**

"("It's as if Bush gave a speech bashing Congress, and then CNN had only run clips suggesting that he had attacked Republicans, driving an entire news cycle dominated by "Bush attacks Republicans" — and then nobody changed their story after the whole tape aired elsewhere.")"

But that is the way "news" is reported today.

One interesting aspect is why al Jazeera chose to run the tape in a way that was unfavorable to al Qaeda in Iraq. Hopefully, it's because al Jazeera recognizes that AQI has been defeated and don't want to be caught backing the losing side.

The theory that Iraq will descend into a rule by warlords is certainly conceivable. More likely, the government would control most of the country, while warlord might rule in some outlying areas. This would be comparable to the Wild West, during the period when gangs and posses would shoot it out for control.

More broadly, ISTM that Lynch's theory can be viewed as one of several articles that start with two premises:
1. the surge is working, BUT
2. there's a catch, because Iraq is fated to be a failure

Once one assumes that things cannot ever succeed in Iraq, the only question is where is the fly in the ointment? Lynch says it's War Lords. Time Magazine's Joe Klein says it's al Sadr. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1675623,00.html

At least, they're both acknowledging the progress we're seeing right now. Of course, another possibility is that things might actually work out. Then the anti-war critics might have to backtrack, just as al Jazeera seems to have done.

Hopefully, it's because al Jazeera recognizes that AQI has been defeated and don't want to be caught backing the losing side.

Good point ex-liberal. Prior to the Surge, Al-Jazeera was spreading nothing more than anti-American pro-terrorists propaganda. But now that the success of the Surge is apparent to everyone, they're running for cover trying to side with the American people and the freedom loving Iraqis. Just gives another reason why critics of the Surge were wrong.

The two biggest fucking cowards on the boards are here touting that the "Splurge" has worked. Idiots.

Tell it to these guys. Or are they just "phony soldiers"?

This sounds like the first step in backing away from the left's certainty that Iraq was a disaster and the war is lost. Now we are going to have a "warlord state." Pretty soon, we will see statements that the left knew all along that Iraq would be allright and the war was unnecessary because Saddam was ready to fall and would have been succeeded by a democracy if only we had stayed out. That's the way you handled the cold war so why not this ? Remember how the Soviets couldn't be defeated and we had to learn to live with them ?

No surprise that the WaPo could find unhappy soldiers. Every army is full of them. They're just not a large proportion of the force. TNR even found one, except...

Should the US simply acknowledge the reality of the institutional and political environment it has created in Iraq, or maintain its current radical disconnect between its stated objectives and what it is actually doing?

The unspoken assumption of any question of this sort is "to happen in 2009." The current crop of crazies won't voluntarily change course, and congress hasn't got the will/votes to make them. So we can only think about what to do once the mess gets dropped into the Hillary administration's lap. And of course bearing in mind that the right wing noise machine will be pushing "stab in the back" 24-7 as soon as they take over.

Just get the troops out. The rest is details.

I'm sure Mike K will be happy to volunteer to go over and risk his life replacing those no-good defeatist soldiers so that Iraq can be made safe for a bunch of local warlords.

Volatile Compound, in the article you cited, WaPo reporter Joshua Partlow found an area of Iraq that is not pacified and some discouraged soldiers. This area is atypical. Most of Iraq is much improved in the last 3 months. Partlow could have found thousands of soldiers with a positive viewpoint, had he chosen to look for them.

Another blogger did an analysis of Partlow's recent Iraq stories and found that they all focused on negatives, even though there's lots of good news. People who rely on biased news coverage are going to be surprised when the good news becomes undeniable.

JimBOB, I did my time and will match my DD 214 with yours. How about it ?

Also, you don't have to take my word, here's somebody who is there.

You really believe the bullshit you peddle, don't you? Meanwhile, two million are internally displaced, two million more are refugees, 70% of the country thinks it's fine to attack the occupying Americans, and over a million Iraqis are dead.

That's all great news!

So have you pathetic cowards worked out a justification for that reality yet? (Don't give me the Saddam was bad, bullshit either. As he killed about 300K over 20+ years, the occupation forces make him look like a piker.)

I thought not.

Sounds to me like there are a few groups competing to release statements using the brand of bin Laden. And since he's likely been dead for years, it's an open field.

I think it's really unfair to ask all war supporters to join the military and go get shot at in Iraq. I don't expect old desk-jockeys with families to put themselves in harm's way.

But if they feel this war is going to have a satisfactory outcome, they should put some skin in the game. I suggest that they invest in Iraqi government bonds. That would be of great practical value to Iraq, and if the surge-o-philes are right, it's a no-brainer investment! So c'mon guys, put your money where your mouths are!

Excellent notion, RWB! They should divest their holdings in Exxon-Mobil (and all oil companies) and buy Iraqi government bonds tomorrow!

Ah, Kevin.

I knew this was coming:

"...we should stop paying attention to body counts..."

Yep. Now why do you think Kevin tells you people to stop ppaying attention to body counts. Obviously because the body counts are now a good news story. That is to say, they are way down and getting lower.

So Kevin tells us not to pay attention, so we can focus on other areas where Kevin can use the murkiness of war to his advantage and paint his typical pictures of castastrophe.

egbert, you numbnuts moron, a whole bunch of us have been saying all along that focusing on a specific pixel of the big picture, ie, body counts, gives a false impression, and can be misused to prop up various and sundry disparate agendas.

And beside that point is the consideration that when the ethnic cleansing was complete, of course body counts went down because the victims of those atrocities either fled, or were killed.

All fine and good, but what exactly are the US' original goals? Please explain. And by the way what is the current status of that "oil redistribution" draft law?

One interesting aspect is why al Jazeera chose to run the tape in a way that was unfavorable to al Qaeda in Iraq... blah blah..

So you're admitting al Jazeera is providing factual information? I find it laughable how you bash al Jazeera when it doesn't agree with your viewpoint, and when it does, you then say, "even al Jazeera say.. " The media is always such a convenient scapegoat, isn't it ex-lib?

GwB has consistently said that our goal is a free and democratic Iraq, able to defend itself against its neighbors and an ally in the war on terror. Ex-lib and egbert and MikeK are still stuck on "it's the MSM, it's, its....

So a series of questions for all three (or individually):

Firsgt:how is Iraq coming closer to being a free and democratic country particularly in light of this story (Iraq Hampers U.S. Bid to Widen Sunni Police Role)

Second, how does Iraq defend itself against its neighbors without an air force, a navy, an armored division (a unit with T-72s donated by Hungary doesn't count) or artillery? The US sells arms everywhere except, apparently to Iraq. Could it be some fear about the targets for those weapons? How long before you think the Iraqis might obtain such weapons from us?

How does Iraq become an ally in the war on terror when it's the front line? Does counterinsurgency entail getting the government to maintain all those lovely projects built for them?

How does the average Iraqi earn a living? Any idea of the size and scope of the black markets that exist in Iraq? This is why so many at the conference with Abu Aardvark think warlordism is a more likely outcome.

Regardless of whether they have a greater meaning, lower body counts for both U.S. Soldiers and Iraqis is a good thing.

What is important to remember is that no matter how well things go from here, this war was still a miserable failure.

The administration would never have even come close to passing the AUMF if it had been known in 2002 that as of 2008 we would still have over 150k troops in Iraq, or that the total cost would be well over a trillion dollars*, 4000+ american lives (including civilians), hundreds of coalition lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

That isn't even considering what would have happened if it was known that the dire predictions of Iraqi WMD and Saddam-Al Qaeda links were false.

Put those together and the administration would have been lucky to get a single vote in Congress or 10% support from the American public for starting this war. Looking back on it now, we should remember that perspective even if things do end up turning out better than we had any reason to expect in 2005 or 2006.

*Over $500 billion spent so far, $200 billion allocated for ongoing operations, plus $50-200 billion to restore the armed forces to pre-war readiness levels and pay medical and other benefits to service members over and above what would have been needed without the war. All of those figures would continue to grow even if we started moving toward a complete withdrawal tomorrow.

P.S. WTF is up with this - when I am connected on the Comcast broadband account I have been using for the last 18 months, I can post here with no problem. But when I connect via my new high speed DSL account (not as fast as cable, but fast enough and a lot cheaper), it says 'you are not allowed to post'. I have only had the DSL account for 3 days now and have never had a single successful post to the P.A. blog when connected in on that account.

[Likely your DSL provider is assigning an IP that falls into a "banned" range. email that IP address to WaMoModerator@hotmail.com and I will see if I can help you]

tight before tea time: what exactly are the US' original goals? Please explain. And by the way what is the current status of that "oil redistribution" draft law?

As I recall the original goals were to overthrow Saddam, to eliminate the possibility of Iraq posing a nuclear threat, and to establish a stable democracy. We've actually achieved all of those goals except for the stability (which I admit is crucial). But, stability now looks like a realistic possibility.

The oil distribution law has not been passed, as you know. OTOH, redistribution of oil revenues is actually taking place, even in the absense of a comprehensive law.

tjm asks some good questions:

First:how is Iraq coming closer to being a free and democratic country particularly in light of this story (Iraq Hampers U.S. Bid to Widen Sunni Police Role)

This is an area in which Americans should be proud. Iraq has a government elected in free elections. It's freedom of the press has allowed hundreds of newspapers and magazines to start up. From the POV of freedom and democracy, Iraq today is a paradise, compared to Saddam's rule or neighbors Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Syria.

Second, how does Iraq defend itself against its neighbors without an air force, a navy, an armored division (a unit with T-72s donated by Hungary doesn't count) or artillery? The US sells arms everywhere except, apparently to Iraq.

Iraq has a big, somewhat well-trained army of 137,000 plus 188,000 police. I don't think any neighbor would care to make war on them outright. (although Iran is sending some amount of IEDs and Quds forces in what could arguably be considered acts of war.)

How does Iraq become an ally in the war on terror when it's the front line?

Osama bin Laden declared Iraq to be the front line of his war. Iraqis have turned on al Qaeda, even most Sunnis. With the help of the Iraqis, al Qaeda has suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq.

Does counterinsurgency entail getting the government to maintain all those lovely projects built for them?

Don't know.

How does the average Iraqi earn a living? Any idea of the size and scope of the black markets that exist in Iraq? This is why so many at the conference with Abu Aardvark think warlordism is a more likely outcome.

The level of unemployment in Iraq is staggering. I believe it was just as high or higher under Saddam. Due to the new freedom, many new businesses have started up. The unemployment rate was 50-60% in June 2003 and has come down to 25% - 40%, according to Brookings -- still much too high.

[Consider this your point made. When it gets refuted, don't just repeat the same things over and over.]

Should the US simply acknowledge the reality of the institutional and political environment it has created in Iraq, or ...?

Simple steps first, "The US should acknowledge the institutional and political reality of the environment in Iraq."

From the thought-provoking article Kevin sent us to:

"Even worse, it seems like the US is committing the cardinal sin of once again falling victim to our own propaganda, believing our own spin, and substituing domestic public opinion management for hard thought about where we're heading..."

Indeed. Yet another overarching conspiracy by the Bushites to set up an alternate reality, using Petraeus, continuing to defraud and intentionally mislead. A strategy to sell war, war and more war--and still no exit plan. Another PR blitz by the hawks perpetrated on a weary public.
Yet more criminal conspiracies and oratory.

P.S. The trolls commenting on AA's site seem worse than the ones on PA, I must note

ex-liberal: From the POV of freedom and democracy, Iraq today is a paradise, compared to Saddam's rule or neighbors Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Syria.

Which is why, of course, millions of Iraqis contnue to flee to the hells of Syria, Jordan, Iran, etc. It might not be apparent to many in the West like you, but freedom and democracy tend to be very low on the list of priorities for the dead and starving.

Is Sunday Retards-Half-Price Day? Shouldn't the poor things be at church, or something?

Pakistan is our ally in the war on terra.

Large parts of Pakistan are ruled by warlords.

Therefore, we should create an Iraq in which large parts are ruled by warlords.

What's wrong with warlords? Heck, every non-elected government in the world is one (and arguably some who are elected). The trick is having an enlightened one, above all others. A benevolent dictator (or a close approximation thereof) can be extremely beneficial and do wonders for the country--at least until the populace starts wondering if there's more to life than having a car, TV, refrigerator, etc.

The sequence is always: (1) security (strong had required); (2) prosperity; (enlightened hand required) (3) demands for individual rights (usually accompanied by demonstrations and riots due to the excesses of the "strong hand"); followed by (4) democracy. If you're lucky (e.g., Taiwan, South Korea), democracy takes hold and the strong hand is enlightened enough to recognize the end.

Unfortunately, we tried to skip the intervening steps in Iraq.

Bin Laden's messages have routinely been misreported, mistranslated or simply falsified. Bush's old yarn about al-Qaeda "hating us because of our freedom" has been addressed head-on by bin Laden on several occasions. In a tape he released in 2004, bin Laden stated that his group did not hate the U.S because of freedom, but because of "our complicity in the oppression of the Palestinian people, through our proxy, Israel". He goes on to talk about how his inspiration for the 9-11 attacks came when the Israelis bombarded Lebanon in 1982 and many Lebanese burned to death in high-rise apartment buildings. The truth is right there in plain sight.

Besides, if al-Qaeda "hated us for our freedoms", why didn't they attack the U.S. in 1801 or 1901, but instead, waited until 2001? Radical Wahhabism has been around since the 1700s!

ex-liberal, thanks for the chuckles, whatever you're taking, it must be good.

The warlordism was predictable. Back in 2003 Kenneth Pollack wrote a book, The Threatening Storm, arguing for attacking Iraq. But in the last chapter he said that if we didn't have at least 225,000 troups for the occupation, the country could fall apart in warlordism.

I do hope the apparent decrease in civilian and GI deaths in Iraq is the product of some sort of reconciliation that is sustainable. But I just got this creepy feeling that the actors in the conflict
(not including the Americans} are undergoing some sort of tactical or strategic realignments in country that will blow Iraq wide open in the near future. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Oops, the publication date was 2002, not 2003

…Most of Iraq is much improved in the last 3 months…..ex-lax at 2:40 PM

I did my time…Mike Kook at 2:47 PM

I'm actually a bit optimistic about the future of Iraq for the very first time, no thanks to the US, of course. I was astounded to read in the Asia Times this week that Maliki says there will be only one more Iraqi renewal of the UN resolution that permits the US (er, coalition) to remain in Iraq (final renewal Dec 2007, for one year). Since the UN resolution concerning coalition presence in Iraq is intimately connected to the UN supervision of Iraq's oil fund, any US attempt to control or influence Iraq's oil wealth will also be greatly reduced. Also, again from the Asia Times, it appears that Sunnis/Shias are collaborating to some degree out of a joint support for Iraqi nationalism and against continued occupation (only a beginning, for sure, but certainly good news for Iraqis). This development apparently was positively influenced by Iran when al Sadr and al Hakim visited recently.

So, take a look. You won't find this UN resolution stuff in a US paper.

Oil: The sovereignty showdown in Iraq
By Jack Miles

The oil game in Iraq may be almost up. On September 29, like a landlord serving notice, the government of Iraq announced that the next annual renewal of the United Nations Security Council mandate for a multinational force in Iraq - the only legal basis for a continuation of the American occupation - will be the last. That was, it seems, the first shoe to fall. The second may be an announcement terminating the little-noticed, but crucial companion Security Council mandate governing the disposition of
Iraq's oil revenues.

Miles, Asia Times, 10/26/07

And another source:

Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Resolution That May End Occupation, Global Policy Forum, 6/5/2007

Great citizen journalism, Nepata. Thank you.
The best use of commenting on blogs is to enlighten.

East coasters--Barbara Slavin, author of "Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies," is on Cspan2 Book TV After Words--worth viewing for what is happening in Iraq, and the U.S. bullying of Iran propaganda lines.

JimBOB, I did my time and will match my DD 214 with yours. How about it ?

I'm not the one claiming it was a great idea to spend over a trillion dollars and thousands of U.S. soldiers' lives creating a warlord-run failed state.

has207: Which is why, of course, millions of Iraqis contnue to flee to the hells of Syria, Jordan, Iran, etc. It might not be apparent to many in the West like you, but freedom and democracy tend to be very low on the list of priorities for the dead and starving.

Yes, this has been true. But, things seems to be turning around, at least temporarily. Blogger Omar Fadhil of Iraq the Model reports

Here's for example what an American officer in Anbar said some ten days ago:
"Colonel Richard Simcock, commander of the Regimental Combat Team 6 of the US Marine Corps pointed out the improvement in security in Anbar province…and pointed out that somewhere between 30-40% of Shia families have returned to their homes in Anbar after they had been displaced..."

Or there's the most visible example that all Baghdadis are aware of which is Karradah; despite the vicious attacks that targeted this district and the attempts to spark sectarian displacement there is still no evidence of significant forced displacement of Sunni families by the Shia majority around them.

Marc Lynch writes that we should stop paying attention to body counts and instead focus on the long-term political realities of Iraq:

Of course -- that's because the body counts are down. Kind of like the way that electricity didn't matter any more once output exceeded pre-war levels.

Iraqis will decide their long-term political realities if we give them a short-term of sufficient duration.

Hah, it's really rich seeing supporters of the war accusing opponents of changing the goalposts.

Remember all the predictions, from the administration itself not just its supporters, that we would be greeted with flowers in the streets, that we would be down to 40k or 50k troops in a few months, that the reconstruction would pay for itself from oil revenues, etc, etc.

That doesn't even count the changing rational for the war: nuke programs, tons of w.m.d., close ties to Al-Qaeda, a shining beacon of democracy that would transform the middle east.

There are good reasons to be skeptical that the current good news is sustainable or meaningful in terms of achieving lasting stability in Iraq, but even if it is, this war is a failure by every goalpost its supporters set before or in the early stages.

ex-liberal: "Colonel Richard Simcock, commander of the Regimental Combat Team 6 of the US Marine Corps pointed out the improvement in security in Anbar province...

Who also said in a recent interview:

The Minister of Interior is providing money to pay the Iraqi police, the provisional security forces. In addition to that money, they're providing equipment to support those law enforcement and provisional security forces also, but we need more.

...the American military seemed to be more concerned than Iraqi government officials that his recruits were properly clothed, fed and trained.

"We know the Americans better than the Iraqis," he said. "Nobody at the Ministry of Interior asks us what we need."

While I applaud Simcock's efforts, he's working at the local level, while the real problem is in Baghdad. Or maybe not. Hard to tell.

Are we doing what's strategically sound, or simply what's tactically expedient at the expense of strategy? I'd like to think otherwise, but we've seen this before; the short-term credit may look nice, but somewhere the butcher is still tallying the bill.

Sounds to me like there are a few groups competing to release statements using the brand of bin Laden. And since he's likely been dead for years, it's an open field. Posted by: luci

There was a former CIA analyst discussing this on NPR the other. While he did not speculate on whether bin Laden is still living, he said that there really is no AQI, and that by dislodging al Qaeda from Afghanistan had pretty matched destroyed the central organization, such as it was. Lots of groups may be using the name al Qaeda but are not in any fashion funded or directed by bin Laden.

The warlordism was predictable. Back in 2003 Kenneth Pollack wrote a book, The Threatening Storm, arguing for attacking Iraq. But in the last chapter he said that if we didn't have at least 225,000 troups for the occupation, the country could fall apart in warlordism. Posted by: bobo the chimp

As Pollack, who doesn't speak Arabic or Farsi but is supposedly a big expert on the region, was wrong about everything else is that dreadful book, I think it's best just to leave him out of the discussion. He's as bad as any of the lunatic neo-cons.

Apparently the jihadis are seriously pissed at al-Jazeera for airing only the part of the tape ...

Didn't al-Jazeera just get a big new contract in Israel? Maybe bin Laden doesn't play in Israel.

Thanks for the post; very insightful. By the way, you might be interested in The Wounded Warriors Project. It's a non-profit organization dedicated to raising awareness for U.S. troops severely wounded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of this conflict. Here's a link:

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/aarwebs

Jeff

tjm: GwB has consistently said that our goal is a free and democratic Iraq

"Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament."

- GwB 3/6/03

Defense Department spokesman Lawrence DiRita told reporters that the US would have all but 25,000-30,000 troops out of Iraq by the end of August 2003.

ex-lib: Iraq has a government elected in free elections.

The confidential version of Congress' Congressional Research Report on Iraq declares that Iraq's government is "in collapse," according to the New York Daily News' James Meek, who first acquired the report.

"My assessment is that because of the number and breadth of parties boycotting the cabinet, the Iraqi government is in essential collapse," Kenneth Katzman, the author of the report, said, according to Meek. "That argues against any real prospects for political reconciliation."

9/6/07

bob the chimp: The warlordism was predictable. Back in 2003 Kenneth Pollack wrote a book, The Threatening Storm, arguing for attacking Iraq. But in the last chapter he said that if we didn't have at least 225,000 troups for the occupation, the country could fall apart in warlordism.

Wolfowitz Contradicts Shinseki over Iraqi Occupation
Feb 28, 2003

U.S. Army Chief of Staff Erik Shinseki said Feb. 25 that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed in Iraq following a war. However, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz contradicted that statement on Feb. 27, saying Shinseki's estimates were "wildly off the mark."

surge that

…. things seems to be turning around, at least temporarily. Blogger Omar Fadhil of Iraq the Model reports…ex-lax at 7:01 PM

…A suicide bomber riding a bicycle killed 32 people and wounded 18 when he exploded Monday amidst a group of Iraqi police recruits, officials said.… On Sunday, 11 tribal leaders who had banded with U.S. troops to fight the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq were kidnapped, the latest in a string of such attacks, fellow tribesmen said…

Every day in Iraq under the Bush occupation is worse than the worst day under Saddam and all the lies and alibis of Bush's lick spittles and all the propaganda of the occupation forces cannot hide that fact.

JeffII As Pollack, who doesn't speak Arabic or Farsi but is supposedly a big expert on the region, was wrong about everything else is that dreadful book, I think it's best just to leave him out of the discussion.

Pollack is not and never has been a neocon. He thought we should go to war with Iraq, but, unlike the neocons, in the last chapter he was very clear that things would be tough after we beat Saddam, and most of what he said turned out to be correct. If the administration had followed his advice about the occupation, things would almost certainly have gone far better.