Month: July 2007

David Ignatius’ four alarm fire analogy for Iraq provides a good framework for thinking about Iraq.

Maybe we should think like firefighters. They try to save every life they can, but they don’t take crazy risks. When a fire is really roaring, they don’t stand in the middle of the inferno. The potential loss of life is too great, and the likelihood they can stop the fire too small. So they make strategic choices: They try to contain the blaze, letting it burn out in the red-hot center while they hose down nearby buildings and construct firebreaks that can check the fire’s spread.

What’s unimaginable is that a firefighter confronting a dangerous blaze would simply roll up the hoses, jump in the engine and drive away, consequences be damned. He might be furious at the people who caused the fire and frustrated with the first engine company that let it get worse. But those aren’t reasons for abandoning the scene.

Most American politicians are unable to say it out loud, but the ‘people who caused the fire’ are the neoconservatives and a cowardly Congress. In a sense, Ignatius is asking an arsonist to put out the fire he set. But, nonetheless, the analogy is worth considering because it does provide a useful context.

A “firehouse strategy” would make triage decisions. It would deploy U.S. forces so that they aren’t caught in the middle of collapsing walls and blazing timbers. It would emphasize the training of Iraqi forces to fight the blaze. It would build firebreaks so the disaster doesn’t spread to other rooms in the Iraqi house. Most of all, a firehouse strategy would try to keep this sectarian blaze from jumping national boundaries.

The most important thing we can do is to arrest the arsonists. Or at least we should remove them positions of command. Only then will we be able to consider firebreaks and other ways of containing the fire they set. Whether we should have some residual forces in Iraq is debatable. Perhaps they could be useful along the Turkish border. Perhaps they might have other limited uses as firebreaks. But what is not debatable is that we can’t fight this blaze under the leadership of the people that illegally ignited it.

Joe Lieberman: Quisling
Right on cue, and embarrassingly predictable, Chimperor Fucktardius’ second favorite poodle steps up to the plate to exploit FLAMING CARS IN ENGLAND to support Darth Cheney’s Republicunt attempt to convert the United States of Amnesia into a one party, totalitarian, fascist police state.

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Wankrag-Israel) used the foiled terror attempts in London to call for greater domestic spying here in the United States. Lieberman said, “I hope these terrorist attacks in London wake us up here in America to stop the petty partisan fighting going on about…electronic surveillance,” in apparent reference to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas for documents related to Bush’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

According to LIEberman, it is really simple: In order to keep our freedom we must give up our freedom. Why there are even questions about this? They hate us because they hate our freedom. So take away our freedom and there’s nothing left for them to hate.

Victory is imminent.

[Everyone is focusing on surveillance part of this interview, but this is important, too.]

I’d say that someone should tell Joe Lieberman that Iran is a country of Shi’ites and that al-Qaeda is a radical Sunni organization, but he knows that. He just doesn’t care one tiny little bit about being honest. At all. From Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you open to taking action in September if he [Gen. Petraeus] reports that progress is not being made?

LIEBERMAN: Depends on what he says. I mean, look, to me, George, you’ve got to view Iraq in a larger context. I had an Arab diplomat say to me two weeks ago that what is happening in the Middle
East today reminds him of what happened in Europe during the 1930s, when Nazi Germany began to make moves and the rest of Europe and the
United States did not act quick enough to stop the Second World War.

He was talking about Iran. Iran is on the move in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan. And if we pull out of Iraq, Iran and Al Qaida are the victors. So my answer is, as long as we have a
reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then I’m going to say it’s worth it for us to stay.

Because if Iran and Al Qaida take over Iraq, they will destabilize the entire Middle East, and they will strike at us here at home…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me…

LIEBERMAN: … with more frequency and ferocity.

Since Lieberman is intent on lying to you, I’ll tell you the truth.
Organizations like al-Qaeda are openly hostile to BOTH Iran and the current Iraqi government. They don’t just hate the Iraqi government because they cooperate with Americans. They hate it because it is dominated by Shi’ites and is too friendly with Iran.

If Iran’s influence is the primary concern for this country and our Arab allies, then we should join al-Qaeda in opposing the current government in Baghdad. But Iran’s influence in not our primary concern. We decided, quite willingly, to give Shi’ites more power and influence when we agreed to let Iraqis have elections. If that was a mistake, then Lieberman should say so.

There is no prospect of both Iran and al-Qaeda taking over Iraq. It’s one or the other or neither, but not both. And one more point…

The Sunni Arabs of Iraq do not like al-Qaeda even though al-Qaeda is a Sunni Arab organization. Why? Well, al-Qaeda isn’t very likeable, frankly. They’re no fun. They have screwed up religious beliefs, they terrorize and murder people, and they get upset if you have a beer. Iraqis are fairly secular when it comes to people getting all up in their grill about their morals. So, once America leaves Iraq, the Iraqis will kill every al-Qaeda member they can locate. If we wan’t to destroy al-Qaeda in Iraq we should leave it to the Sunni Arabs to do it.

But Lieberman doesn’t want you to know that.

It depends on how you look at it. Admittedly, I was a bit over-stimulated by being in the media room during this weeks presidential forum (even though I was immediately reminded that I was not media, “new media” status notwithstanding). And I had just written that homophobia probably wouldn’t be addressed, even though the forum kicked off with a kind of circle-jerk discussion about racism and racial discrimination. So I was stunned when Barrack Obama actually spoke the word “homophobia” while answering a question about the AIDS epidemic.

Tavis Smiley: Senator Obama?

Barack Obama: I think John’s prescriptions are right. I would add the issue of prevention involves education and one of the things that we’ve got to overcome is a stigma that still exists in our communities. We don’t talk about this. We don’t talk about in the schools. Sometimes we don’t talk about it in the churches. It has been as aspect of sometimes a homophobia, that we don’t address this issue as clearly as it needs to be. I also think there’s a broader issue here. This is going to be true on all the issues we talk about.

The problems of poverty, like of health care, like of educational opportunity, are all interconnected. To some degree, the African American community is weakened. It has a disease to its immune system. When we are impoverished, when people don’t have jobs, they are more likely to be afflicted not just with AIDS, but with substance abuse problems, with guns in the streets.

So it is important for us to look at the whole body here and make absolutely certain that we are providing the kinds of economic development opportunities and jobs that will create healthy communities, that we’ve got universal health care that ensures the people can get regular treatments. Those are the kinds of strategies that, over the long term, are going to make a difference in our communities.

And while I was somewhat disappointed with how quickly he danced away from the issue, and failed to include it in his list of “social diseases” affecting African American communities (after all, homophobia is likely involved to some degree in substance abuse and violence), I was so stunned to hear the word even used at a forum focused on issues facing African Americans that I missed the significance of his next comment, in his exchange with Sen. Biden on the same question.

Joe Biden: …I got tested for AIDS. I know Barack got tested for AIDS. There’s no shame in being tested for AIDS. It’s an important thing because the fact of the matter is, in the communities engaged in denial, no one wants to talk about it in the community and we do not have enough leaders in the community and outside the community demanding we face the reality, confront the men in the community as well as the women, letting them know there are alternatives.

Tavis Smiley: Thank you.

Barack Obama: Tavis, I just got to make clear that I got tested with Michelle when we were in Kenya in Africa, so I don’t want any confusion here about what’s going on.

Joe Biden: Well, I got tested to save my life because I had a blood transfusion.

Barack Obama: I was tested with my wife.

Tavis Smiley: And I’m sure Michelle appreciates you clarifying that.

Barack Obama: In public.

It wasn’t until I read the transcript the next morning that I caught the significance of that exchange, especially in light of Obama’s previous remarks about homophobia. Initially, I was more impressed with his remark about homophobia, which was undeniably significant in that setting, as Pam points out.

This was long overdue — a presidential candidate calling out the silence that is killing people — black women are 25 times as likely to be infected with HIV than white women, as Hillary Clinton noted. If the situations were reversed it would be a national health and education emergency commanding the attention of the MSM and government. But that is not the case — there is a pitiful silence on too many levels — but not last night.

Obama’s short, but powerful statement on black homophobia is one that none of the other candidates mentioned. Is this a surprise? No — addressing the responsibility of the black community to open its eyes regarding its reticence to take on an internal bias that has allowed HIV/AIDS to ravage it touches the third rail of race. The candidates fear perceptions of a paternalistic white finger being waved at the community will result in blowback from black voters.

I’m grateful that there was a black man up on that stage to broach the subject of homophobia in this community, but the fear of the other pols needs to be overcome, all bridges need to be crossed when the statistics are this stark and horrifying.

I, too, was grateful. So much in fact that I was willing to soften (though not take back) some of my earlier criticisms of Obama. But the second comment didn’t come across as lighthearted to me as it did to some people.

Speaking of nice moments, Obama showed his ease in the debate a few minutes ago. After Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) said that both he and Obama had been tested for AIDS, Obama jumped in to note that he had been tested with his wife, Michelle — jokingly adding that he didn’t want anyone to think anything “funny” was going on. The crowd laughed as PBS showed Michelle on screen. The moment showed how Obama has grown in the first three debates; he appears relaxed and comfortable tonight.

Relaxed? Comfortable? Maybe I’m drawing too much on my experience as a black gay man, but Obama’s reaction came across to me as much like the reaction of so many “bruthas” when the topic of homosexuality comes up. Even the most seemingly non-homophic will follow up a seemingly progressive statement about homosexuality by saying or otherwise affirming that “I ain’t no punk.”

However, moments later, he reverted back to schoolyard ways and had a complete frat boy moment wherein he felt it necessary to reaffirm his heterosexuality. Senator Biden had just encouraged people to be tested for HIV by giving himself and Senator Obama as examples of public officials who had done so publicly.

… With one comment, he erased the possibility that he would start a meaningful conversation in the Black community about this serious issue. This seems to reveal not only some level of homophobia, but also a level of immaturity which causes me to question Obama’s ability to go all the way in this campaign.

Clearly, his comfort with the issue only goes so far. In the light of morning, far from the flashbulbs and the headiness of being in close proximity to political celebrity, Obama’s second response seemed to me a superfluous affirmation of his heterosexuality (given the presence of his wife in the audience, at least) and one that would only be necessary to a mind that read Biden’s remark as an implication that he and Obama got tested together and thus had some reason to get tested together. A “comfortable” candidate wouldn’t have felt it necessary to respond affirm his heterosexuality by responding to Biden’s comment, but would have laughed it off instead, without further comment.

And speaking of laughter, given the response of the audience to Obama’s second remark — raucus laughter that seemed to me to be in stark contrast to the subdued response to his earlier remark about homophobia — indicates that, contrary to Lane Hudson’s assessment in his HuffPo piece, any “level of immaturity” indicated in Obama’s second remark may actually enhance his ability to “go all the way” in this campaign rather than hobble him in any way.

I’ve written about black homophobia and its origins before, and I will again, but it occurs to me that it was briefly on display Thursday night, both on the stage and in the audience. In his first line, Obama was “keeping it non-homophobic” for just a minute and the audience response was polite at best. In his second line, Obama was “keeping it real” and they loved him for it.

So, did Obama blow it? That depends on how you look at it.

Crossposted from The Republic of T.

Will we ever get a straight story from the Bush administration on Iraq?

On Thursday, an Associated Press story reported that “A top U.S. diplomat in Iraq predicted progress by fall on bringing together Iraq’s feuding factions.”  The U.S. diplomat was Daniel Speckhard, who also said, “My expectations are…that they’ll rise to the challenge of producing some key legislation by September.”

September, of course, is when U.S commander in Iraq David Petreaus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are scheduled to report to Congress on the progress of the “surge.”  

Come Saturday, we discovered that the largest Sunni bloc in Iraq’s Parliament suspended their membership in the ruling body over the issue of an arrest warrant for Culture Minister As’ad al-Hashimi.  The Iraqi Accord Front holds 44 seats.  Another Sunni group with 11 seats stopped attending Parliament meetings last week, and earlier this month, 30 members loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr boycotted Parliament.  That could leave the 276-seat house with only 191 legislators.  

No Military Solution

Last week, Brigadier General Mick Bednarek, commander of the offensive (Operation Arrowhead Ripper) in the Diyala province capital of Baqouba, said his Iraqi partners may be too weak to hold on to the gains.  “They’re not quite up to the job yet,” Bednarek said, and added that the Iraqi military does not have enough ammunition.  

One has to wonder how Iraqi units committed to an offensive operation can show up with too little ammunition.  It’s not like there’s a shortage of AK-47 bullets in the country of Iran.   Do you think maybe the Iraqi soldiers are giving their ammunition to their militia pals?

Bednarek’s counterpart in Baghdad, Major General Rick Lynch, said much the same.  There are too few U.S. troops to garrison newly cleared districts.   “We have what we have,” he said.  “There’s got to be more Iraqi security forces,” he said in a news conference, suggesting that Iraq’s army should be expanded by 20,000 troops.

But again: what good is adding more troops to the Army if they a) don’t show up for an operation if they don’t feel like it or b) show up without enough ammo when they do show up?

And what on earth is happening with the U.S. troops involved in these operations?  According to numerous sources, the Baqouba operation involves 10,000 U.S. troops.  At one point the stated aim was to round up what was believed to be 300-500 al-Qaeda in Iraq militants holed up in the western part of the city.  The al-Qaeda types had run away from Anbar province during the offensive there, so this time, U.S. commanders tried the novel idea of cutting off escape routes.  Some news outlets suggest that a lot of the bad guys escaped anyway.  A bunch of them have been killed or captures.  As of Sunday, 24 June, Brigadier Bednarek estimated that 50 to 100 militants were trapped inside a security cordon in the city.  

I of all people don’t like playing dime store general at the tactical level, and it’s impossible to draw an accurate ground picture from a handful of newspaper reports.  But if you look at the basic numbers involved, Arrowhead Ripper doesn’t make sense.  20 to one numerical advantage in an offensive operation is not necessary.  If most of the 10,000 U.S. troops involved are actually there to hold neighborhoods, then why is Bednarek complaining there aren’t enough Iraqis with enough bullets involved in the operation?

Speaking of bullets…  While Brigadier Bednarek complains his Iraqi army cohorts don’t have enough ammunition, other U.S. commanders have been authorized to arm Sunni groups that agree to fight al-Qaeda.  The program was first tried out in Anbar province, where it was considered a great success.  Yeah.  It was so successful that it drove al-Qaeda out of the province, and up to Baquaba, where the assigned Iraqi forces don’t have enough ammunition to contribute to the mission.  

Have you noticed lately how everything regarding Iraq and the rest of the so-called war on terror gets framed in terms of al-Qaeda?  Al-Qaeda, blamed for inciting nearly all other violence in Iraq, had, according to reports, taken over Anbar province, even though their strength was estimated to be only a couple or a few thousand.  We had a heck of a lot more Marines than that in the province, yet in September of 2006, a senior Marine intelligence officer concluded the struggle for the region was all but lost.  

By the time we got around to surging in Anbar and chasing al-Qaeda up to Diyala province, their reported numbers were 500 or less, and now Brigadier Dednarek says his 10,000 man force is going toe-to-toe in Baqouba with fewer than a hundred of them.  

We don’t know how many al-Qaeda members are actually in Iraq, but we know there are 170,000 something coalition forces and upwards of 300,000 Iraqi security forces.  At best, al-Qaeda totals are in the mid to low four figures.  Al Qaeda in Iraq is not the main problem in Iraq, and many argue that al-Qaeda in Iraq isn’t even really al-Qaeda.  

Similarly, administration tales of Iranian involvement in fomenting violence in Iraq are too tall to be credible.  Iran, supposedly, is smuggling arms across its border.  I can’t give you an ounce of proof that they’re not, but why should they bother to smuggle arms into Iraq?  Prior to the invasion, U.S. military officials estimated there were between one and seven million AK-47s in private hands in Iraq.  That doesn’t include whatever weapons stockpiles Hussein had cached.  We brought a half million weapons into that country, and we don’t know what happened to the vast majority of them.  Now we’re handing out weapons to militia groups that have attacked us in the past, and we’re blaming the proliferation of weapons in Iraq on the Iranians?

We hear the Iranians are behind the Shiites in Iraq because, well, Iranians are Shiites.  But we also hear that the Persian Iranian Shiites are behind Hamas, an Arab Sunni groups, and that Iran is the major ally of Arab Sunni Syria, and that Iran is now the biggest bestest buddy of the Taliban in Afghanistan.  

There’s no telling how much of this Iran talk is true, but it can’t all be true, especially considering that the people talking the talk have a reputation for shunning the truth.  

The main thing to keep in mind is that at this point, within the smoke, behind the mirrors, under the bed of bull feathers, there is no coherent strategy for Iraq, and the only tactics being practiced there are stall tactics.  

#

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia.  Read his commentaries at Pen and Sword.

Last night I had a dream …

No, not that kind of dream, a nightmare, actually. I dreamt that Joe Lieberman announced his candidacy for the US Presidency, and instantly jumped to the top of the list of Democratic contenders. I further dreamed that only I, an out of work, disabled lawyer could stop him, because I had secret information that would destroy his candidacy, but no one would listen to me.

Thank god, upon waking, I realized that Joe Lieberman’s days as a Presidential contender are over, thanks to stuff like this (via Think Progress):

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) used the foiled terror attempts in London to call for greater domestic spying here in the United States. Lieberman said, “I hope these terrorist attacks in London wake us up here in America to stop the petty partisan fighting going on about…electronic surveillance,” in apparent reference to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas for documents related to Bush’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program. […]

In the same interview, Lieberman said of the situation in Iraq, “The surge is working.” He refused to say whether he would back a withdrawal if Gen. Petraeus reports in September that progress is not being made.

Also, Lieberman reaffirmed his previous statements that Democratic candidates do not have “strong and muscular” approaches to foreign policy. Today, he said, “I would say that Democratic candidates, in the larger questions of American security, have been disappointing.”

Lieberman must be dreaming, too, if he thinks that a policy of more illegal wiretaps is going to fly with the American public. I’m not real fond of the field of Democrats so far, but none of them has come close to being as consistently wrong about Iraq, nor has any of them been as consistently an apologist for, and defender of, the Bush administration, as he has.

h/t to Atrios

From Indianadem’s neghborhood:

Reuters reports that the Australians are planning to beat it out of Iraq but that they haven’t told poor Bush about it yet.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard is secretly planning to begin withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq by February 2008, Australian media reported on Sunday.

The Sunday Telegraph, quoting an unnamed senior military source, described Howard’s withdrawal plan as “one of the most closely guarded secrets in top levels of the bureaucracy.”…

…His withdrawal plan had yet to be put to U.S. President Bush or to the Australian Cabinet, the Sunday Telegraph said.

Ouch. It’s a good thing Bush doesn’t read the papers or his feelings might be hurt.

I am a little humbled to realize that I have been too brainwashed by media narratives to make the comparison of George W. Bush to Neville Chamberlain. But it’s almost uncanny. Bush is a latter-day Neville Chamberlain. That must mean I am Napoleon. Or Elvis.