Which Old Witch?

The Wicked One!

Yes, Saddam Hussein is dead! They hanged him, in the dark, in a dark place.
I reckon some people are happy about it. These men certainly must be! I don't know about al Jaafari, but there's not much George W. Bush likes more than a nice execution. Probably reminds him of better days when, as Governor of Texas he could order lots of executions. Or course, a good old-fashioned hanging beats one of those wussy lethal injection executions hands down. Heck, with a lethal injection you can't even tell when the Grim Reaper has come and gone.
However, this may fall among that class of Things You Should Be Careful You Wish For. It seems to me it's a somewhat ominous precedent. Having a Quisling court of a puppet government execute a former head of state; I mean. A head of state who was, moreover, handed to the court conditionally, premised from the get-go on the certainty of a guilty verdict and a death sentence. Saddam was, of course, a Brutal Thug Dictator - supported in his thuggery, unfortunately, by the United States so long as he followed orders: something he failed to do in 1991.

Be That As It May

The precedent has been established now: Kangaroo Court Yes; World Court No.Who knows if perhaps there will come a time when a United States President, sitting or former will wish that he could appeal to the World Court?
OH:, just as an aside, I think it's really really stupid to create a martyr to give your enemies a rally point, just out of a self-righteous belief in your own personal divine guidance. I know; it's hard to believe that Saddam Hussein could ever be made into a hero, but think about who is telling the story in the Sunni states of the middle east? And how many would-be successors are willing to rewrite the history of Iraq/The Saddam Years to their own personal gain?
Please Stay Tuned

What Choices?

"Analysis: Bush Iraq choices get tougher
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 4 minutes ago
CRAWFORD, Texas - Whatever the reasons for President Bush''s lengthy deliberations on a new Iraq policy, they undoubtedly will serve two political purposes: Letting the grim milestone of 3,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq and the potential backlash from Saddam Hussein's execution pass before the public hears his new ideas. The execution of Saddam by his countrymen would help legitimize the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Yet, if it incites more bloodshed, it would remind Americans that the situation is "grave and deteriorating," as the recent Iraq Study Group concluded.
The American public has grown weary of the war and even though past wars have seen vastly higher casualties, a U.S. death toll topping 3,000 — which is approaching - would shine a spotlight on the human toll of U.S. involvement.
For now, Bush has been able to fend off calls for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Yet if the situation in Iraq doesn't improve — and quickly — those calls could begin to drown out whatever new ideas he puts forth in the early weeks of the new year. Americans are a patient lot and likely will give Bush the time and backing he needs to take another shot at getting a U.S. policy in Iraq that works. And the new Democratically led Congress, which convenes on Jan. 4, probably won't block the commander in chief if he decides to briefly increase troop levels. "It is likely his last chance, however," said analyst Jon Alterman. "Republicans and Democrats alike will be looking for early signs that the president's policy isn't working, in which case they will quickly head for the exits. My sense is that this is taking a long time because they know it's their last shot."
Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said Friday that neither the approaching 3,000th U.S. death in Iraq nor Saddam's execution is "dictating when" Bush's speech will be delivered. Those two events, though, will influence its reception by the American people.
When Saddam was pulled from his hiding spot in a spider hole in December 2003, public opinion shifted in Bush's favor. But the former Iraqi leader's execution likely would have less inclination to sway public opinion now because Americans' views have hardened as the war has intensified.
The White House viewed Saddam's execution as an "important milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law." Still, skeptics of the president's policy can argue that remains mired in violent turmoil. And those opposed to a surge in U.S. troops will use the 3,000th death as a reason to continue opposing one. "I think there was a time when the death of Saddam Hussein would have given Bush the kind of political capital he needs to call for an increase in troops and an expansion of the military effort there, but I think we're past that time," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University.
Bush is expected to deliver his speech — laying out his plan to improve security, assist the Iraqis in reaching a political reconciliation between warring sects and help with reconstruction — before his State of the Union address on Jan. 23. "

It's Remarkable

Isn't it; all the years of the war, when George W. Bush didn't want to send more troops - the generals didn't want more troops. Now that the President wants to send more troops - the generals suddenly discover that they by golly sure would like to have some more troops!
I suppose it's some part of the legacy of Donald K. Rumsfeld, that he managed to purge the Pentagon of any generals who thought like generals, leaving only those who thought like lieutenants. I think perhaps they should dust off General Westmoreland, he of Vietnam infamy, and put him back in charge!

In The Holiday Season

The Headlines...

Are truly like a letter from an alternate reality. A little cut/and/paste... and voila!:

World leaders call for peace on holiday AP - 30 minutes ago
British raid Basra police station AP - 17 minutes ago
Philippine military goes on high alert AP - 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Pope offers Christmas prayers for peace AP - 43 minutes ago
Ethiopian jets bomb airports in Somalia AP - 2 hours ago

In Bethlehem, Latin Patriarch Michel Sabbah, head-christian-in-charge, said "God wants peace".

Perhaps so, but He sure isn't getting any help from His people! It's pretty clear; God may want peace, but the record shows mankind is a lot more comfotable when there's a war or two going on. Why else are they apparently the most common state of affairs worldwide?
Merry Christmas, or Happy Solstice...

On Boxing Day

December 26, 2004, two years ago:

"On the morning of Dec. 26, 2004, the most powerful earthquake in four decades lifted the seabed west of Sumatra by several yards, propelling waves up to two stories high at jetliner speeds across the Indian Ocean to smash into coastal communities, beach resorts and towns in 12 nations.
In hardest-hit Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and India, the waves surged miles inland, tossing ships, swallowing entire villages and leaving behind a blasted landscape of concrete foundations and rubble littered with tens of thousands of bodies.
On Sumatra island — home to more than half the tsunami's nearly 230,000 dead and missing — volunteers and emergency workers took three months to recover all the corpses and bury them in mass graves."
(AP, Dec. 25, 2006)

December 26, 2006, now:

"EXCLUSIVE
Where did our tsunami cash go?
Western countries send complaint to police after loss of money donated to identify victims
...
The sources, who asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the subject, said funds contributed by Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and France amounted to almost Bt60 million.
The money was donated by the citizens of those countries, who wanted to help victims of the tsunami(emphasis mine; Ed.) that killed more than 5,000 people in the Phuket, Phang-Nga and Krabi areas.
The source said more than 60 per cent of the funds were wasted and disguised as travelling and other miscellaneous costs. 'To be frank, someone has stolen our citizens' money,"'said one of the sources, who has followed the victim identification process from the beginning."
...
(from The Nation, Bangkok, Dec. 25 2006)

"Editor,
Regarding Where did our tsunami cash go?(Nation, Dec. 25)This drove me crazy at the time, and the passing of time doesn't seem to have helped any. Why is it that, after the tsunami struck on Boxing Day 2004, the dead tourists were somehow more important than the living citizens? Still today, you talk about "wanting to help victims of the tsunami..." Hey! The dead are past our ability to help. How about helping the living, who lacked food, shelter; in some cases lost their entire families? Some of the victims are living without shelter or means of earning a living still today, two years later. Please, people, try to focus on what's important here!
Thanks,
Frank Maunder,
Bangkok Thailand"
(from me, Bangkok, Dec. 25 2006)

More Charting

It appears that President George W. Bush isn't the only politician who's planning a New Course In Iraq...

"I understand the polls show only 18 percent of the American people support my position. But I have to do what's right ... In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose."
Senator John McCain This in response to some polling regarding his proposal to add many thousands more (army) troops to those already occupying Iraq.

No fuzz on Sen. McCain's brain!

You either win, or you lose!
Or, as here, you have lost. Perhaps he never learned the present complicated tense in grammar school.

Charting a New Course

George W. Bush

is busily charting a New Course In Iraq (NCII). Some would say it's about time. Others would say it's way past that time. I said a long time ago (Here) that it was never time to begin in the first place. In 2003 only a few hundred million people thought it was a Bad Idea for the United States (and let's not forget the Coalition of the Willing) to attack Iraq.
Now, I believe, the number who think that was a bad idea is into the billions. Something here about eleventh hour conversions...
Anyway, I have to admit that my brain isn't able to do much in the way of original thinking. When the President talks about a NCII, I can only come up with two directions. One: stay. Two: go. What else is there? Sorry folks, no do-overs in war - you can't opt for the original don't-invade-to-begin-with. Maybe there's a third course? Sort-Of-Stay? Sort-Of-Go? Slouch toward Bethlehem?
Now, the president has said that leaving is not an option. If he's telling the truth, which i fear he is, then the NCII is going to look remarkably like the OCII (Old Course In Iraq).
The Pentagon uniforms have a new idea, of course: Give Us More Money! Might as well get something out of this mess!
Something here from MacBeth... "staggers along in its..." until enough people have died. Or too many people. No, no, thats from Bob Dylan, isn't it. Well, anyway, once enough people have died...
Then we can leave.
It's amazing how many people have to die to save their leader's faces.

Critical Condition

I'm only guessing, but my best guess is that right now


Harry Reid (D-NV),

Senate Majority Leader-In-Waiting has a new best friend;


Gordon Smith (R-OR).

Just in case he needs an eleventh hour conversion of a backbencher. He's probably taken Gordo up on the mountain, and is showing him the kingdom of Major Committee Chairmanships. Sorry to seem so cynical.

My thoughts are with Sen. Tim Johnson.

Flexible And Realistic

Indeed!

The Iraq Study Group Report is in, and it seems to be a best seller! It lists many many Good Things We Can Do In Iraq. Most of them no longer possible, if they ever were. Meantime, George W. Bush says he will be "flexible and realistic" about ... troop movements! Here's what the NY Times reports: "Bush Backs Away..."

By now, it seems pretty clear that the president isn't going to change anything with regard to the Iraq disaster. And why should he? Anything that includes keeping American ("Coalition Of The Willing") military in Iraq, which is not at all negotiable for this newly "flexible and realistic" President, is more likely to make things worse than they are already. Why not simply leave things as they are; let the killing continue. After all, as the President says, it isn't that he is losing the war in Iraq - he just isn't winning fast enough! Therefore, when the next President of the US abandons Iraq, the neocon historical revisionists can report (over and over and over, until they create a believing electorate) that the War President was within a hairs breadth of Winning In Iraq; but the new president was insufficiently bellicose for the task - It's All Her Fault!

As for that part about "When Iraq Can Defend Itself", judging by the casualty figures among the occupying forces (regrettably, they are my countrymen); looks like they are able to defend themselves just fine now. Probably a result of the training they got from the US army.

I wonder; if James Baker III had a do-over in the 2000 election - who would he cast his ballot for ?

Who, Besides Me...

... thinks there's something very very wrong with a society that debates the relative merits of torture as a way of dealing with "enemies" - real or suspected?

My God people, what are you thinking of?

How To Win In Iraq

A lot of new voices seem to be entering the How To Win In Iraq Sweepstakes (You May Already Be A Winner!) The Pentagon is apparently going to propose increasing the level of effort to train and equip an Iraq army that will be robust enough to protect the Government of Iraq. The Iraq Study Group (sounds a bit like a graduate seminar in the Geography Department, doesn't it?) is perhaps going to suggest actually talking to other countries in the region. Pretty bold stuff.
One thing that all the powers that be in the USA have in common, however, is that they all exist in a society that implicitly believes that governments work. Whether they like the way a government works or not is irrelevant here; none of them seems able to concieve other than extensionally that a government might be incapable of effecting events within its allocated geographic extent. I am here to tell you that, in fact, there are lots of places in the world that have no effective government (see The Hadley Memo). We all know the names - it's just that we don't seem to remember them very well. Let's just say they aren't high on the world tote board. Nepal, Cambodia, Somalia, Haiti, to mention a few. And, now, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why the Pentagon's Approach Won't Work

The Army of Iraq was sent home three years ago by the American Viceroy. The Army of Iraq that the US Army is training is in fact a lot of young men who have no allegiance to, and no interest in, the nation of Iraq. They are the very insurgents and militias that are shooting at us. The effectiveness of US military training is evident; consider how much better the anti-occupation forces are at killing our soldiers now than they were a few years ago. With more training by the US miltary, eventually the people who want to kill us will be as effective a force as our own army! Sadly, as I said above, an Army General (or a Marine or Air Force General for that matter) is someone who has experienced great success in the United States, is committed to the national government, and has almost a faith-based belief in the effectiveness of training as the solution to every problem. Their experience has shown them that this is correct. The underlying assumption that there exists a government is what's in error with respect to Iraq.

Why the Study Group's Approach Won't Work

Our feckless president won't talk to people he doesn't like. Except to tell them they'd better just do as he tells them to, or they'll be the next on the list. Actually, the neocons who did such a fine job of steering the USA into an attack on Iraq are trying to reprise that effort in Iran. Such delusional thinking is really quite remarkable, if you stop to consider it.

The Maunder Solution

Get out! A phased withdrawal, with the troops leaving according to a schedule. Said schedule being - As fast as the transports can land, refuel, load, and take off!

Will that lead to chaos in Iraq? As opposed to the situation now? Surely. That poor devastated country is in for it, and we - the United States, President George W. Bush, the Iraqi Study Group, The Pentagon, The Democratic Congressional Majority; none of the above has any power to prevent it.

At least, when we are no longer there to be shot at, the Iraqis we trained so dilligently will turn their guns on the foreign forces they are now allied with. A new set of foreigners to exercise their well-deserved xenophobia on. A new scapegoat, if you will.

I should probably mention, at the end, that I wanted to rush-to-post in order to predate the Iraq Study Group's no doubt very eloquent report, due out on Wednesday.