Watch this...

Then watch this explanation of the mechanics of the "clear" part of "clear, hold, build." See if YOU want to be on the "hold" part after this.

An ill-informed dilettante speaks.

Left Behind

I'm afraid I'm going to get cranky about this: The Democrats who oppose the so-called "surge" are right. But they have to be careful not to sound like ill-informed dilettantes when talking about it.

The latest to make a fool of himself is Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who argues that those who favor the increase in troops are either cynical or delusional. Mostly the latter. Delusional neocons like Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan, to be precise. But what about retired General Jack Keane--whom Krugman doesn't mention--and the significant number of military intellectuals who have favored a labor-intensive counterinsurgency strategy in Baghdad for the past three years? They are serious people. They may be wrong about Iraq now, reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost, but they are not delusional.

You war hawks gonna answer your country's call? I especially expect you Young Republicans to sign up. 

ATTENTION: War supporters - your country needs you

It is true that where there is an amply stocked volunteer military, it is natural and inevitable that many citizens will support a war in ways other than by enlisting. No additional troops were needed, for instance, at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan (or during the action in Kosovo), and there was thus no tension between supporting those wars and not fighting.

But the current situation is completely different. Even according to the war's remaining advocates -- particularly those who want to escalate in Iraq -- there is a serious and harmful shortage of willing volunteers to fight in Iraq and to enable a more aggressive application of U.S. military force generally. So we do now have a situation where those who are cheering on more war and escalation really are needed not at the computer screen but on the battlefield, in combat. And their refusal to fight is actually impeding the plans of those on whom the President is relying for "Victory."

The upshot is that there is no military solution to the quandary of Somalia. Robust diplomacy, with an eye toward creating some sort of power-sharing agreement between the transitional government and the Islamic Courts Council, appears to be the only hope.

A Fleeting Victory in Somalia
By JONATHAN STEVENSON

Newport, R.I.

SOMALIA’S internationally recognized government pulled off a stunning military victory over its Islamist rivals, taking control of the capital, Mogadishu, and the key port city of Kismayo last week. This may appear to bode well for the containment of Islamism on the Horn of Africa. But unless America plays a constructive role in Somalia’s next stage, the conflict could become a regional war and a new field of jihad.

Anything over $55 represented the premium, he said. The price of a barrel rose at one point to $78 earlier this year. Lately it has been in the mid-$60’s, because of a world market made tight partly by Iraq.

War and Cheap Oil: A Second Look
By MATTHEW L. WALD

For years, many conservationists argued that the government was subsidizing gasoline by spending billions of tax dollars to keep ships in the Persian Gulf and troops on the ground to assure the flow of oil.

But some oil experts say the picture may be more complicated now that war is raging in the Middle East: these days, they say, the military commitment doesn’t just hide the real price of oil, but also has become a factor in pushing the price up.

Because only Americans will be in the force that holds the ground.

Told you I'd get back to it...

I hate terms of art. I hate the way this administration uses them to obscure the truth. So I hate this whole "surge" line of bullshit, I hate that the media promugates it and I hate that Democrats use the term when there's an honest word for the latest last chance to get it right.

When I heard Sen. McCain say this, I immediately thought, "Superdome."

The McCain/Lieberman campaign stopped off at the American Enterprise Institute this past Friday to discuss The Future of Iraq. Several interesting thing came out of that, and I think I have appropriately representative clips.

We'll start with his assessment of the situation.

"Of course we're concerned."

There's actually no reason to worry about the Iraqis holding up their end of this project...but I'll get back to that.

"Lately there has been a lot of criticism by the Shiites against [Khalilzad], saying he is pro-Sunni. A new face with this new strategy, possibly that would be more effective," said Mahmoud Othman, a senior Kurdish legislator who is regarded as independent.

Iraqi Politicians Divided Over U.S. Envoy
Khalilzad's Expected Departure Pleases Shiites, Worries Sunnis
By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, January 6, 2007; A12

BAGHDAD, Jan. 5 -- The news of the expected departure of U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad split Iraqi politicians along sectarian lines, with members of the ruling Shiite alliance voicing eagerness for him to leave and minority Sunnis expressing concern at the loss of an ally.

PBS did a documentary in 1998 titled "America in the 40s." This is a small slice thereof.

This "civilian contractor" is typical of the sort of person colonialism saved Western Civilization from. 

In the FBI documents, one agent described a 2002 incident involving a "civilian army contractor, who was in charge of the Army's interrogators." The agent reported being shown a bearded detainee with duct tape covering much of his head. Asked about it, the contractor "laughed and stated that the detainee had been chanting the Koran and would not stop," the documents said.

The same agent said his primary contact was a "civilian contractor employed by the military, who was responsible for the interrogations," the documents said. The contractor "directed military reservists who conducted the interrogations of the detainees."

The agent, apparently referring to the same contractor, also said the person "exhibited 'bizarre behavior,' meaning he displayed a range of emotions and often 'lost it' or became very angry when something insignificant occurred," the documents said.

Can you imagine what Europe would have been like if they didn't have lots of convenient frontiers to conquer when their citizens shift into their manic phase? 

Contractors Are Cited in Abuses at Guantanamo
Reports Indicate Interrogation Role
By Griff Witte and Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 4, 2007; D01

New allegations of detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay released by the FBI on Tuesday put private contractors at the center of interrogation operations, raising questions once again about where they fit in the military's chain of command.

The FBI's disclosures, which are based on eyewitness reports, refer several times to contractors directing the Army's interrogation efforts at the military detention center in Cuba. In at least one case, FBI agents were told that detainees may have been mistreated on orders from a contractor.

NIce, normal chaos...just the way we like it. 

Diplomats in the region are now hurrying to cobble together an African peacekeeping force to take the place of the Ethiopian forces. But despite murmurs of commitment from several countries, including Uganda, South Africa and Nigeria, no force has yet materialized.

Somalia is far from stable now, with many heavy weapons still in the hands of warlords and anti-government forces, and the country’s reliable level of turmoil is likely to dissuade many nations from volunteering to send troops.

Ethiopia Plans to Pull Troops From Somalia
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, Jan. 2 — The prime minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, said today that his country, one of the poorest in the world, could not afford to keep its troops in neighboring Somalia much longer, and that Somalia’s stability depended on the quick injection of foreign peacekeepers.

You think this is bad?

For Iraqis, a tie to the United States is a life-threatening liability, particularly in harder-line Sunni neighborhoods. In 2003, Laith, an Army interpreter who would allow only his first name to be used, got a note threatening his family if he did not quit his job. His neighborhood, Adhamiya, was full of Baath Party loyalists. A month later, his father opened the door to a stranger, who shot him dead.

Laith’s mother begged him to stop working, but his salary, $700 a month at the time, supported the entire family. Then someone threw a sound grenade at the house.

If they settle your ass in Red State America, you'll REALLY be fucked. Ya stinkin' A-Rabs...

Few Iraqis Are Gaining U.S. Sanctuary
By SABRINA TAVERNISE and ROBERT F. WORTH

BAGHDAD, Jan. 1 — With thousands of Iraqis desperately fleeing this country every day, advocates for refugees, and even some American officials, say there is an urgent need to allow more Iraqi refugees into the United States.

Until recently the Bush administration had planned to resettle just 500 Iraqis this year, a mere fraction of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who are now believed to be fleeing their country each month. State Department officials say they are open to admitting larger numbers, but are limited by a cumbersome and poorly financed United Nations referral system.

While You Were at War . . .
By Richard A. Clarke
Sunday, December 31, 2006; B01

In every administration, there are usually only about a dozen barons who can really initiate and manage meaningful changes in national security policy. For most of 2006, some of these critical slots in the Bush administration have been vacant, such as the deputy secretary of state (empty since Robert B. Zoellick left for investment bank Goldman Sachs) and the deputy director of national intelligence (with Gen. Michael V. Hayden now CIA director). And with the nation involved in a messy war spiraling toward a bad conclusion, the key deputies and Cabinet members and advisers are all focusing on one issue, at the expense of all others: Iraq.

 Courtesy Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.

And a Happy New Year to you, too.

Saddam can't testify.

Seriously. I meant to post this yesterday. It was on in the background and I decided to record it at the last minute (DVRs are cool like that...as long as the show is still in the buffer you can get the whole show). Presidential scholars can save this clip to have a convenient list of all the terms of art and rhetorical flourishes used to sucker the Flyover Folk.

Close your eyes, chant "Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Related Activities at Poison Factories" three times, then watch.

On July 28, 2004, former president Gerald R. Ford sat down for an interview with The Washington Post's Bob Woodward. The interview was conducted at Ford's Beaver Creek, Colo., house; the former president agreed that his comments could be published any time after his death. Below are audio excerpts from the interview:

• LISTEN: Ford says he does not believe the United States should intervene militarily overseas unless it is directly in America's national interests.
• LISTEN: Ford says that, based on the facts as he understands them, he does not think that he would have ordered the Iraq war if he had been president.
• LISTEN: Ford says he believes that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld erred in justifying the Iraq war as one aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
• LISTEN: Ford says that while he never publicly criticized the Bush administration's war in Iraq, he does think they made a mistake in how they justified the war.
• Read the text of all four audio excerpts.

Ford Disagreed With Bush About Invading Iraq
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 28, 2006; A01

Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.

“I think the Democrats will be on good behavior as long as the war continues and we have 150,000 troops in Iraq,” said Paul Nisbet, an analyst with JSA Securities in Newport, R.I.

Evidence of the industry’s good fortune is reflected in the stocks of major contractors over the last year. At the end of 2005, the Lockheed Martin Corporation, the largest contractor, was trading around $62 a share. Now Lockheed is around $92 a share. Over the last year, Boeing, which holds the No. 2 position, saw its shares rise from about $66 a share to around almost $89 a share. Meanwhile, Raytheon stock has risen from around $39 a share to more than $53 a share in the last year and General Dynamics has gone from the high $50s a share to almost $74 a share over the same period.

Heady Days for Makers of Weapons
By LESLIE WAYNE

THESE are very good times for military contractors. Profits are up, their stocks are rising and Pentagon spending is reaching record levels.

The only cloud might seem to be what the Democratic takeover of Congress could mean for their business. After all, this is an industry that has generally supported the Republican Party by sending about 60 percent of its political contributions to Republican candidates.

In Let Our Allies Contemplate What Life Will Be Without Us, ex-Mayor Ed Koch says

But I am concerned with the even more shocking statement made by Colin Powell on "Face the Nation," that the U.S. army was "about broken." No one, to the best of my knowledge, has used that kind of expression before. Imagine the satisfaction it must have given to the leaders of al-Qaeda, the leaders of the insurrection in Iraq and particularly the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his supporters who have constantly inveighed against the U.S. and predicted the disappearance of America, as well as the elimination of Israel.

Your knowledge need supplementing. 

"You can go and find a list of suspected terrorists held in Iraqi prisons. You will definitely find out that no Iranian is among them," Kazemi-Qomi said, adding that few of them are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, which are on Iran's eastern border. "I regret to tell you that the majority of these suspects come from Arab countries."

THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: COLD SHOULDER FOR U.S.
Iran forging ahead in Iraq without U.S.
Tehran's ambassador in Baghdad sees no need to talk with Americans about how to stabilize the war-torn nation.
By Borzou Daragahi
Times Staff Writer
December 22, 2006

BAGHDAD — Tehran's top envoy here said there was no need for contacts with the United States aimed at stabilizing Iraq, saying that Iranians already were pursuing channels to help secure their embattled neighbor.

Ambassador Hassan Kazemi-Qomi brushed aside recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, that the Bush administration speak to Tehran about the chaos in Iraq.

"We don't need a Mr. Baker-style proposal calling for Iran to talk with the United States about Iraq," Kazemi-Qomi said in an interview this week. "We have our own well-defined policies about Iraq. We have never waited for a Mr. Baker or someone else to offer talks."

Thousands More Dead In Continuing Iraq Victory
December 18, 2006 | Issue 42•51

Statistics released by the Department Of Defense estimated that 2,937 U.S. troops and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the ongoing American military victory in Iraq.

"Victory deaths are at a higher level than we had anticipated, yes," Gen. George Casey, Jr. said at a press conference shortly after the figures were released. "But one of the crucial lessons of our Vietnam experience is that a victory, in order to remain victorious, can't be abandoned halfway through, or in the case of Iraq, one-eighth of the way through."

"And significantly more troops may be required if we are to continue to enjoy that victory, especially if this turns into an all-out civil war," Casey added, stressing that it was still too early to deem the victory a "quagmire."

These are the references The NY Times provides

• “Iran’s Leader Condemns Saudi Attacks,” The Washington Post, May 15, 2003
  (Articles on The Washington Post are preview only. Full versions require purchase.)
• “Time to Deal With Iran,” The Washington Post, May 6, 2004
• “Foreign Minister Briefs MP’s on Talks With the United States,” BBC Monitoring, May 20, 2003
• “In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran’s Offer of Dialogue: Some Officials Lament Lost Opportunity,” The Washington Post, June 18, 2006
• “U.S. Ready to Resume Talks With Iran, Armitage Says,” The Washington Post, Oct. 29, 2003
• “U.S. Eyes Pressing Uprising in Iran: Officials Cite Al Qaeda’s Link, Nuclear Program,” The Washington Post, May 25, 2003
• “Iran, Afghanistan Juggle Hot Potato Hekmatyar,” Time, Feb. 23, 2002
• “The Gulf Between Us,” The New York Times, Jan. 24, 2006
• “Dealing with Tehran: Assessing U.S. Diplomatic Options Toward Iran,” (PDF) Century Foundation, Dec. 4, 2006
• “Iran, U.S. Holding Talks in Geneva,” USA Today, May 11, 2003
• “Mutual Terror Accusations Halt U.S.-Iran Talks,” USA Today, May 21, 2003
• “Press Briefing on Board Plane, En Route Moscow,” State Department Web site, Dec. 9, 2001

...with this op-ed.

What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran
By FLYNT LEVERETT and HILLARY MANN
Washington

HERE is the redacted version of a draft Op-Ed article we wrote for The Times, as blacked out by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Publication Review Board after the White House intervened in the normal prepublication review process and demanded substantial deletions. Agency officials told us that they had concluded on their own that the original draft included no classified material, but that they had to bow to the White House.

Indeed, the deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material. These passages go into aspects of American-Iranian relations during the Bush administration’s first term that have been publicly discussed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; a former State Department policy planning director, Richard Haass; and a former special envoy to Afghanistan, James Dobbins.

These aspects have been extensively reported in the news media, and one of us, Mr. Leverett, has written about them in The Times and other publications with the explicit permission of the review board. We provided the following citations to the board to demonstrate that all of the material the White House objected to is already in the public domain. Unfortunately, to make sense of much of our Op-Ed article, readers will have to read the citations for themselves.

Me, I got video of Mr. Leverett explaining what's going on.

Iraqi Prime Minister Tells Gates He'll Let U.S. Decide on Troop 'Surge'
By Thomas E. Ricks and Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 22, 2006; A23

BAGHDAD, Dec. 21 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told visiting Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that he would let U.S. generals decide whether there is a need for a "surge" in U.S. troops deployed in Iraq, according to Iraqi officials with knowledge of the meeting.

In a news conference, Gates said his conversation with the Iraqi prime minister and defense minister included "no numbers. . . . We were really talking in broader terms."

In fact the situation in Pakistan's border areas is starting to look a lot like eastern Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001....

...According to multiple independent reports, Waziristan has been thoroughly Talibanized, and the fundamentalists are spreading their influence through adjacent border districts. Cross-border attacks and the deaths of American soldiers that they cause are up significantly. Al-Qaeda is reliably reported to be operating training camps in North Waziristan with the help of scores of foreign militants who are schooling recruits in suicide bombing and the use of improvised explosive devices. According to a stunning report in the current edition of Newsweek, they are also preparing Western citizens who could carry out major terrorist attacks in Britain or the United States.

Al-Qaeda's Sanctuary
Pakistan's tribal areas look a lot like Afghanistan in 2001 -- and the Bush administration is tolerating it.
Thursday, December 21, 2006; A28

THREE MONTHS ago the Pakistani government struck a deal with pro-Taliban leaders in the district of North Waziristan, bordering Afghanistan: It agreed to abandon military operations, withdraw the army and release prisoners in exchange for promises that the militants would cease cross-border attacks and disarm the foreign terrorists in their midst. That the extremists would not respect the accord, and that attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan would increase rather than decline, obviously seemed likely at the time. Yet President Bush, ever indulgent of Pakistan's autocratic ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, accepted his promises. "When the president looks me in the eye and says the tribal deal is intended to reject the Talibanization of the people, and that there won't be a Taliban and won't be al-Qaeda, I believe him," Mr. Bush declared when he met Gen. Musharraf at the White House on Sept. 22.

I saw this headline

Bush Concedes Iraq War More Difficult Than He Expected

and thought it's like each truth has to be dragged screaming from between his clenched teeth and bloody lips. And I wondered if he actually used those words.

You know what's really foul? It's that his word selection is important news.

Anyway, I went for the transcript and his answer to the very first question must be noted.

QUESTION: Mr. President, less than two months ago, at the end of one of the bloodiest months in the war, you said: Absolutely, we're winning.

See this headline?

Rice Stands Firm, Embarks on New Push

It's total nonsense. I'm going to rewrite it to be accurate.

Rice Keeps Job, Does as She's Told
Diplomat Counters Doubt Diplomat Ignores Doubt
Over Bush Iraq Policy, Bush Head Up Ass
Says No Sudden Shifts Loom (um, that one works...)
By NEIL KING JR.
December 20, 2006; Page A4

WASHINGTON -- This should be Condoleezza Rice's moment.

The secretary of state's longtime rival, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is gone. Her ties to President Bush appear as strong as ever. Her popularity remains high, even as support for the president ebbs. And voices on all sides are calling for more diplomacy, more outreach -- core strengths of the department she heads.

Yet, as she moves into her third year as the nation's top diplomat, she faces doubt over the administration's Iraq strategy and finds herself embattled and increasingly defensive. Criticism of the administration's foreign policy is on the rise, not only among Democrats, but from Republican stalwarts such as former Secretary of State James Baker, and even from close ally Britain.

Obviously being on fucking drugs is no bar to serving as Secretary of State.

Rice Stresses the Positive Amid Mideast Setbacks
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 20, 2006; A19

What many Americans may see as chaos and turmoil in the Middle East is partly the result of the Bush administration hastening historical forces that are destined to reshape the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday. She added that the results will not be known for decades.

"The old Middle East was not going to stay," Rice said. "Let's stop mourning the old Middle East. It was not so great, and it was not going to survive anyway. [P6: 'You see, we decided to kill it.']"