desirable political evolution. Americans would not today be happier if European Great Powers, horrified by the carnage of our own Civil War, had enforced an armistice between North and South that might endure still between two feeble states.

At the end of the day though, thinking that we could "fix Iraq" is what got America into this mess in the first place. Taking a long hard look at how things currently stand in Iraq and how little we know about the country, it would be hard to convince me that we can do, above all, anything but harm there.

This also brings up the question of who should decide whether we stay or go. Should it be the American people? Should it be the American government? What about the Iraqis? Should it be the government or the people in that country?

I'm inclined to believe that it ought to be the Iraqis who get to decide. They've had so little say in their lives for the last several decades, it's about time they got to make a decision about something. To my mind, a national referendum is in order. Let Iraqis stain their fingers purple and show us the door. This would permit the US to leave with a little more decorum (or less shame, you could say) while allowing the Iraqis the dignity of having a say in their country's fate, however terrible it may turn out to be.

Cross-posted on my blog.

A truly sick neuro resident once referred to the Q-umlaut sign. Since that made no sense in German, he explained that the two dots were the flies on the tongue.

As I said, sick...but we are talking about house staff.

One ER physician friend is still upset that you can be dead and have a GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale) score of 3.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

[duplicate]

The explanations of the "O"sign/"Q"sign differences were physically demonstrated to the perplexed.

Medical humor......

I have been waiting for a plan since '03, Jan.  I was supportive of Bush for going into Afghanistan...and since then I have literally disagreed with everything he has done allegedly in response to 9/11.

He has no plan to save lives and the proposed "surge" is another fine example of him still having no plan in that regard, just a slogan of "stay the course".  Since the beginning of our Iraq War we have been fed misinformation and lies from WoMD to aluminum tubes to Uranium from Niger to 9/11 ties involving Atta and Al Qaeda, etc etc etc.  And now we are being told a "surge" in troops actually represents a change in Iraq War policy?  Well the administration needs to pardon me for being a skeptic...and rightly so because as far as I see a "surge" represents nothing more than more "stay the course".

And the reason for the skepticism is George W. Bush's fault and his alone.  He has no one to blame for himself.  So when I read a contributor here say that the liberals/dems who want to see a forced withdrawal from Iraq for no other reason than to humiliate Bush that couldn't be more wrong.  Sadly because of Bush a forced withdrawal and it's consequences is our best option for a war that, that at the time and now in hindsight, should have never been begun at all and has been completely mismanaged...

Somehow, the well intentioned and thoughtful Howard C. Berkowitz that used to post here seems to have been lost in more ways than an account suspension.

Since you have hijacked this thread to your own ends, I guess any of us "virtual assholes" that don't agree with your synopsis (of the opinions of others on the endless Usenet groups you find time to be an expert on), don't need to post or question.

I still don't see any relationship between the original article and simplistic medical "anal-ogies" that you continue to try to push- using a healthcare frame of reference to explain a "model" for failed foreign policy.

Good night, and good luck.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada

The fact that you mention that there is a tendency for many Bush critics to be willing to oppose him and risk causing disasters worldwide just to cause him humiliation tells me that there must be a lot of Bush critics that suffer from that kind of bitterness when trying to formulate policy. Kind of scary really.

Nothing much to add to this admirable and eloquent comment.  I too was struck by the sentence that caught Dan K's eye.  I would have shortened that sentence considerably, given editorial control.  My version would have read thus:

Surely we can’t admire Tony Blair for bucking British public opinion—and in the process destroying the most impressive political career in the Western world—

To which I would have responded, "I can't, and I don't". 

aMike

If critics are so scary maybe, to assuage the fears of folks like TJ, they should be arrested and forced to recant.

Recant, hell. Mr. King would have them thrown in jail indefinitely without charge. He spent acres of space saying so in another thread.

I'm sure Cheney/Bush are trying to find a way to arrest their critics. They're too stupid to understand what their critics are saying.

Tom

Acres of space? You already ran up the (White) French battle flag on that Knee Jerk. You had no argument other than name calling and you still won't admit that Lee was locked up, shackled, incommunicado in solitary for nearly a year for political reasons. If you care so much about the rights of the accused you would be willing to admit that false imprisonment is a miscarriage of justice for the victim regardless of the political party of the official that denied them their rights. Now I suppose you want to defend Democrat D.A. Mike Nifong at Duke. I get a kick out of everybody claiming I would like to see Bush arrest someone because they oppose his policies. Why would he want to muzzle someone that is making a fool out of themselves.

By the way, Knee Jerk, speaking of muzzling yourself, this the third farewell tour for you. You said you didn't have the energy to defend your lame positions and here you are again.

Remember, you wanted to tell me that my pants were on fire, right?

I assume the talk about opiates was mean to continue giving them to us, the citizens of the US to continue to sleep!

The Administration is moving to create civil war in Lebanon, Gaza, and The West Bank. We are giving arms to Fatah to fight Hamas that in the future be used against others!
Or administration, in our name, is spreading the FIRE!

Ask those in Iraq what we should do!
Ask those who have left from Iraq what we should do!
Ask other countries!
Have we lost the humility to ask?
Have we lost our country?
Have we lost ourselves?

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Hmmm. The way I recall it, you were the one with the "pants on fire" line. Twice so far. Of course, both I and the facts might be mistaken; and I realize that facts don't carry too much weight with True Believers.

Of course Lee was locked up. He committed a felony!

As for being shackled, he was not "schackled [sic] to the floor of his cell for nearly a year" as you falsely claimed. He was being held in a non-Federal facility (for his own convenience) and was shackled when being moved from place to place as was every prisoner in that facility who was in administrative segregation. Further, it was the Clinton administration who ordered the Federal marshals to stop the shackling process, giving Lee special treatment.

(I won't bother to argue about whether nine months is "nearly a year." I understand that you only put it that way for dramatic effect when combined with the phoney idea of his being shackled in his cell.)

Your statement that he was held incommunicado similarly lacks a soupcon of truthiness. His family had weekly visitation privileges. He had legal representation throughout the process. The government provided him with a mandarin interpreter in case he wanted to speak mandarin to family members. They even changed his phone call times and visiting days to accomodate him.

You claim false imprisonment?! He plead guilty! Moreover, the government had another 50+ counts they could have pressed against him if they didn't mind giving away nuclear secrets in open court.

As I said on the other thread, your allegations just don't stand up against the facts.

But whether Lee was abused or not is open to debate among people of good will (if we can find such a person on your side of the argument). Whether or not Padilla and Hamdi were abused has been decided by the Supreme Court. They were.

As for Mr. Bush applying the muzzle, that ship has sailed. He has already been caught prying into the affairs of such horrifying terrorists as the Quakers and animal rights activists. He claims the right to tap your phone without a warrant. I suppose you don't think those kinds of activities by a technology- and power-rich central government don't have a chilling effect on free speech. I hope most would disagree.

Mail can be opened, too, according to the latest signing statement from the decider-in-chief.

Ask those in Iraq what we should do!

Not that we asked, but an outline for peace by Ali A Allawi, former Minister of Trade and Minister of Defence in the Iraqi Governing Council Cabinet (2003-2004) and currently a senior adviser to the Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, appeared in the UK Independent on Jan. 5.

Highlights:

The first step must be the recognition that the solution to the Iraq crisis must be generated first internally, and then, importantly, at the regional level. The two are linked and the successful resolution of one would lead to the other.

No foreign power, no matter how benevolent, should be allowed to dictate the terms of a possible historic and stable settlement in the Middle East. No other region of the world would tolerate such a wanton interference in its affairs.

That is not to say that due consideration should not be given to the legitimate interests of the great powers in the area, but the future of the area should not be held hostage to their designs and exclusive interests.

Secondly, the basis of a settlement must take into account the fact that the forces that have been unleashed by the invasion of Iraq must be acknowledged and accommodated. These forces, in turn, must accept limits to their demands and claims. That would apply, in particular, to the Shias and the Kurds, the two communities who have been seen to have gained from the invasion of Iraq.

Thirdly, the Sunni Arab community must become convinced that its loss of undivided power will not lead to marginalisation and discrimination. A mechanism must be found to allow the Sunni Arabs to monitor and regulate and, if need be, correct, any signs of discrimination that may emerge in the new Iraqi state.

Fourthly, the existing states surrounding Iraq feel deeply threatened by the changes there. That needs to be recognised and treated in any lasting deal for Iraq and the area.

A way has to be found for introducing Iran and Turkey into a new security structure for the Middle East that would take into account their legitimate concerns, fears and interests. It is far better that these countries are seen to be part of a stable order for the area rather than as outsiders who need to be confronted and challenged.

The Iraqi government that has arisen as a result of the admittedly flawed political process must be accepted as a sovereign and responsible government. No settlement can possibly succeed if its starting point is the illegitimacy of the Iraqi government or one that considers it expendable.

What Iraq would have to do:

1 Iraq government calls for regional security conference including Iraq's neighbours to produce an agreement/treaty on non-intervention and combating terrorism. Signatory states will be responsible to set of markers for commitments.

Purpose: To reduce/eliminate neighbouring countries' support for insurgents, terrorists and militias.

2 Iraq government calls for preparatory conference on a Middle-Eastern Confederation of States that will examine proposals on economic, trade and investment union. Proposals will be presented for a convention on civil, human and minority rights in the Near East, with a supreme court/tribunal with enforcement powers.

Purpose: To increase regional economic integration and provide minorities in signatory countries with supra-national protection.

3 Iraq government calls for an international conference on Iraq that would include Iraq, its regional neighbours, Egypt, the UAE, the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China that would aim to produce a treaty guaranteeing:

a. Iraq's frontiers.
b. The broad principles of Iraq's constitutional arrangements.
c. Establishing international force to replace the multi-national force over 12 to 18 months. Appointing international co-ordinator to oversee treaty implementation.

Purpose: To arrange for the gradual and orderly withdrawal of American troops, ensure that Iraq develops along constitutional lines, confirm Iraq and its neighbours' common frontiers.

4 Iraq government will introduce changes to government by creating two statuary bodies with autonomous financing and independent boards:

a. A reconstruction and development council run by Iraqi professionals and technocrats with World Bank/UN support.
b. A security council which will oversee professional ministries of defence, interior, intelligence and national security.

Purpose: To remove the reconstruction and development programme from incompetent hands and transfer them to an apolitical, professional and independent body. Also to remove the oversight, command and control over the security ministries from politicised party control to an independent, professional and accountable body.

5 The entire peace plan, its preamble and its details must be put before the Iraqi parliament for its approval.

The Outcome:

The end state of this process would be three interlinked outcomes. The first would be a decentralised Iraqi state with new regional governing authorities with wide powers and resources.

The second essential outcome would be a treaty that would establish a confederation or constellation of states of the Middle East, initially including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. The main aim of the confederation would be to establish a number of conventions and supra-regional bodies that would have the effect of acting as guarantors of civil, minority and community rights

Lastly, an indispensable end outcome is a regional security pact that would group the countries of the Arab Middle East with Iran and Turkey, at first in some form of anti-terrorism pact, but later a broader framework for discussing and resolving major security issues that impinge on the area as a whole.

On the US:

It was the US that launched this phase of the interminable Middle East crisis, by invading Iraq and assuming direct authority over it. Whatever project it had for Iraq has vanished, a victim of inappropriate or incoherent policies, and the violent upending of Iraq's power structures.

Nevertheless, the US is still the most powerful actor in the Iraq crisis, and its decisions can sway the direction and the manner in which events could unfold.

In other areas of the world, the US has used its immense influence and power to cement regional security and economic associations. There is no reason why the regional associations being mooted in conjunction with a decentralised Iraqi state, could not play an equally important part in resolving the Iraqi crisis and dispersing the dangerous clouds threatening the region.

According to Informed Comment's Juan Cole, Mr. Allawi's plan was widely hailed by politicians and by journalists and analysts in Britain, but in the insular US it has barely gotten a hearing.

He [Bush] has perfected the alchemical process of turning milestones into headstones and millstones. Ges's Blog 12/31/06

Magnificent, aren't they?

While thinking about this thread it occured to me that this war would not have happened in the first place if there were not opportunities seen by the mega-corporation to make obscene profits from this war. Maybe it would be worth the effort of someone brighter than me to analyze how Congress can impact those profits in such a way as to make withdrawal ASAP a lot more profitable than staying. Maybe then all this blather about how the U.S. will appear to "our enemies" will cease, maybe then the troops will exit lickety-split.

I would like to see Congress' response to be to actually address the assumption that there are no good courses of action, openly and honestly with full investigation into why we went in and why it is such a mess now, with all assumptions, all assumptions tested. I don't expect that though.

I do think that there are courses of action to be taken that would do a lot to ameliorate future harm. Whether this country is capable or willing to take those actions is the question.

I'm beginning to think that the Neocons have successfully shifted the debate by doing such a good job of messing it up so bad.

If you are correct about the neo-Cons, and I am not really convinced, then thank goodness for them. Their policies promote greater freedom, greater wealth and independence. It is a rejection of the heart of totalitarianism, collectivism, and the certainty that some group knows what is good for everyone.

This rather Platonic view of the world, there is a collective abstract good, has been the cause of more monstrousness than anything the neo-Con's believe.

Unfortunately the neo-Cons seem to believe their ideology and military force can overcome the lack of liberalism and institutions that bring liberal societies. Margn Carta was signed in 1215, the American Revolution in 1776 and end of Slavery in 1865. This a long haul in the creation of a liberal American society.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Well, what do they know? After all, we have "The Decider" to figure everything out. Sure is working well so far! Those Iraqis just don't know how lucky they are!

Jan Knaus

"... Ancient Vietnam analogies...". Ancient (32 years) and accurate.

Tom

The Independent's article didn't go into every single detail, Howard. Please write to them and let them know where they failed. :-) In the meantime, here are the other "facts" from the article that might help you decide the bunker buster issue.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb. [emphasis mine]

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released.

In the article that whatdoIknow linked to re the Stennis, it is a strike group, but once again, we are short on details of what ships make up the strike group. This is on top of a carrier group that is already in the Persian Gulf. (No, the article didn't say which one).

He [Bush] has perfected the alchemical process of turning milestones into headstones and millstones. Ges's Blog 12/31/06

Obviously, the Independent isn't giving full details, certainly not on an engineering level. With that caveat, what is described is rather technically ambitious.

I'm not saying impossible, but a 1-2 KT nuclear weapon, the size range you are describing, is harder to design than a Hiroshima-sized bomb. No one is really sure who, and if, tested a device in the ocean south of South Africa, but the consensus seems to be it wasn't a nuclear test.

In the early US and Soviet above-ground and underground tests, there were, at first, as many fizzle yields (i.e., insignificant) as there were mini-yields. Most analysts I've seen think the North Korean test was a fizzle, since no one has ever started testing with a yield that small.

If it's useful, I can go into some of the technical challenges. One very big unknown is that I've never seen informed speculation of whether Israel has a hydrodynamic test facility, where you set off high explosives around simulated nuclear material, and watch the compression and other shock waves with superfast X-ray cameras and other instrumentation. This kind of test gear is as classified as anything is in the US arsenal. It would appear, however, that you need that to design a reliable mini-nuke if you can't do live nuclear testing.

If the Stennis is in it, it's a carrier strike group. The other kind, expeditionary strike group, is for amphibious landings by Marines.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It appears that we are sending our military in
harms way to a situation we do not control.

I am concerned this may be a setup for a
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution ploy or worse,
actual deaths of our sailors!

We can assume nothing, this is not
American power as we have known it.

Navy trains to detect new generation of diesel subs January 27, 2006

...submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26. (2006)

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Those Iraqis just don't know how lucky they are!

True. Just think of the chaos if Cheney decided to hunt for quail in the palm trees of Baghdad.

He [Bush] has perfected the alchemical process of turning milestones into headstones and millstones. Ges's Blog 12/31/06

The “domino theory” turned out to be a myth. But can we say the same of the stateless phenomenon of Islamic terrorism? With what level of confidence can we dismiss the claim that our withdrawal from Iraq will embolden jihadists elsewhere (and in Iraq)?

This question answers itself. If Islamic terrorism is stateless, then Iraq is not relevant to stateless Islamic terrorism, because, ergo, it can exist anywhere.

Why would withdrawing from Iraq "embolden" a stateless terrorist movement? By what mechanism? By definition, a "stateless" terrorist movement has its own internal momentum which allows it to pop up anywhere, hence it being "stateless."

Lastly, is the author actually implying that the U.S. should base its troop deployment decisions in Iraq based on what some purported terrorist cell in the United Kingdom thinks of these deployment decisions? Should we poll them first ???

Republicans might get hurt, that is a good one TJ. Meanwhile the mass graves are still filling with the recent products of his War President fantasies. George W. Bush is the one who started this war and he and his party bear the responsibility.

America, Iraq and many countries and individuals throughout the world have paid and will continue to pay a heavy price for the arrogance. lies and blunders of this Republican administration.

The Iraq fiasco is purely a product of the bloodlust of Decider Bush and his rubberstamp Republicans. If it brings them pain no one in the world will say they didn't deserve it.

I can barely contain my laughter. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing, yet your obviously limp grasp of the English language will not allow you to comprehend that the point of my post is the same point as Traub's. He is telling you to not be blind to reality. You are the poster child of his intended audience.

And yes, I have read Mr. Orwell's, self described anti-communist work called 1984 written during the cold war (btw, we won). He referred to collectivism, the expanding state and the ideology we consider the left, as being inherently undemocratic and furthermore it gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of. Smart guy that Orwell. Your chronic navel gazing and refusal to understand the written word has again blinded you from the fact that the people he was warning the world about is YOU.

Thanks for your lesson on English literature.

Actually the people Eric Blair (Orwell's real name) was warning the world about in Animal Farm & 1984 are perfectly examplified by George W. Bush and the lying WHIG group.

Tom

To adapt from your "fearful" leader's "prose," Sir, You MisOverEstimate yourself!

If I were you, I would not laugh so hard at what I said, because I am right and you are so sadly pathetically inequipt to comprehend truth and/or reality. I DID get that you agree with Traub. I guess you did NOT get that I happen to DISAGREE with him, or don't you bother to actually try to understand what people here write. I honestly don't think you even re-read your own stuff because you might realize how half-baked it is and actually do some editing.

My "refusal to understand the written word?" You don't even defend the fact that YOUR written words are completely inconsistent and dishonest. Well, why do that when you can just accuse me of navel gazing? Wow! Deep! Pithy! And based on......what, exactly? Your simple-minded response makes me realize that I should not waste my time with any serious rebuttle, so I have just 4 words for you:

Grow UP
Bite Me

Sorry, TPM crowd, this troll has my dander up!

Jan Knaus

Hoosier

The Bush administration is a rogue group, not one which represents the will and character of the United States as a whole.

The Republicans will likely be corrupted for the next decade or so. The likes of John McCain cannot necessarily be trusted to 'do the right thing.' In a sense, the GOP at present is marooned much as the Democrats were during the Vietnam era.

The habits and ruling strategies of the Bush administration can easily become things of the past so long as the Democrats do not secretly adopt any of his ways.

The foreign policy decisions of Bush will be felt long after his departure. Yet I find it ironic and a bit worrisome that so many seem to be of the opinion that Bush has permanently altered the way the Executive Branch governs.

Unless the Democrats succumb to the greed of the Office, why should we be worrying about this? Shouldn't Bush's vices expire with his second term?

The stateless terrorist cum failed state syndrome has replaced  the trusty Evil Empire as  preferred rationale for bombing some foreign locale.......... or other.

Replacing coming to the aid of  US medical school students , which replaced defending missionaries (aka United Fruit ) , which replaced defending ITT's Chilean telephone company , which replaced punishing Pancho Villa , which replaced Remember The Maine . Apologies to the myriad intervening rationales I've skipped but the names hardly matter . Any stick to beat a dog when it comes to whipping the public and/or Congress into sufficient righteous indignation to support bombing this week's  bete noir.

And that Ortega.He's back again. There's another failed state ! 

.duplicate

Hmmm? Something along the lines of  Windfall Profits Made in Iraq Tax Act eh? I like the ring of that. Maybe it could be structured so that the more  American troops  there the greater the tax liability. D'ya think they'd still want a surge then? Hey we all have to make sacrifices, time to pony up boys. 

Your request for censorship only proves your statement about "different viewpoints" is insincere.

Knee Jerk, here we go again with you projecting your preconceived notion of the inner thoughts of anyone that disagrees with you. How can you know what my beliefs in God might be?

Suicide bombers? So you are aware there are people trying to kill as many American citizens as possible. What should we do?

Your promise of responding with "intelligent derision rather than emotion" is followed with calling me an "illogical Prick".

Wow, quoting Socrates again.

Very thoughtful post

Here a few tips for the amateur blogger:

1) Try restricting yourself to not more than, say, a dozen changes of direction in any one comment.

2) If you wipe the saliva from your keyboard from time to time, whether the source is drooling or spitting, it may prevent your fingers from slipping and typing something really, really stupid.

3) Chances are no one really cares about your belief in God, Ronald Reagan, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (although it is true that the three of them have never been seen together).

4) With modern medical advances, there is help for the heartbreak of Irony Deafness. Maybe you can find a clinic...

Mr. King, I don't want you to think that I mean for any of these to be directed at you, but for some reason I felt the need to post them in this particular place.

OK

And why not?

If Orwell was writing today, you don't think he would find the Bush Administration's use of propaganda, secrecy, torture, lying about WMD, Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, up-is-down policies have a lot in common with 1984? 

A modern reading of that novel has "Bush" written all over it. He just picked the date about 20 years too soon.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

You say: "..Why not?.."

Because Orwell himself despised statism in all its forms including communism and any form of government that encourages the "expanding state". So, to answer your question, No, I do not believe Orwell writing today would see similarities between 1984 and Mr. Bush's Administration, nor would he consider any of the list of allegations you made valid.

While I hardly think there would be compliance, it would be interesting to raise the 25th Amendment question of determining if the President was incapacitated.

The scary thing about all these issues -- without further detail, that makes Cheney the Decider.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Don't fall for diversionary tactics. Support the opposition to Bush's maniacal war.

Tom

cscs, the money quote from 1984:

"And in the general hardening of outlook that set in ... practices which had been long abandoned- imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions ... and the deportation of whole populations -- not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive."

Impeachment: It's Not Just for BJs Anymore

I don't understand your response.

What does despising "statism" (he spoke out against "nationalism" -- same thing?) have to do with examining how the Bush Administration may or may not resemble something in 1984?

And why wouldn't the "allegations" I made not be valid? Do you dispute any of that? Which of those are not true or valid?

Secrecy? Check.

Torture? Check.

Goofy names for environmental programs that actually privilege corporations over the environment? Check.

You answer is basically, "Orwell didn't like Communism, so you're wrong."

Can you expand? 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

And of herrings, I prefer white (sour cream), silver(wine) or even yellow (mustard). Tomato herring just isn't as good.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Cheney may be the first impeachment target, if he resists a subpoena.

Nattering nabobs of negativism to the fore! Your work is not done.

Maybe it's just me.

We're talking about a modern reading of Orwell. Not as he would have applied it in 1945, but today.

Let me take a step back -- do you see any similarities between the concept of fascism and the Bush Administration? Maybe that's the problem...I'm not calling Bush "Hitler" or anything here. I'm talking about the privatizing of our government, about the close ties between private and public agencies. I can run down a list if you need.

Alternatively, let's talk about "Clear Skies." You don't see how that legislation, which is actually BAD for our skies, is newspeak?

Finally, you don't see how this government is "denying the legitimacy of the individual"? Illegal wiretapping, the loss of habeas corpus right a bell?

Again, I am not simply saying Bush is a fascist. But there are certainly aspects of his administration that we can examine critically in this light.

Again, maybe it's just me...

Dissent Protects Democracy.

It looks like we were kinda joined at the brain, cscs.

Read
The Space Merchants by C. M. Kornbluth & Frederik Pohl. Released 1953 and more relevant & prophetic for today. Set in a time of corporate imperialism, Privatization to the max, privacy (none, bad for business), satire, and a good read.
If anyone misread Orwell this is more than recurrence education.

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

KJ, let me just touch on a couple of your points. The remark that you made about the upper 5 percent for starters. I don't agree with your premise, but Orwell is inherently suspicious of any system that uses the state to redistribute material resources to eliminate classes or make every body equal in wealth (or misery as Churchill said). I am sure he would admire your intentions, but not your apparent means. Regarding Bushes expertise in Newsspeak etc. If you are being ironic in attributing cleverness to him or deviousness, you can't on the one hand call him a complete moron and then turn around and say he is the most devious and clever mastermind.

And finally about the dip in the water remark, I haven't heard that one when you introduce something new like that, I am always interested in seeing your source if its not too much trouble. Thanks in advance.

Here's your link. I got the wording slightly wrong. It was actually "a dunk in the water."

you can't on the one hand call him a complete moron and then turn around and say he is the most devious and clever mastermind
Two points:
-- I called him neither a moron nor a mastermind.
-- He can easily be both at the same time. A political mastermind, a presidential dunce.

In fact, I don't think he is a political genius, by any means. But he can afford to buy political geniuses, and he has: Rove, Cheney, Baker, et al. As for whether he's a presidential dunce, I'll leave that to the jury (but I have no doubt about the verdict.)

Not re: drummers...

heh heh

Dissent Protects Democracy.

My nephew was wounded in Iraq, buddy. While you blog my relative is wounded. Don't lecture me. Focus on ending this war. I don't support terrorists and I don't support wasting my time. Goodbye forever.

Tom

Perhaps. Of course, there is a tendency for other Bush supporters, such as myself, to oppose his decisions that cause, not risk, disasters worldwide. I'm not especially interested in humiliating, him, in no small part because I believe he is incapable of feeling humiliated.

As far as his understanding of the use of military force, a respected American used words I cannot surpass:

"He is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that, he's a great military man."

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

CSCS, I will not even ask you if you agree with Global Exchange's position on Hezbollah. If you want to cuss people out instead of taking part in discussion on a point of principle, then I am convinced your emotion is overwhelming your ability to contemplate where you stand on an issue this important.

Very good link KJ. I hadn't heard that. I think I may have initially misread your previous link where it said Bushies I thought you had said Bush's remark, but either way having the VP say it is significant.

I had not intended to quote you on the moron remark and I think it was clear that I was characterizing your words as I interpreted them, but you are right you hadn't used those words in the post. I think it is also possible that he could be neither, but your point is well taken.

Convincing people of your political bent was never an issue, Mr. King. You folks have demonstrated your willingness to be convinced -- easily -- repeatedly -- falsely -- by charlatans.

How about i don't give a shit what you think?

Once you start accusing people here of supporting terrorists, you demonstrate your ignorance and unworthiness to our community.

See ya later. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

KJ, It seems you imply that I am of a group that blindly follows marching orders from an elite cabal. It's possible I share a philosophy with tens of millions of others that don't need to be convinced of what we think is right. The argument could easily be made from the other side, although I have not made that argument.

Yes, I do understand the point you are making and I appreciate the intentions behind your statement, but I do not agree with all of the concepts that you propose. Ironically my family that I mentioned that was run out of Beirut by terrorists moved to Athens. Last night's news reminded us of how Athens was then and is now still a theater of war from terrorists. On that side note, I would like to say that our personal experiences might give us some context on these issues but any American has a right to voice their opinion on these issues, so I appreciate your remarks.

I am aware that terrorism was not created in a vacuum, but if you are contending that the current presence of terrorism is because of mistaken American policies I have to disagree with you. There were failed governments and anarchic regions in the Middle east in the 18th century and although I am not saying you are making this argument, it should be assumed that fair government and a stable culture is not a condition that appears organically and can only be corrupted by a distant American menace.

The Arab world had cruel governments and anarchic regions in the 18th century when the Wahhabist movement took hold and added to the already divisive problems of the region. Just like the arguments about the long history of instability in the Balkans was retold in the 90s, we should remember this region would have been in a state of arrested development with or without the existence of America.

I disagree with the idea that our support for Israel is based solely on the fact that they are a Democracy. They also share a belief in concepts of western civilization with us that are not only ignored by their neighbors, but considered satanic by many of the people that surround them. How well they adhere to these concepts of freedom, representative government, the inherent worth of the individual, and the importance of self reflection on the impact of their decisions as a people (i.e.potential for dissent) can be challenged here I am sure, but the fact that they aspire to them rather than deny their primacy is a key.

They also act as an ally in the region to our american interests. There also happens to be a lot of americans and their families that live there. If Israel had never been formed this part of the world would have still spawned anti-western radicals. If America were to cut Israel loose, it would be a ransom paid to radicals that would still want to kill us all.

I will not go into 6000 years of history, but your remark that their occupation of certain territories is recognized as illegal internationally assumes that the UN can act in the best interest of every nation that comes before them. The International community drew the lines for the State of Israel and contrary to the President of Iran's remarks, the original state was not made of Jewish Immigrants. Their neighbors wanted an all or nothing approach to the UNs decision and they still do. Israel could have lived with some land but not all, where as their neighbors can not live knowing that Israel has a square inch of dirt. They have fought to defend themselves from day one, and holding land won in defensive wars until the Sadats of the world are willing to come to the table is a matter of survival.

The fact that a well intentioned President Clinton was on the phone in his final days literally cussing out Arafat for being a fool to turn down deals that were too good to be true for the Palestinians proves that they can not continue with an all or nothing approach to the issue or they will lose. Offensive attacks from Lebanon and the territories by terrorists will continue to receive what you consider harsh responses.

Global exchange, ANSWER, and IAC will continue to use hyberbolic rhetoric to try to make their point regarding the Palestinian issue and people should call them on it. Global exchange does support Hezbollah and they are proud of it, go to their website. I agree with you that the idea that people on this site intentionally support terror is unlikely, but as we ask Moslems to distance themselves from radical islamic groups in order to clarify their peaceful principles, Westerners that support human rights should distance themselves from groups that have crossed the line like Global Exchange. It blurs the positive image of support for human rights and weakens the movement they profess to advance.

It was announced yesterday that several more people resigned from the Carter center because they believe his new book is a disservice to what they thought was his unbiased role of mediator to a position of choosing sides. I respect the fact that they are distancing themselves from someone who has out of frustration crossed the line into a hyperbolic position.

Global exchange does support Hezbollah and its wrong. I am not afraid to say that it is wrong and I think some people are afraid to call it what it is for fear of shaming groups that may be their allies in other political arenas. If they have good intentions great, but their "actions" on this one are irresponsible for humanity and deadly to American lives.

[btw, your bumper sticker at the bottom is clever, even if I don't agree with it...no sarcasm intended]

I'm not sure why my second point echoes your comment. If your point was, we are brainless automatons waiting to be informed of our position, I don't see how you can read what I said to reinforce that point of view. My point is we have a philosophy that is built on a framework that doesn't fluctuate radically over time, so we don't need to wait for the central scrutinizer to tell us where to stand on issues, we already agree for the most part. That is the knock from your side usually that the term "conservative" means to adhere to what are considered by some to be antiquated notions instead of radical new "progressive" ideas. It is an argument on your side for change, hence the term, counterculture.

I like your second paragraph, but just because you all do not agree all the time is because you can be on several sides of the same issue on any given day like little kids swarming around a soccer ball as they chase it around the field (not calling you a little kid). I have seen that behavior on the right before sometimes, but I was stating that it could be argued from our side and I don't think it looks so silly.

I have heard from lefty friends that the left risks getting it wrong through experimentation sometimes with radical new ideas, but their belief that taking chances for progress is worth it, so it is a built in liability for that side. He said the built in liability for conservatives is that times change and they do not change with them. I do like the argument of your second paragraph though. Very good.

TJ has lefty friends. heh. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

No fucking problem. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

"...The McGovernite democratic left has been pretty consistent through the decades. Internationalist, but wary of the use of force. Hopeful of government activism on behalf of social welfare. By contrast, the centrist/neo-cons past and present jump from Democrat to Republican and back, for the invasion before they are against it, humping The Bell Curve at one turn and lambasting Trent Lott the next.

Sincerety, in politics if you can fake it you've got it made. But it can be hard to fake...."

The above is from new post: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jan/10/neo_con_carne

Not attempting to revive the thread, just thought it hit on some of the ideas we discussed.

But that supposes these guys play by the old rules.

In Korea it is called the DMZ.  In Israel it is called the Wall.  In Pakistan it is called Kashmir.  Couldn't we just dig a great big moat and tell the Sunnis and Shia which side to live on?