Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 16, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ....Why is violence is down in Iraq? Possible answers: The surge is providing additional security. The Anbar Awakening has gotten Sunni tribe leaders on our side and reduced the killing power of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Sectarian cleansing has cut down the number of powderkeg neighborhoods in Baghdad. Moqtada al-Sadr's decision to stand down the Mahdi Army has removed one of the main sources of Shiite violence.

The surge, obviously, will be coming to an end over the next few months. So what about the other three factors? Is local level progress enough to eventually produce some kind of national reconciliation? Three recent pieces offer a pessimistic assessment. First, Thomas Ricks in the Washington Post:

Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq.

....All the U.S. military officials interviewed said their most pressing concern is that Sunnis will sour if the Iraqi government doesn't begin to reciprocate their peace overtures. "The Sunnis have shown great patience," said Campbell. "You don't want the Sunnis that are working with you . . . to go back to the dark side." The Army officer who requested anonymity said that if the Iraqi government doesn't reach out, then for former Sunni insurgents "it's game on — they're back to attacking again."

Jon Lee Anderson in the New Yorker:

Sheikh Zaidan al-Awad, a prominent Sunni tribal leader from Anbar....said that Anbar's Sunni tribes no longer had any need to exact blood vengeance on U.S. forces. "We've already taken our revenge," he said. "We're the ones who've made them crawl on their stomachs, and now we're the ones to pick them up." He added, "Once Anbar is settled, we must take control of Baghdad, and we will." There would have to be a lot more fighting before the capital was taken back from the Shiites, he said. "The Anbaris will take charge of the purge. What the whole world failed to do in Anbar, we have done overnight. Baghdad will be a lot easier."

Many of the players in Iraq seemed, like Zaidan, to be positioning themselves for the next battle. While the Shiites issued warnings about the Sunnis' intentions, nearly all the talk among the Americans was of the Mahdi Army and its reputed sponsor, Iran, which Petraeus accused of waging a "proxy war" in Iraq; there were dismissive references to Al Qaeda as a spent force.

Marc Lynch:

Unless the local-level deals are consolidated into a national arrangement, the security gains will easily be blown away like so much tumbleweed when the atmosphere goes sour. Maliki now describes those calling for national reconciliation as conspirators and as selfish politicians making unreasonable demands for their own self-interest. Backers of the bottom-up approach increasingly seem to be accepting this convenient frame, since it justifies ignoring the point of greatest failure. After all those months where Maliki was vilified for refusing to move on national reconciliation, he now finds Americans far more receptive to essentially the same arguments: don't worry about the "failure" of national reconciliation since it isn't important or desirable. And so he is moving ahead without the troublesome Sunni politicians, taking advantage of the space created by a moment of relative security to...further marginalize his Sunni "partners."

All three of these pieces are worth reading in full. As things stand now, nearly everyone seems to have given up completely on the idea of national reconciliation, which was the nominal goal of the surge in the first place. Instead, we're said to be making "bottoms up" progress. Provincial elections will do what national elections haven't. It'll be slow and messy, but it's just a different way of getting to the same place.

Maybe. But from my seat it looks like the same old happy talk. Neither the Shiites nor the Sunnis have so far demonstrated any serious desire to compromise on the key issues of national governance. Instead, they're just using the surge as a way of catching their breath and readying themselves for the battle to come. When it does, whose side will we be on?

Kevin Drum 2:03 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Let's just let the wingnuts declare victory in Iraq, so that they can save face. But on one condition: they declare victory and, because we've "won", they join the get-us-out-of-Bush's-idiotic-war crowd in calling for troop withdrawals to begin ASAP.

Posted by: bob on November 16, 2007 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ....Why is violence is down in Iraq?

It's not down up north, where presumably a lot of insurgents have moved with less operating room, for the time being, in Baghdad, and where little effort has been made to co-opt the locals in the way we supposedly have in Anbar Province.

Posted by: JeffII on November 16, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

As things stand now, nearly everyone seems to have given up completely on the idea of national reconciliation, which was the nominal goal of the surge in the first place.

Even 'nominal' is being generous.

The 'purpose' of the surge was for the White House to have a stick to beat Democrats with, to change the coverage of the war, redefine 'failure' and 'success' in terms that might salvage the coming election.

This whole misbegotten escapade in Mesopotamia has been nothing more or less than a civil war-by-proxy, attempting to settle deep and abiding differences about what this country is, means, and does, by having a war.

Unlike the first Civil War, the actual fighting has been contracted out to professionals (no conscription in this war), and the actual battlefield has been offshored, in accord with the best practices of modern management

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on November 16, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

It always strikes me as strange that pundits and even perhaps analysts don't do the most elementary kind of exercise to try to predict and understand what the parties are thinking in Iraq: namely, imagine what they might choose to do if they were in the shoes of the parties involved. It's as if they can't imagine that the leaders in Iraq have even the slightest ability to think strategically or understand broader events.

Look, I'd think that the very first thing that any leader in Iraq would be thinking about is how to position themselves best for when the Americans leave. Now, isn't it 99% likely that we are going to be pulling out the great majority of our forces in 2009 or thereabouts? Why shouldn't the parties in Iraq not take that into account when they do their own planning?

From that point of view, why should they waste their resources on fighting the Americans when their real battle lies after we withdraw? They do want to keep up some pressure on the Americans to leave, so that some level of aggression against them is important. But if they don't make it too great, that's good and important too, because it allows the Americans to leave with some hope that things will turn out OK when they do. If, in contrast, things were to look too bad, then the Americans would feel obliged to stick around to prevent an ensuing chaos.

So if you want the Americans to leave, and surely you do in pretty much all cases, you dial down the violence.

And you bide your time. You wait until the Americans leave, and then you go hell for leather fighting for your power in the brave new world of post-American Iraq.

Posted by: frankly0 on November 16, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Instead, they're just using the surge as a way of catching their breath...

The US is catching its breath, too.

Army desertion rate highest since 1980

Posted by: TJM on November 16, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, this is off topic, but I think of interest.

CAN the guarantee of free speech in America's first amendment trump English libel law? That is the question facing New York's Court of Appeals, in a case starting on November 15th. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York-based author, is seeking a ruling that an English libel judgment against her cannot be enforced in America and that her book, Funding Evil, is constitutionally protected free speech.

Ms Ehrenfeld's book makes a series of allegations about the charitable activities of a wealthy Saudi businessman, Khalid Mahfouz, all of which he strenuously denies. Mr Mahfouz has won numerous victories in English courts against those who have sought to link him to Islamist terrorism. In August, for example, Britain's Cambridge University Press withdrew all copies of Alms for Jihad, a book taking a similar line to Ms Ehrenfeld. That caused a furore: American librarians have refused the publishers' request to withdraw the book from their shelves; surviving copies change hands for hundreds of dollars on the internet.

I hope you'll follow this, and either write about it, or explain why it is not of interest.

Potential problems: Ehrenfeld is an AEI Speaker and has lots of support from the right, NRO, hot air, pajamas, ....

My concern is that often times, I see liberal bloggers whom I love fall into the trap of "enemy of my enemy", or in this case, "friend of my enemy is my enemy."

This happened last month when absolutely not a single progressive liberal blogger wrote about the obnoxious speech codes and free speech suppression at the University of Delaware. Instead there was absolute silence. We let free speech become a right wing issue. We failed to speak out about an obvious wrong, and we gave the right wing a pretty good issue to attract people and beat us over the heads about.

So.... Think about it Kevin. I think this is a blogworthy issue.

Thanks, and sorry for the OT posting.

Posted by: jerry on November 16, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Due to the heroic efforts of our fearless leader, the 1300 years old disputes between the Shias and Sunnis will be resolved to everyones satisfaction.

Posted by: gregor on November 16, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Sheikh Zaidan al-Awad: "Once Anbar is settled, we must take control of Baghdad, and we will."

I wonder if the Shi'ite-controlled government will have anything to say about that? Who knows? Maybe they'll just hand the Sunni tribal leader the keys to the city in an elaborate, over which Condi Rice can preside as soon as she shops for a new pair of shoes to match her designer outfit.

This is just great. We've assisted two divergent and opposite forces in their attempts to pacify their respective regions, and now we're caught in the middle as both move inevitably toward the other in a hostile manner, each thinking that we're going to assist them in conquering their foe.

Brilliant. Just fuckin' lovely.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on November 16, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

So you're saying the mission still isn't accomplished?

If violence were to stay down after we've surged back, we'll have an excellent opportunity to say goodbye and good luck. But there is no way of telling how long Sadr will keep standing down. My guess is he'll be back as soon as the last of the surge is gone.

Posted by: tomeck on November 16, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

The Sunnis and Shiites are irreconcilable, and the Kurds want their own country. That has always been the basic problem, not Al Qaeda in Iraq(TM), a sideshow that has always been our main excuse for staying there.

I remember Jello Biafra's spoken word take on the Reagan intervention in Lebanon: "Hey! We're the United States Marines! We know you've been hating and killing each other for 2000 years, but...WE'RE here now! So stop all that fightin' and stuff, or we'll tell mom!"

Posted by: Speed on November 16, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing we ever did to reduce violence was to make them vote.

Make them vote on everything, vote constantly, all day long, just vote. Make voting an Iraqi national pastime, a game show, a musical band, a soccer team. Everything has to have a vote.

Posted by: Matt on November 16, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

The Anbaris will take charge of the purge.

With US military weapons and advice.

Posted by: Brojo on November 16, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Why is violence is down in Iraq?

If you want answers, just ask the Commander guy whose staff insisted that it was doubtful the Iraq conflict would last longer than six months and that it would cost less than $50-$60 billion.

Posted by: AJ on November 16, 2007 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

"When it does, whose side will we be on?"
Same as now -- everyone's and no one's.

Popcorn sales up in Iran.

Posted by: Hictor Vanson on November 16, 2007 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum wrote:
The surge is providing additional security. The Anbar Awakening has gotten Sunni tribe leaders on our side and reduced the killing power of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Sectarian cleansing has cut down the number of powderkeg neighborhoods in Baghdad. Moqtada al-Sadr's decision to stand down the Mahdi Army has removed one of the main sources of Shiite violence.

Good list, but you left off a critical item. We changed are tactics, independent of the increase in numbers of troops. We moved out of fortresses and dispersed across cities. We won't be returning to a presurge condition as we draw down, because we (presumably) won't be returning to presurge tactics.

Posted by: SJRSM on November 16, 2007 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

[You need to get some new material, Pat. We aren't going to tolerate your Brojo obsession any longer.]

Posted by: Pat on November 16, 2007 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

You know PAT I'm tired of you moronic lightweight assholes. Brojo didn't blame shit on America he blames it on the incompetant nitwits that are running the show now.Wake up you silly ostrich.

Posted by: Gandalf on November 16, 2007 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Matt: Make them vote on everything, vote constantly, all day long, just vote. Make voting an Iraqi national pastime, a game show, a musical band, a soccer team. Everything has to have a vote.

That plan reminds me of Captain Black's Loyalty Oath campaign in "Catch 22." The idea was that soldiers had prove their loyalty to their country over and over again by signing a loyalty oath before they could enter the mess, another oath to get a cup of coffee, another oath to get food, another oath to sit down, another oath to get clean laundry etc., etc. Of course it was extremely annoying and disruptive.

Maybe constantly requiring Iraqis to vote on everything would disrupt plans for violence, thereby proving that voting leads to peace.

Posted by: cowalker on November 16, 2007 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

"...Neither the Shiites nor the Sunnis have so far demonstrated any serious desire to compromise on the key issues of national governance. Instead, they're just using the surge as a way of catching their breath and readying themselves for the battle to come. When it does, whose side will we be on?"
---------------------
I think it is rather clear which side we will be on. Thanks for the link to the New Yorker article-it was one of the best ones I've read regarding Iraq, ever. It was very surreal and conjured up vague memories of pieces of a Harold Robbins novel I read in the 60's as a kid. I think it was "The Adventurers". Anyhow, one of my favorite parts was the interview with the Iraqi woman whose son's death was being avenged by her other son at her request:

“The Americans catch them and put them in jail,” Um Jafaar went on. “This is not a solution, they have to be killed!” She turned to me: “Tell the American forces I am ready to fight with them against the Jaish al-Mahdi. I am a woman but I am ready. When you come here, we will sacrifice everything for you, because *you* did not kill my son. I pray for the Americans—even if they are Christians and Jews—and to the Prophet Muhammad, to protect you.”

I had felt convinced lately that Bush would be unable to run out the clock on Iraq. Now, I'm not so sure. The timing on this couldn't be more perfect. First, you push all the right buttons to get people to stop killing us and then get everybody ready for the idea of us leaving. Sure as shit, about election time is when the Sunni are probably going to start getting itchy trigger fingers and wanting to "take back Baghdad". We'll inaugurate a Democratic president about the time the chaos kicks in.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 16, 2007 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Then what?

Posted by: Kenji on November 16, 2007 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

The US will wind up in the same position as Daniel and Peachy in THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING.

Posted by: Speed on November 16, 2007 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Let's keep perspective on the notion that thinsgs are better.

It is better that less people are being murdered and tortured with blow-torches and drills. That IS an improvement.

But...
Speeding, heavily-armed U.S. security militias are shooting civilians while they ferry diplomats in and out of fortified compounds.

Civil infrastructure is still largely non-functional.

Sectarian borders are hardening.

The fact that the murder rate has dropped to a few thousand per month is an improvement, but no one deserves plaudits over it. By all accounts, the place is still a Hobbesian nightmare.

But it sounds like the Republicans have produced a revisionist recent past and present, and the media is gobbling it up, so the empirical reality of this epic blunder is no longer important. The war has been reframed, adjusted for our viewing pleasure, and this will somehow be used as a cudgel against the progressive movement.

Posted by: Jim on November 16, 2007 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush defined victory in Iraq in November 2005:

  • In the short term:
    • An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
  • In the medium term:
    • An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
  • In the longer term:
    • An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
    • An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
    • An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
Posted by: croatoan on November 16, 2007 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Don't listen to these enervating, so-called debates. The leading candidates speech/talk is vapid, chewing gum strength blather. Never do they say anything. Their minds are empty as the day they were born--all a natural result of being on the campaign trail. I don't know what any of them really stands for. That's the point isn't it, though, they stand for nothing, ever eager to sniff the wind and see which way it's going. The moderators, whether Russet or Blitzer are total non-entities--they couldn't hold their own against Mr. Bill or even Mr. Ed, the talking horse.

We are reduced in this country to a clown show--a mighty battle between Neanderthal wine-drinking, surrender- monkeys and oleaginous buffoons of the first order.

Comes next November. vote for somebody--bound to be an improvement over the empty minded cowboy now running the country.

Better yet, hop a plane, train or car back to whatever country your forebears came from. Native Americans, stay put, of course, hopefully enough of the yahoos will leave the country and you will get back what you lost over the years.

Posted by: Dr WU-the last of the big time thinkers on November 16, 2007 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Then what?
Posted by: Kenji on November 16, 2007 at 5:32 PM
-----------
The US will wind up in the same position as Daniel and Peachy in THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING.
Posted by: Speed on November 16, 2007 at 5:35 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If we foolishly try to hang around and referee *that* mess I would agree with you:
http://www.britmovie.co.uk/genres/drama/filmography/049.html

My guess is that we will have to start withdrawing everything a lot more quickly (because we don't have any choice-we're worn out and tapped out) and then the Dems get saddled with the ones who "cut and run" (Mission Accomplished!), while the civil slaughter continues in earnest. The real popcorn event will be if and how the Iranians and the Saudis choose to be referees. Can they on their own chill out the Iraqi mess?

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 16, 2007 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

I agree that we should not listen to much of what these Presidential candidates are saying, however, I'm hopeful that some of the positive elements making their way out of the debate end up being policy.

We all know the chances of that though.

Posted by: The Sea Hawk on November 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Above the ground in Iraq, Turkish helicopters strike inside Iraq. Beneath the radar in Iraq, Bush uses cash for peace

President Bush defined victory in Iraq in November 2005: croatoan at 5:49 PM

He isn't even close to meeting a single one of those goals.

Posted by: Mike on November 16, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

At least summer has ended in Iraq. All the people, Shiite, Sunni and Kurd, can be thankful for the Autumnal Equinox.

Posted by: Brojo on November 16, 2007 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

as long as bush is in office, we'll be on the side of the sunni's. the bushites have staked too much in belligerence toward iran.

Posted by: DIS on November 16, 2007 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: The surge, obviously, will be coming to an end over the next few months.

I don't fully agree. It's true that the extra troops will be coming home, but the surge represented more than troop numbers. It represented a change in strategy, whereby American troops got out and actively attacked al Qaeda and insurgents. That activity has encouraged greater and greater cooperation from Iraqi people. I expect that strategy to continue.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 16, 2007 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

"thankful for the Autumnal Equinox"

Yeah, good to see Daylight Killing Time end.

Curveball still sitting on your knee, FAUXlib? How is his Iranian cousin working out as your new house boy?

Posted by: bert on November 16, 2007 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

Ramadan was in October. Doesn't violence normally go down during Ramadan?

Posted by: pj in jesusland on November 16, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

What a sad joke. Where are the WMDs? Where is Osama? Does anyone remember why the U.S. invaded this godforsaken country?

"A fanatic is someone, who having lost sight of his goal, redoubles his effort to get there."

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 16, 2007 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

We changed are tactics, independent of the increase in numbers of troops. We moved out of fortresses and dispersed across cities. We won't be returning to a presurge condition as we draw down, because we (presumably) won't be returning to presurge tactics.
Posted by: SJRSM on November 16, 2007 at 4:29 PM |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the key that might possibly let it work. Our troops are leading (& teaching) by example, unlike the politicians at home & also the soldiers themselves earlier in the war. By late spring, our troops should be at pre surge levels or below. In the meantime, Sadr's cease fire will have expired. At that time, we will have a clearer idea of what is actually going down. Until then, it is all guesswork.

I am encouraged by the positive reports coming from all levels of the command as well as those of the reporters & bloggers who have consistently been embedded with the troops. In some neighborhoods, Shia, Sunni, & Christians are working together to build a better future; other areas are 'cleansed'. Let me add, they are cautiously optimistic, rather than declaring victory. Many of them also report that the local Iraqis generally do not want us to stay any longer than necessary. They do not want to be occupied, much to Bush & Cheney's distress. Well, tough. They probably are not very open to any sweetheart oil deals with big oil either. Oh, well. And if Maliki chooses to stand in the way of their progress, that is his problem.

Posted by: bob in fla on November 17, 2007 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

Casualties may be down due to changed American tactics such as reduced patrolling, as well.

The wingnut talk of victory will not survive the first month when American deaths go back to 75-80.

Posted by: bob h on November 17, 2007 at 7:12 AM | PERMALINK

Jeez, you're pathetic. We're winning and all you can think about is losing. Grow up.

Posted by: Blake on November 17, 2007 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

I read a news story, Could U.S.military gains outlast Bush,the media and the hype is to make Bush look not so much of a failure when he leaves office, but the fact of the matter is Bush is a total failure.

Posted by: Al on November 17, 2007 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

Bush said failing to meet responsibilities to our troops over another $196 Billion for his wars, I would say that it is Bushs responsibility, just goes to show you that he in fact is a total failure as president.

Posted by: Al on November 17, 2007 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

"Jeez, you're pathetic."

LOL.... Oh, the irony....

"We're winning"

No, dear, we aren't, which is why you're going to continue seeing posts like this.

"and all you can think about is losing."

It's called reality, dear; you should try it sometime.

"Grow up."

ROLF.... And, once again, oh, the irony....

Posted by: PaulB on November 17, 2007 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

What are we winning?

Iraq is destroyed. It never was much, but now it is certainly nothing but an amalgam of primitive social groupings (ok, tribes, sects, ethnicities) contending for power. I have seen this first hand, and there is no other accurate description.

Training from our soldiers won't change that at all.

OK, track the violence if you will, but don't call it winning.

Posted by: searp on November 17, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

What was the surge really intended to do?

The surge was to buy time for the Hydrocarbon Framework law to be signed, which now looks less and less like a possiblity. Iraqis really played Bush, Cheney and neo-cons for fools.

It seems Iraqis has figured out, just like Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan did, that they don't EVER have to do anything Bush says. Thus the problems of going to war on a pack of lies, because it's the oil, instead of democracy, instead of WMD or any of Bush's other various lies, so that there is no good faith commitment, no real commitment to a war on terrorism, but rather to an undisclosed war over "our vital national interest" = oil. But the American public didn't sign up for that war, at least not knowingly.

SO of course, there is no public support for a war on oil, no support for moneys funneled under the table, no public desire to take control of Iraq's national resources. These countries were free to take the money and laugh at Bush, and that is exactly what they did.

And voting for the Clintons would merely be a continuation of this charade. Like I've always said, there were two presidents that lied Americans into this war in Iraq on false pretenses, the first was Bill Clinton and other was George Bush.


Posted by: Me_again on November 18, 2007 at 6:40 AM | PERMALINK

The only thing we ever did to reduce violence was to make them vote.

Make them vote on everything, vote constantly, all day long, just vote. Make voting an Iraqi national pastime, a game show, a musical band, a soccer team. Everything has to have a vote.
Posted by: Matt

Sound advice. I've thought more than once that they need to practice democracy on a regular basis. We have annual elections for something every year. Some years are bigger than otehrs, but there is always something going on. They're too new at this to go 4 years without an election.

Posted by: sjrsm on November 18, 2007 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

>When it does, whose side will we be on?

Ideally we'll be on the west side of the Atlantic and east side of the Pacific.

Posted by: doesn't matter on November 18, 2007 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

They're too new at this to go 4 years without an election. Posted by: sjrsm

Hey Mike! Long time no see! Just want to send this little ditty out to ya!

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 19, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly