Excellent analysis written with clarity. You're clearly underemployed.

By extension, the correct pro-Administration response will be to disavow the soldier for getting caught in the first place. Coming soon to a blog near you.

The backdrop being Bush in 2004 saying Kerry would allow foreign gov'ts to direct US soldiers. The Kerry story is 24 hours max, this story, or another negative one about Iraq, will come forth, and carry into election day.

nonetheless, W abandoned a US soldier for political reasons.

hang that around his neck. the Republicants would do no less, if it was a Dem president

Finally, CNN sees that the terrorists are working against the Republicans:

CNN's Heidi Collins suggests the Allen campaign's attack on Mike Stark may have been justified because they thought he was a terrorist on the reasoning that he might have had a bomb in his backpack.

Also, King George is Very Manly!

Christy Hardin Smith sees it differently. I can't improve on Smith's language, so here it is (emphases in bold mine):

I am shaking with rage at the moment. American soliders do not abandon their own. Unless, of course, someone orders them to do so. Which is exactly what happened when the Bush Administration — via it's envoy Zalmay Khalilzad — agreed to lift the eight day long blockade and search and rescue mission for the captured American soldier…on the demand and order of the Iraqi government.

You read me correctly, the US envoy in Iraq has decided that our US military personnel should take orders from the Iraqi government and abandon one of our soldiers to the Mahdi Army. That this decision occurred abruptly after Stephen Hadley's visit to Baghdad yesterday raises a whole host of questions in my mind — and the press had better damn well be asking for some answers from the Bush Administration today.

The Bush Administration has been encouraging Iraqi-Americans to become more involved in the "liberation" of Iraq. The American military needs more soldiers with regional language fluency, and Iraqi Americans have an understandable interest and personal stake — with many relatives still living in the war torn nation — in working to make things better. The American soldier who was captured is of Iraqi-American descent, he was wearing the uniform of the United States…and we have abandoned him to Moqtada Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and Sadr City's rage as of yesterday.

We do not abandon our own.

Unless, of course, you are the Bush Administration — which, apparently, has decided to let the Iraqi government start calling the shots for the US military. I hear George Bush will be on Limbaugh's show — wonder if he'll be asked about his decision to abandon a US soldier to Al-Sadr's militia, with their penchant for torture, on the orders of the Iraqi head of state?

The corporate media had better start asking questions about this, because the American military taking orders to abandon one of their own from a foreign government is something that every single person with friends and family in Iraq right now will want to know about…immediately. How many American soldiers are we now willing to leave to the mercies of Al-Sadr's Army and other torture-wielding militants with no love for the American military presence in the name of propping up Maliki's government? George Bush does not get a pass on this one. Period. The time for accountability is now.

http://firedoglake.com/

If Maliki is to survive and thrive, he must represent the will of the majority of Iraq. The Sadr City Shiites are that majority.

Kevin, we didn't acquiesce to Maliki. We gave into Sadr. Looking the other way while Sadr increased his strength within the Iraqi government was predicated on the idea that it would allow him a way out of the violence that first brought him on the scene. The cordon got in the way of his militia's control of the area and their ability to wreak havoc on the neighboring Sunni population.

Worse than allowing one soldier to be sacrificed for a greater good, we allowed a real terrorist to push us around on his way to create a de facto Shiite capital.

The military set up the cordon because they didn't want to simply do nothing, but then had to stick with it forever because anything less would show a "lack of resolve." In a way, Maliki rescued us from our own folly on Tuesday.

And forever put to rest the claim that the Bush regime can be trusted with the lives of American soldiers. When given the choice between rescuing an American soldier, and caving in to foreign pressure for partisan political gain, Bush, as always, chose to abandon the soldier to his fate.

Well, what this shows is that the basic problem in Iraq is that democracy is only one step removed from genocide. Let's see, you have a numerical majority ethnic population who has been oppressed by a minority ethnic group for decades. Then we come in and knock that minority ethnic group out of power and institute elections. And then we're surprised when the majority seizes power and decides to seek revenge againt their former oppressors.

Does anybody realize that in essence, the government is allied with the shiite militias and the death squads, and that therefore we are essentially allied with them as well? If that isn't chilling to you, nothing is.

Who's giving the orders to US forces in Baghdad -- the US commander or the terrorist chieftain Sadr?

Based on this, I'd have to say Sadr's in charge.

wonder if he'll be asked about his decision to abandon a US soldier to Al-Sadr's militia, with their penchant for torture, on the orders of the Iraqi head of state?

Wait, whose penchant for torture? Ours, or theirs?

(and isn't "penchant" French? Is there no end to the debasement?)

I'm sure there are lots of points that Dems could score by exploiting this situation, but Kevin is pretty clearly right: slapping down Maliki at this juncture would almost certainly cause a plunge into chaos.

Bush, as always, chose to abandon the soldier to his fate.

Well, to be fair, the guy was abandoned by Bush the minute he put his uniform on.

When is George Bush going to apologize for losing Iraq?

Kerry flubs a line and he gets immolated,

Bush lies us into a war and loses the war, kills 2800+ troops, injures 22,000+ more, kills hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and there's no end in sight. Where are the hordes demanding an apology for that little blooper?

Rumsfeld will probably just say the people holding the missing Soldier are just some "bad apples".

I GIVE UP...will someone please grab John Kerry, duct tape his mouth shut and sit him in a corner. This is NOT about him...he needn't go on Larry King to provide more foolish sound bites to these despicable cheats and liars...IT'S THE WAR, STUPID!!! I'm sure it cheers the wingnuts to take the spotlight off the truly despicable LIMPBALLS and his ilk for a REAL attack on a classy gentleman fighting a serious disease that might one day be cured (unlike RUSH'S stupidity)...and feeds the sheeple who worship at the feet of the "smirking" CIC...as for me, I want that smile wiped off his face once and for all! It's like badly played Russian Roulette...who will make the next ridiculous statement that will pull away all reporting from the REAL ISSUES!!!?????

It wasn't just Democrats who mounted a frenzy over the Dubai ports deal. Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, in particular, were in a lather over it.

Rumsfeld will probably just say the people holding the missing Soldier are just some "bad apples".

Or that he's seen the same footage of the same soldier shown a dozen times! Then Rush will come in to make the point that since the soldier is of Iraqi decent, find him would be like finding a needle in hadji pyramid.

Stefan, for a guy who's so big on international law you sure manage to get worked up about infringing on another country's sovereignty.

I don't happen to like it either, but legally, Maliki is in charge in his own country. It's unclear whether there is a formal U.S./Iraq Status of Forces Agreement yet, but it is clear that CPA 17 has been superceded (though even its text (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf) would probably give Maliki the power to do this).

When Chief Warrant Officer Mike Durant, pilot of one of the downed Black Hawk helicopters in the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, was captured by Somali forces (who, incidentally, held him under the rules of the Geneva Convention as much as they could), President Clinton did not rest until Durant was rescued. As Mark Bowden reports in "Black Hawk Down": "There would be no negotiating with Aidid over Durant. Oakley was instructed to deliver a stern message. The president of the United States wanted Durant released. Now."

What message has Bush given Sadr?

Until Durant's relese was effective helicopters swept over Mogadishu day and night, broadcasting these messages over their loudspeakers so Durant could hear and know he was not forgotten:

"Mike Durant, we will not leave you."

"Mike Durant, we are with you always."

"Do not think we have left you, Mike."

What messages are we leaving now for our soldier Ahmed Qusai al-Taei?

The prospect of U.S. forces fighting Shiite militias in Baghdad as well as Sunni insurgents is why the U.S. military backed off, and I think that was the wisest course to take. It was wiser than what Israel chose to do in response to the capture of their soldiers by Hisb Allah in Lebanon, certainly.

What messages are we leaving now for our soldier Ahmed Qusai al-Taei?

Burka Burka Muhammad Jihad? Sorry, if I don't laugh, I'm going to cry.

It's amazing how the fear of "losing face" or "appearing weak" can drive people into no-win situations.

This president ESPECIALLY cannot stand to "lose face."

It'll be interesting to see what sound bites come out of this debacle.

Ok, it appears that we do have a formal SOFA with Iraq:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/09/le.01.html

I've also ascertained that Maliki has formal control over military activity within Iraq.

As a matter of law, we had no choice but to acquiesce to Maliki's order.

You're just like Republicans...use the law as a fetish when it benefits you and ignore it when it can score you political points.

The White House is doing its best to distract everyone's attention from this by feigning outrage over a botched John Kerry joke about George Bush's college study habits, but I wonder if Tuesday's news from Iraq will eventually get any traction?

And surely you don't imagine the twio events are unrelated?

Bottom line: The Bush Administration abandoned an American POW in Iraq, period, full stop. That Nathan speaks up in Bush's defense, citing the illusory "sovereignty" of Iraq a sovereignty that depends entirely on the presence of the US military), only confirms how craven and disgusting Bush's action is.

Now we may see if negotiation gets anything.

"Why have we abandoned an American soldier?"

because it is politically expedient to the Bush Administration.

"Why are we letting Maliki give orders to U.S. generals?"

I don't think you're going to like that answer.

"Who's in charge over there?"

And so here is your answer: It's not the US.

You're just like Republicans...use the law as a fetish when it benefits you and ignore it when it can score you political points.

That's bullshit. Nobody here is saying the Army should overrule the Iraqi PM. Just that when it comes to issues as serious as this, that it behooves the President to use the power of his office to exert pressure on the Iraqi government. The President didn't even put up a fight.

Stefan, for a guy who's so big on international law you sure manage to get worked up about infringing on another country's sovereignty.

I believe (surprise!) that you are missing the point. The GOP and Herr Bush are all about manly warmongering. They will never rest - never! - until the terrorists are defeated and Americans can once again stroll arm in arm in the mall of their choice.

And then whenever, as now, there is some little local difficulty, they run away. Their words do not match their deeds, and never have. That is the point.

As a matter of law, we had no choice but to acquiesce to Maliki's order.

So if Maliki told us tomorrow to fuck off and pull out, we'd actually do it? Don't make me laugh.

As Gregory says, the issue is simple: Bush abandoned an American soldier to the terrorists. It's as simple as that, and no amount of feeble hand-flapping or diversions can hide that.

bowing to pressure from Maliki probably was the right thing to do

My somewhat uninformed opinion: I agree. If Maliki can gain some domestic legitimacy by ordering the US out of areas in Baghdad, or Iraq itself someday, maybe he can rally those NOT disposed to fighting a Sunni/Shiite civil war into supporting his fledgling government. If there is a mushy middle, a significant persuadable sector of the populace, that can be convinced to buy into the political system and take their grievances through official channels....maybe the "center will hold."

Although I believe the situation is just too ripe for polarization, demogoguery, and score-settling. Too much pain already, and much more to come, until some certainty is expected about the final outcome or the people are too weary to fight.

Nathan, you're probably right about our legal obligations. But doesn't the fact that we're obligated to take orders from a guy beholden to the shiite militias make you at least a little bit queasy, especially when all indications are that those same militias are kidnapping our soldiers?

Let's see if I can get this point across: The US is now allied with and effectively supporting the radical militias and death squads of Moqtada Al-Sadr. We have now assumed a side in the civil war.

Maliki should represent the will of the majority of Iraqi peoples, and that means the Shiites of Sadr City. The sooner they are in charge, the sooner Iraq stabilizes and can concentrate on ousting the foreign invaders.

And hey, at least the terrorists can be secure that Cheney of all people won't object if they subject our POW to some waterboarding. According to him, it's a "no-brainer."

I've also ascertained that Maliki has formal control over military activity within Iraq.

How have you ascertained that?

Maliki should represent the will of the majority of Iraqi peoples

Not when that will includes the erradication of the remaining minority.

I think the fact that we cannot have both (a) an Iraqi government with genuine legitimacy/sovereignty and (b) the capacity to protect our own soldiers should tell us most of what we need to know about the prospects of a successful outcome in Iraq.

As a matter of law, we had no choice but to acquiesce to Maliki's order.

As he has demonstrated so often in the past, Nathan's expertise in the law, and a buck, will get you a cup of coffee. And not a very good one.

Here's a hint, you worthless, rotten, dishoenst scum: the survival of Maliki's government -- to say nothing of maliki -- depends on the US presence. Even if we're obligated to comply with Maliki's diktat, it's the height of incompetence and cowardice to allow him to issue it.

Bush, taking orders from Maliki, taking orders from Sadr, taking orders from Iraq. Just ducky.

And you're defending the POTUS abandoning a US soldier, Nathan. For shame.

Somewhat ironic that the "insurgency" is the group trying to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Iraq, while the government is de-facto supporting the genocide directed towards Iraq's Sunnis. And ironic that we're on the side of those pursuing genocide. Such is the situation we have wrought in Iraq.

Also ironic: If we really are committed to "winning" in Iraq (as the administration defines it), the best strategy might to be allow the ethnic cleansing of sunnis. That would allow the creation of a stable and unified government and would effectively end the insurgency. Of course I'm not sure the result is exactly what we're looking for, but the fact that this is probably the best way to end the insurgency is a sign of excatly how screwed up we are over there now.

As a matter of law, we had no choice but to acquiesce to Maliki's order.

I'm sure this will be a winning campaign platform for the GOP in the next week: "we just had to abandon an American soldier to the terrorists! We had no choice -- international law made us do it!"

I'm sure the base (or, as I prefer to call it, al Qaeda) will turn out in droves to vote Republican upon hearing that little excuse.....

"Nathan, you're probably right about our legal obligations. But doesn't the fact that we're obligated to take orders from a guy beholden to the shiite militias make you at least a little bit queasy, especially when all indications are that those same militias are kidnapping our soldiers?"

it does. but I also take democracy seriously.

oh, and if Maliki asked us to leave tomorrow (with the backing of the Iraq legislature)...yeah, I actually think we would. of course, we also know it won't happen. he needs us.

btw, where do you get off that this is "abandoning" an American soldier?
one particular tactic of looking for him in one particular area has been circumscribed. the search as not been called off. I realize that the election is soon (I'll be in Italy anyway) but you guys are foaming at the mouth lunatics today. Did Kerry's once again proving that he is a Rovian plant get to you that badly? Relax, like Foley, it will blow over.

Btw, I've got a feeling that the guy is nowhere near Sadr City...they probably immediately spirited him away to the countryside. Be glad that he's apparently in Shiite militia hands...that actually means that we'll almost certainly get him back (while if a Sunni insurgent group had gotten him.....).

Stefan, I don't question that you can safely demagogue it. I was simply questioning your faux outrage. You understand the legal point just fine.

I think the silence of the trolls speaks volumes. American Hawk, Thomas1, Al? Your dear leader needs you to defend his honor. Where are you?

I guess the talking points are a little slow coming on this issue.

As a matter of law, we had no choice but to acquiesce to Maliki's order.

Maliki has no authority over U.S. forces in Iraq. He does not even yet have complete authority over the newly trained Iraqi forces, with the exception of one battalion that was turned over to government control in August, I believe.

Under U.N.resolutions that remain in effect, the American military exercises control over American troops in Iraq, but consults closely with the Iraqi government as a partner. For that reason, the declaration appeared to be as much about Maliki's stagecraft as about practical effects on the ground.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/01/news/web.1101iraq.php?page=2

Assuming Maliki really does have legal military authority over US troops in Iraq, which I think he probably does (not that I am any kind of expert), he has it because Bush found it politically expedient to give him that power. He further has it to the extent that Bush decides to follow these particular laws because in the end the US military will do what Bush tells it to do (barring far more ridiculous situations than this).

So, as usual, when Bush was spewing the campaign rhetoric about how foreigners would not be in command of US troops he was lying, and as soon as he found it politically expedient to give a foreigner command over US troops he did so.

Bush needed the appearance of progress in Iraq and gave the Iraqi government some legal control over US forces in Iraq to get that appearance.

"Under U.N.resolutions..."

Ahh, well there you go. Bush just likes following Maliki's orders. He has to have someone tell him what to do afterall.

Not when that will includes the erradication of the remaining minority.

If Americans did not want the erraidcation of the minority Sunnis in Iraq, they should not have invaded and established majority rule. Regardless, the majority will rule, given time, and the erradication of the Sunni minority, for their past sins, cannot be prevented.

I do not like it and would encourage all Iraqis to stop fighting each other over stupid religious differences. But the only way the US can stop the erradication of the minority by the majority in Iraq is to kill hundreds of thousands of more Shiites. Once the US invaded Iraq, the fate of the Sunnis was written, and it was written in blood.

Nathan: legally, Maliki is in charge in his own country

Cute theory.

The difference between you and Stefan is that he knows when playing lawyer don't mean shit.

Btw, I've got a feeling that the guy is nowhere near Sadr City...they probably immediately spirited him away to the countryside.

Ah, well, Nathan has a "feeling." Based on his tremendous military expertise, as so often demonstrated here, no doubt. Well then, no need to worry, as Nathan's "feeling" reassures us.

As a matter of law, we had no choice but to acquiesce to Maliki's order.

And you can thank Bill Clinton for putting us in that situation, I'm sure.

the text of the sovereignty handover is here:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.handover/index.html

the text of the relevant UNSC resolution 1546 is here:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/381/16/PDF/N0438116.pdf?OpenElement

Maliki was given military control on September 7, 2006.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-09-07-iraq-military_x.htm?csp=34

I'll also point out that Bush has ignored plenty of other legal obligations regarding Iraq -- not the least of which is the obligation of the US, as occupying power, to maintain order.

No, no -- pleading Bush's newfound respect for international law and Iraqi sovereignty? That dog just won't hunt.

trex:

you misapprehend me. Maliki does not have control over U.S. forces in Iraq, per se. Although, our presence in Iraq is at Maliki and the INA's sufferance.

however, the checkpoints around Sadr City were jointly manned with operational authority belonging to the Iraqi military.

boy the Kerry thing must piss you guys off.

American Chickenhawk and Al are awfully quiet on this one. The fucking cowards have no spin on Bush allowing one of our soldiers go? Come on Al, tell us this is a good thing you RNC Robo troll.

Gregory:

I'd say that the 101 American lives lost in Iraq last month were lost in an attempt to keep order.
Grow up.

"you misapprehend me. Maliki does not have control over U.S. forces in Iraq, per se. Although, our presence in Iraq is at Maliki and the INA's sufferance."

And also a function of the big giant guns we point at them and the huge piles of taxpayyer money we shovel into their wallets.

I'd say that the 101 American lives lost in Iraq last month were lost in an attempt to keep order.

That's funny -- I thought they were lost as part of the GOP re-election campaign.

boy the Kerry thing must piss you guys off.

Nice try, you dishonest toad. Kerry's gaffe doesn't piss me off nearly as much as Bush abandoning a US soldier to the tender mercies of Islamist captors out of political experiency.

Nice to see which issue you'd rather focus on, Nathan. Thank you for assisting your critics by putting your dishonesty and partisanship so clearly on display.

"Gregory:

I'd say that the 101 American lives lost in Iraq last month were lost in an attempt to keep order.
Grow up.
Posted by: Nathan on November 1, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK"

That's right. Order doesn't maintain itself. And what a fine job staying the course is doing. You should go back and tell George he's doing a heckofa job!

=

Kevin Drum...

..by feigning outrage over a botched John Kerry joke about George Bush's college study habits,

Kevin,

When a usually smart commentator such as yourself buys the obvious lie from the Kerry camp that this was a "botched joke about GWB", we can see that the partisan spirit easily overcomes the rationality of even smart minds. Do you really think Kerry's excuse is true or are you just going along with the party spin? Enquiring minds want to know.

That's funny -- I thought they were lost as part of the GOP re-election campaign.

ow! I think that one drew blood!

The 'winger trolls are displaying their usual shitty mastery of basic reading skills. That's the kind of lack of smarts that got us into Iraq in the first place. You guys should have paid better attention in grade school.

I'd say that the 101 American lives lost in Iraq last month were lost in an attempt to keep order.

Unfortunately for the families of the 103 soldiers and the scores of Iraqis killed, it was a failed attempt -- not unlike Bush's failed occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately for Bush, his obligation isn't to "attempt to keep order," it's to actually maintain order. And, of course, his failure to do so is hardly the only violation of international law in regard to Iraq. (If memory serves me right, the UN charter, to which the US is a signatory and which therefore is binding US law, forbids an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation as well except as authorized by the UNSC. Oops.)

Tell us, Nathan, are you this dishonest before the bar as well, or do you just save it for defending your Party in comment threads?

stefan wrote:

The military set up the cordon because they didn't want to simply do nothing, but then had to stick with it forever because anything less would show a "lack of resolve." In a way, Maliki rescued us from our own folly on Tuesday.

And forever put to rest the claim that the Bush regime can be trusted with the lives of American soldiers. When given the choice between rescuing an American soldier, and caving in to foreign pressure for partisan political gain, Bush, as always, chose to abandon the soldier to his fate.
____________________

Well, are we to be outraged by his "abandonment" of a soldier or outraged at our treating the Iraqi government as legitimate? Or, as seems most likely, simply outraged at anything unfavorable that happens under the Presidency of G.W. Bush?

What effect does removal of checkpoints have on our efforts to find the soldier? Does it mean we've stopped looking? Have we halted all other efforts? I certainly don't know and I doubt anyone else here knows either.

In any case, there is no military doctrine that prohibits abandoning soldiers under extreme or unusual circumstances. It is the mission that must always come first, then the safety of our people. The mission first.

Military personnel have been lost, left behind and abandoned in every military conflict in our history. We have a strong custom of doing all we can to avoid it, but it cannot supercede other considerations. For example, in Vietnam we "abandoned" hundreds of MIAs at the time of the Paris Peace accords, including scores that we had definitive proof had been alive and in the hands of the North Vietnamese. Should we have called off the peace settlement until the North Vietnamese gave us a full accounting of their whereabouts?

In any case, there is no military doctrine that prohibits abandoning soldiers under extreme or unusual circumstances.

Man, the talking points are coming in slow this morning. Are you sure that's the position you want to take?

"Unfortunately for the families of the 103 soldiers and the scores of Iraqis killed, it was a failed attempt -- not unlike Bush's failed occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately for Bush, his obligation isn't to "attempt to keep order," it's to actually maintain order."

You're right. American troops in Iraq are failing and therefore in violation of international law. we should be losing far more guys in order to satisfy your fucking bloodlust.

"(If memory serves me right, the UN charter, to which the US is a signatory and which therefore is binding US law, forbids an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation as well except as authorized by the UNSC. Oops.)"

Actually, the holding of Reid v. Covert (among other things) made it the law of the land that ratified treaties are American law except for situations where they conflict with the Constitution. The AUMF was explicitly predicated upon the Constitution and therefore superceded any ratified treaty entered into by the U.S. Thus, as a matter of law, you are wrong.

...and, regarding Bush's failure to keep order in Iraq, that, too, is based on political calculation.

Not merely, of course, the rush to staff the Provisional Authority with Heritage Foundation flotsam and declare "mission accomplished." No, the fact that Bush simply could not -- and can not -- send enough troops to Iraq to have even a prayer of maintaining order without risking support for the war by asking Americans (and the Chickenhawk wing of the Republican Party) to sacrifice even more blood and treasure on the altar of Bush's political ambitions. Given that Bush insists on paying for the war with a tax cut, that notion is obviously a nonstarter.

Bush's conduct of the war is so illogical, and so incompetent, that it's small wonder Nathan adheres to them so fervently.

JRI: I've never defended the U.S. presence in Iraq. But I will not stand for Gregory critiquing U.S. troops as not trying hard enough.

Doug-E-Fresh: We have now assumed a side in the civil war.

We did this a long time ago by saying we would leave when the Iraqi army was able to defeat the resistance. Since the resistance is largely Sunni and the army largely Shia, that means we will leave when the Shia are able to beat the Sunnis in the civil war.

American troops in Iraq are failing and therefore in violation of international law.

How typical of Nathan's cowardice and dishonesty -- and that of the Party he shills for -- that he mischaracterizes a criticism of the incompetence of Republican leaders into one of the troops.

But why not? Nathan already tipped his hand here -- he's taking his cue from the Kerry gaffe.

Nathan, is Al-Sadr a terrorist or not? Simple question.

Nathan:

Maliki does not have control over U.S. forces period, and the reality of the situation is that his presence in Iraq is at our sufferance.

Further, Maliki does not yet even control his own security forces. If he was given authority over them back in September, then why was he on the television four days ago complaing that he had no authority over them?

"I am now prime minister and overall commander of the armed forces, yet I cannot move a single company without Coalition approval because of the U.N. mandate," Maliki said.

http://tinyurl.com/w5w38

Every week the Iraqi government asks for control over its own forces, and every week the U.S. military makes vague remarks about forces being ready for handover months down the road.

Maliki convinced the U.S. to lift the Sadr City cordon to shore up his credibility with the Shi'ites and show some semblance of government legitimacy, but to suggest he has anything but the slightest of influence over our military is flat wrong.

This is an empirical and not a philosophical issue, and therefore not worth debating further.

"JRI: I've never defended the U.S. presence in Iraq. But I will not stand for Gregory critiquing U.S. troops as not trying hard enough.
Posted by: Nathan on November 1, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK"

Is that really what Greg said, or are you just being an asshole?

Funnily enough, I happen to agree with Nathan and Trashhauler here. I honestly don't see any other choice from a tactical POV, and agree with Kevin that Maliki may well have saved our bacon by giving us an excuse to back off what had proven to be an unuccessful tactic.

Just like the Dubai deal, it's making me a little uncomfortable to see such advocacy (I won't go so far as to call it demagoguing) of a position based on the calculation that it outflanks Bush from the right ...

I agreed with Kevin on that one, too ...

*retreating into concrete bunker*

Bob

The AUMF was explicitly predicated upon the Constitution and therefore superceded any ratified treaty entered into by the U.S. Thus, as a matter of law, you are wrong.

As I've observed before, Nathan's opinion of the law and a buck will get you a cup of coffee, and not a very good one. How kind of him to prove that for me.

The AUMF was predicated on a number of conditions that Bush failed to meet. Thus, as a matter of law, the law was illegal even by the document you cite to justify it.

Good Ford, Nathan, I pity your clients.

I will not stand for Gregory critiquing U.S. troops as not trying hard enough.

You are a scurrilous liar, Nathan. If there were any doubt -- and there wasn't -- this post would remove it.

There are not enough troops in Iraq to maintain order, no matter how hard they "try." That decision -- and the responsibility for its failure -- is solely that of the Bush Administration. Which is, collectively, a coward for hiding behind the hard-earned honor of our troops to avoid accountability for its own incompetence.

That Nathan mimics this tactic, I believe, speaks for itself.

Is that really what Greg said, or are you just being an asshole?

Nathan knows full well that isn't what I said, and I have the record of this thread to prove it, so QED.

Hostile wrote:

"I do not like it and would encourage all Iraqis to stop fighting each other over stupid religious differences. But the only way the US can stop the eradication of the minority by the majority in Iraq is to kill hundreds of thousands of more Shiites. Once the US invaded Iraq, the fate of the Sunnis was written, and it was written in blood."
____________________

Probably not hundreds of thousands, but certainly many hundreds, perhaps thousands. The turning point came when the Sunni insurgents and the Al Qaeda started indiscriminate bombing of civilians. It was absolutely the worst move they could make. Retaliation beyond our control was inevitable once the Sunnis made it clear they were no longer just fighting Americans.

Kevin: "The Dubai port deal was almost certainly the right thing to do too ..."

I'm certainly not xenophobic like Sean Hannity and Mike Savage -- but I really fail to understand how turning our port operations and security over to a firm based in a country that clearly facilitated the financing of the 9/11 attacks is "the right thing to do".

are we to be outraged[?]

Yes, the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the deaths of thousands of Americans should elicit outrage. That outrage should be exhibited with a complete contempt for all Americans who supported Bush and his invasion and occupation of Iraq. That outrage should include everyone in the Bush administration, all Republicans, all cowardly Democratic politicians who voted for the legislation permitting the invasion in order to be reelected, all soldiers who followed the orders to invade, and all Americans who voted for those war supporting politicians (either party) in the 2004 elections.

"The AUMF was predicated on a number of conditions that Bush failed to meet. Thus, as a matter of law, the law was illegal even by the document you cite to justify it."

huh? only Congress or the SC could determine that. they haven't. therefore, the AUMF, as a legal matter, is governing law.
even Stefan has no choice but to agree with that.

trex, whatever the de facto merits of the situation, Maliki has de jure military control. He has now asserted that de jure control into an actual situation. therefore, as of yesterday, you are even empirically wrong.

I half expect Maliki to pull the lost American soldier from the streets of Baghdad, relieved, wide-eyed if not a bit bewildered, thanking God, Allah just as King Bushie triumphantly claims "mission accomplished" and that Iraqis are now back on track and cooperating completely with US occupation.

If Maliki doesn't like "benchmarks" maybe he could help "stay the course" GI Guardsman elite, from the special silver-spoon forces Dubya to get GOP members re-elected again?

It just smacks of a Karl Rove special.

I mean, hows it going to look when the soldier shows up dead? Of course, we, Americans may never know with all of Bushe's 100+ October hidden flag draped coffins being secretly flown home.

Bob,

Bush may have abandoned a US soldier to Sadr's forces because he had no choice, tactically or otherwise, but that's what he did.

It's unfortunate that the Republican Party has created an atmosphere where these actions, however necessary, undertaken by a Democrat wouldn't be decried in exactly these terms (think of Clinton and Mogadishu), but that's how they've chosen to frame it. I have no problem, then, with hoisting Bush on his own rancid petard. But that doesn't make it a caclulation -- Bush really, and unquestionably, knuckled under to the Shi'ites and abandoned a US soldier to his fate. If the GOP defines such actions as a cowardly sellout, then it is when Bush does it too, full stop.

enozinho:

I do wonder if (no, actually strongly doubt that) al-Sadr has full control of the Mahdi Army, or in fact whether such a thing as a unified "Mahdi Army" can be said to exist, apart from a bunch of local commanders, running an ad-hoc organization recruited as necessary from impoverished areas with an excess of unemployed men of military age.

Does al-Sadr embrace a terrorist ideology? I haven't seen concrete evidence of it so far, if by "terrorist" you mean an explicit embrace of killing civilians as a means to advance his ends.

Bob

This is pretty funny. When the Bush administration for once shows some understanding of the political situation in Iraq all the leftist here begin to scream with foam at their mouths.

This is pretty funny. When the Bush Administration abandons a US soldier to the Shi'ites, all the Bush Cultists can do is defend him.

No, wait -- it isn't funny; it's pathetic.

Bob, I think you're wrong about this. And I don't feel like I'm posturing at all. I'm a Sunni, and what I've seen recently is that we are essentially handing control of Iraq to the forces that are bent on ethnic cleansing. What a lot of people fail to realize, I think, is that wiping out or displacing the Sunni population of Iraq is just the beginning. If we leave Iraq with a wink and a nod to the Shiite militias, we will be opening the gates of hell in the entire middle-east.

Iraq's neighbors will not sit back and take the financial and political strain brought on by an influx of Sunni refugees. What is now a trickle of support from the fringes of sunni society, will become a deluge once we leave.

"There are not enough troops in Iraq to maintain order, no matter how hard they "try." That decision -- and the responsibility for its failure -- is solely that of the Bush Administration."

Actually, it goes back to the halving of Army strength after 1991. we don't have anymore troops. not without abandoning our commitments to SK, Japan and Europe. Yes, we have a temporary surge capacity...but not one that we can logically sustain for any length of time (never mind its effect on morale).

Personally, I've always been in favor of the draft...but instituting one, and then training and equipping troops would take years and would double the defense budget (personnel costs are by far the lion's share of the defense budget....though 300,000 more troops would double procurement costs as well) (remember that for every additional 100,000 troops in Iraq you need a total of 300,000 in additional end strength). We have done as much as we can to convert support personnel to front-line personnel in Iraq.

yeah, this could have been avoided by not going into Iraq in the first place, which I've said all along. but the reality is, we are now there, and we're doing everything in our power to maintain order. there is literally nothing more we can do at present.

enozinho wrote:

"(Quoting me) 'In any case, there is no military doctrine that prohibits abandoning soldiers under extreme or unusual circumstances.'

Man, the talking points are coming in slow this morning. Are you sure that's the position you want to take?'
____________________

It's not a "position," at all. It is simple a fact. There is no military doctrine that prohibits the abandonment of military personnel. If there were such a doctrine, then any defeat would result in disaster. Retreat would become almost impossible.

We make every reasonable effort to recover our people, sometimes taking it to extreme measures. But there are no guarantees in war and every soldier knows it.

all the leftist here begin to scream with foam at their mouths.

That's a cappuccino. All the "leftist" are drinking them!

Gregory:

I believe very strongly that the Maliki government needs to do all it can to demonstrate independence from the US. That is the only slim reed he has for attempting to establish any semblance of legitimacy among the Iraqi people.

Therefore I support all moves whereby Maliki attempts to demonstrate even symbolic independence from Bush, such as rejecting timetables and calling off the cordon.

I'm more concerned with what will help set the conditions of departure than I am about short term tactics in this particular situation. Although I think Kevin made a good case that short term tactics are well-served by the withdrawal, too.

As for the soldier, I saw a story yesterday on the NYT that it's believed he may have deserted to get married. Didn't read it, but I'm sure it's still up on the site.

Bob

Gregory:

I do not dispute that some Republicans would demagogue this if Clinton had done it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But, there is no evidence whatsoever that we have abandoned the search. Further, like I said, if he's actually with a Shiite militia group, the prospects of getting him back unharmed are good. They would have taken him as some sort of negotiating chip...it's a bit different then when Sunni insurgent or al-quaeda linked groups have captured U.S. personnel.

bowing to pressure from Maliki probably was the right thing to do,

That's true if you consider Maliki to be the head of a popularly elected government and not the spokesman for a foreign occupation on one hand and for insurgent Shia on the other.

Nathan: JRI: I've never defended the U.S. presence in Iraq. But I will not stand for Gregory critiquing U.S. troops as not trying hard enough.

As you know very well, Gregory is criticizing Bush for not trying hard enough, not the US soldiers.

Trashauler, some people on here are scoring stupid political points. You're right. We do put even abandoning soldiers second to the mission.

However, that doesn't mean that something like this from a Democratic president wouldn't be considered a borderline impeachable offense.

But that in no way makes this not a sordid and shaming episode. The larger truth it speaks to is that our military and political objectives - and not only that, but their actual tactics - are hopelessly at odds with each other. We are politically crippled from taking action against the Shiites. We are politically crippled from re-imposing order through violence. All we can safely due is pursue the dead-end ground war against the Sunni in Anbar that started this whole miserable chain of events while the country burns down around us.

Our larger position is beyond compromised. And the right wing looks somewhere else.

Gergory wrote:

"This is pretty funny. When the Bush Administration abandons a US soldier to the Shi'ites, all the Bush Cultists can do is defend him."
_______________

Again, how do you know he's been abandoned? And who says the Shiites have him?

I also think that the best hope to get the U.S. soldier back from the Shias holding him is to try and negotiate for his release. It's certainly a wiser course than clamping down on Sadr City given the level of violence in Iraq.

Actually, it goes back to the halving of Army strength after 1991.

No, athan, it goes back to the Bush Administration being told it didn't have enough troops, and when the facts got in the way of the political feasibility of its desired policy, once again the Bush Administration cast inconvenient facts aside.

Which, again, explains the appeal these liars have for you.

rcmk1: Funnily enough, I happen to agree with Nathan and Trashhauler here. I honestly don't see any other choice from a tactical POV, and agree with Kevin that Maliki may well have saved our bacon by giving us an excuse to back off what had proven to be an unuccessful tactic.

But Bob, the main point here is that whether or not the Bush regime can justify this from a tactical standpoint, they'll return in a few days with the same outraged bleating about how they never give in to the terrorists, no sirree, and they'd never abandon an American soldier, and the Democrats just want to take their orders from the terrorists -- when in reality they've just done the exact thing!

The key here is that this, more than most matters, exposes the disconnect between the GOP's cowardly actions and its faux-macho bluster for all to see -- especially so for any military families, or for anyone who's ever had a loved one in a war zone in danger of capture.

Nathan wrote: there is literally nothing more we can do at present.

Do I need to point out the irony of the person who said, dishonestly, "I will not stand for Gregory critiquing U.S. troops as not trying hard enough" writing these words?

Good Ford, Nathan, I pity your clients.

(Also, I love the dishoensty-by-omission that "some" Republicans would criticize a Democrat doing so. Who knew Nathan had any honor left he could sully?)

"No, athan, it goes back to the Bush Administration being told it didn't have enough troops, and when the facts got in the way of the political feasibility of its desired policy, once again the Bush Administration cast inconvenient facts aside."

Eh. what it came down to was the choice between doing it half-assed and not doing it at all. We didn't have more troops to begin with.

tomeck says:

"That's true if you consider Maliki to be the head of a popularly elected government and not the spokesman for a foreign occupation on one hand and for insurgent Shia on the other."

Actually, the problem is that he's all three.

what it came down to was the choice between doing it half-assed and not doing it at all. We didn't have more troops to begin with.

Well, Nathan, you know all about half-assed, I'll grant you. You just neatly undercut your own dishonest claim that I was critiquing the troops for "not trying hard enough," but that hardly excuses Bush for failing to meet his legal obligation to maintain -- not "try" to maintain -- order, nor does it disparage the point that Bush has failed to raise the necessary troops -- lo, these several years after the invasion of Iraq -- out of political necessity, because to do so would cause the already-precarious support it enjoys among Bush cultists like yourself to collapse.

Again, how do you know he's been abandoned?

From today's Times: "But by nightfall, American troops had abandoned all the positions in eastern and central Baghdad that they had set up last week with Iraqi forces as part of a search for a missing American soldier."

And who says the Shiites have him?

The U.S. military does. Again from the Times: "In its search for the soldier, the American military has singled out the Mahdi Army militia, which has grown increasingly fractured but still answers in part to Mr. Sadr."

enozinho:

Oh no, bro, believe me I completely share your concerns about that. It sort of bugs me to see some withdrawal-supporters here blithely say that since Iraq is majority Shi'ite, we should just leave the Sunnis to their fate and if they get massacred, then they "deserve it" somehow for being Saddam's favored sect. I find that both morally repugnant in itself and also a potential disaster for Iraq.

What people seem to so often forget is that the Sunnis were the technocratic class who used to run the country. Sure, by virtue of being Sunni and gaining an unfair advantage in Saddam's regime, they still nonetheless are more well-educated and secular-leaning than the Shia, who Saddam kept impoverished and in the countryside. The attitudes of someone like Riverbend, if they are (or, sadly, were) shared by a goodly fraction of the populace, are precisely the sorts of attitudes you need to have to found a prosperous, multiethnic state. Having this minority substantially wiped out in a bloodbath would be a huge tragedy in itself, not to mention how it would doubtless agitate the Sunni states in the region.

Partition may happen. Ethnic cleansing may continue unabated. Civil war may well be inevitable.

But nothing of these outcomes bode any less than a catastrophe the dimensions of which I don't know if anyone fully comprehends at the moment ...

Bob

what it came down to was the choice between doing it half-assed and not doing it at all.

Is Nathan saying our corces are doing it half-assed? I will not stand for Nathan critiquing U.S. troops as not trying hard enough!

forces, not corces, damn it!

glastnost wrote:

"The larger truth it speaks to is that our military and political objectives - and not only that, but their actual tactics - are hopelessly at odds with each other. We are politically crippled from taking action against the Shiites."
________________

To a great extent, I agree with you, glastnost. We have a tiger by the tail and neither this Administration nor the next will be able to completely snuff out the growing ethnic struggle until one side gains dominance. The most we can do is kill the enemy, protect innocents where we can, temper the illicit violence, and encourage the Iraqi government to do the same. We cannot do any of these things by withdrawal.

I haven't seen concrete evidence of it so far, if by "terrorist" you mean an explicit embrace of killing civilians as a means to advance his ends.

The picture in Iraq is obviously foggy. But there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that people associated with Al-Sadr (or people disguised in Mahdi army "uniforms") have been roaming the capital for months killing Sunni civilians.

Whether or not Al-Sadr fits the definition of a terrorist, he is the head of a strictly-enforced Shia enclave in the middle of Iraq's capital. His aims should not supercede the declared aims of the Iraqi government. The fact that they clearly do is really troubling.

We cannot do any of these things by withdrawal.

And we aren't doing them veyr well by being there, either -- only being there cost us 103 soldiers killed last month.

Bottom line: Leaving the execution of the mission Trashhauler describes in the hands of the gang that fucked Iraq up in the first place (and I am looking squarely at the mendacious and incompetent Bush Administration here) is the height of folly.

Mission: Accomplished? No -- Mission: Impossible.

trex, whatever the de facto merits of the situation, Maliki has de jure military control. He has now asserted that de jure control into an actual situation. therefore, as of yesterday, you are even empirically wrong.

Really? Maliki has de jure control over the U.S. forces that were enforcing the siege of Sadr City? I'm sure that comes as a surprise not only to him but to CENTCOM, the U.N., and the President of the United States.

Perhaps you should ring them up and notify them of this extraordinary change in policy, law, and circumstance. Meanwhile I'll notify the Democratic political machine so they can take advantage of this unbelievable turn of events. Who would have thought that just prior to a critical election George Bush would have turned over control of the greatest military in the world to a government in which elements are running death squads and allegedly collaborating with Iran?

When a usually smart commentator such as yourself buys the obvious lie from the Kerry camp that this was a "botched joke about GWB", we can see that the partisan spirit easily overcomes the rationality of even smart minds. Do you really think Kerry's excuse is true or are you just going along with the party spin?

Yes, it is much more rational and smart to assume that a prominent national politician (military veteran to boot) would get up before a large audience and deliberately claim that the military personnel are a bunch of below average dimwits.

stefan, I need not point out that abandoning posts and abandoning the search are two different things.

And if the military thinks he's with the Mahdi army, then they must have good reason to think so. But they could be wrong to think that he is a prisoner.

"This is pretty funny. When the Bush administration for once shows some understanding of the political situation in Iraq all the leftist here begin to scream with foam at their mouths.
Posted by: mg56 on November 1, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK"

There's no evidence that this was intentional on the part of the Bush admin. They haven't gotten anything right in the past 6 years. how can you assume that they meant to do this and it was evidence of some dreg of competence on their part?

=

enozinho:

Once again, I substantially agree with you.

*Associated* with al-Sadr? Oh absolutely. There are death squads wandering around in his name who have been engaged in mass reprisal killings of Sunnis ever since the mosque bombing, no question.

My only question here is how much of this activity is explicitly condoned or endorsed by al-Sadr himself. I know he's issued statements that factions of the Mahdi Army are beyond his control.

As for the more general issue of al-Sadr being a power broker in Baghdad unanswerable to the government -- I wonder how much to criticize that, only because so much of the Iraq central government is so clearly ineffective and dysfunctional. It may be that al-Sadr's organization stepped into a power vaccuum (much like Hezbollah stepped into the power vaccuum of southern Lebanon).

But generally, he's not someone to look to for moderation and reconcilliation, as might be al-Sestani, that's for certain.

Bob

stefan, I need not point out that abandoning posts and abandoning the search are two different things.

Oh, sure. All they did was abandon all the positions from which they were conducting the search, and are no longer trying to find him in the area in which they think he is being held -- why, that's not the same thing as abandoning the search at all! After all, they're still looking for him -- the fact that they're not looking where he most likely is is merely a technical detail....

I seem to recall in 2004 how the GOP and Bush found the idea of any foreign control over American military actions to be the height of irresponsibility and contempt for the average American solider. I seem to remember this notion of an international standard/test for American military actions was so heinous so offensive and so anti-American that it had to be prevented at all costs by reelecting a President that would never place American military decisions in the hands of foreigners. That is what makes this so potent politically regardless of whatever merits one may see for it in regards to stabilizing the Iraqi government. This is a President that appears to have ordered via his NSA the American military to abandon one of their own taken hostage and left to be tortured and murdered with impunity so as to create a political effect.

What this speaks to is that this is a President that sees the lives of American soldiers as politica