The next shoe?

David Gergen mentioned today that he thought that Bush delivered this speech to a very select few, last night; those listening in Tehran. It was his opinion that this was a direct message to the Iranians that the US was not only sending warning about their fingers in his occupation but giving notice that we will be the new next-door neighbor in perpetuity, constantly policing the lawn that divides Iraq from Iran and occasionally kicking dirt on their petunia’s. [He wasn’t quite that colorful, of course.]

If you travel around the web, it’s easy to see where he gets that idea. Too easy!

Jude

Bush team’s Iraq ambassador briefs Washington Post editors and reporters on Iran
Nick Juliano, Raw Story
Thursday September 13, 2007

The top US diplomat in Iraq sat down with the Washington Post Wednesday to push the Bush administration’s case that harsher action needs to be taken against Iran because of allegations that country’s leaders are funding and training militants in Iraq.

Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, coming off two days of congressional testimony, told the Post that the administration was building support for a third United Nations resolution that would impose harsher sanctions against Iran. He accused Tehran of pursuing a “fairly aggressive strategy” on the ground in Iraq, according to the Post.

“We know what you’re doing in Iraq. It needs to stop,” Crocker told his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, he said in the Post interview.

Next week, the United States will invite officials from Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany to discuss measures in a new UN resolution aimed at punishing Iran after its government has refused to suspend uranium enrichment. However, some of those countries have resisted sweeping new efforts to punish Iran, diplomats familiar with the debate told the Post.

Reports emerged Wednesday that Germany’s unwillingness to back new sanctions in particular has pushed Washington to develop broader plans for a military strike against Iran.

A State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, denied that Germany wasn’t behind the plan for wider sanctions, although he told reporters Wednesday that specifics of a UN sanctions resolutions have not been finalized. McCormack offered few details about what such a resolution would entail, but he did raise the possibility of the United States unilaterally pursuing economic sanctions.

Crocker’s sit-down with Post editors and reporters appears to be the latest step in what is emerging as a coordinated push against Tehran.

The ambassador spent Monday and Tuesday testifying in front of four House and Senate committees alongside Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq. The two officials invoked the Iranian threat in Iraq dozens of times in their testimony, which was meant to provide Congress with a progress report on President Bush’s troop surge earlier this year.

They said Iran would “fill the vacuum” in Iraq if the US withdraws its troops, echoing a line advanced by others in the administration, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Attempts to link Tehran to improvised explosive devices — specifically those known as explosively formed projectiles — appears to be the manifestation of a US strategy RAW STORY exposed last month to build support for military action against Iran.

Officials have offered some evidence that Iran is meddling in Iraq. Petraeus said at a press conference Wednesday that Iranians were providing 240 mm rockets to Shia militias, and he said the US had recovered from Iranian fighters items from the wallet of a US soldier who was captured and killed in Karblala, Iraq.

However, the general denied that recently stepped up rhetoric was meant to lay the groundwork for an invasion.

“Certainly not,” Petraeus said. ++

The ‘proxy war’: UK troops are sent to Iranian border
British soldiers return to action as tensions between US and Iran grow
Kim Sengupta in Baghdad, The Independent UK
12 September 2007

British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a “proxy war”.

In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.

The UK operation, in which up to 350 troops are involved, has come at the request of the Americans, who say that elements close to the Iranian regime have stepped up supplies of weapons to Shia militias in recent weeks in preparation for attacks inside Iraq.

The deployment came within a week of British forces leaving Basra Palace, their last remaining base inside Basra city, and withdrawing to the airport for a widely expected final departure from Iraq. Brigadier James Bashall, commander of 1 Mechanised Brigade, based at Basra said: “We have been asked to help at the Iranian border to stop the flow of weapons and I am willing to do so. We know the points of entry and I am sure we can do what needs to be done. The US forces are, as we know, engaged in the ’surge’ and the border is of particular concern to them.”

The mission will include the King’s Royal Hussars battle group, 250 of whom were told at the weekend that they would be returning to the UK as part of a drawdown of forces in Iraq.

The operation is regarded as a high-risk strategy which could lead to clashes with Iranian-backed Shia militias or even Iranian forces and also leaves open the possibility of Iranian retaliation in the form of attacks against British forces at the Basra air base or inciting violence to draw them back into Basra city. Relations between the two countries are already fraught after the Iranian Revolutionary Guards seized a British naval party in the Gulf earlier this year.

The move came as General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, made some of the strongest accusations yet by US officials about Iranian activity. General Petraeus spoke on Monday of a “proxy war” in Iraq, while Mr Crocker accused the Iranian government of “providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state”.

In an interview after his appearance before a congressional panel on Monday, General Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be necessary to obtain authorisation to take action against Iran within its own borders, rather than just inside Iraq. “There is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation” he said.

The Royal Welsh battle group, with Challenger tanks and Warrior armoured vehicles, is conducting out regular exercises at the Basra air base in preparation for any re-entry into the city. No formal handover of Basra to the Iraqi government has yet taken place and the UK remains responsible for maintaining security in the region.

The Iraqi commander in charge of the southern part of the country, General Mohan al-Furayji, said he would not hesitate to call for British help if there was an emergency.

While previous US military action has been primarily directed against Sunni insurgents, it is Shia fighters, which the US accuses Iran of backing, who now account for 80 per cent of US casualties.

For the British military the move to the border is a change of policy. They had stopped patrols along the long border at Maysan despite US concerns at the time that the area would become a conduit for weapons into Iraq.

The decision to return to the frontier has been heavily influenced by the highly charged and very public dispute with the United States. British commanders feel that they cannot turn down the fresh American request for help after refusing to delay the withdrawal from Basra Palace. They also maintain that the operation will stop Iranian arms entering Basra.

Brigadier Bashall said: “We are not sitting here idly at the air bridge. The security of Basra is still our responsibility and we shall act where necessary. We are also prepared to restore order in Basra City if asked to do so.”

The US decision to build fortifications at the Iranian border, after four years of presence in Iraq, shows, say American commanders, that the “Iranian threat” is now one of their main concerns.

Maj-Gen Rick Lynch, commander of the US Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, said 48 Iranian-supplied roadside bombs had been used against his forces killing nine soldiers. “We’ve got a major problem with Iranian munitions streaming into Iraq. This Iranian interference is troubling and we have to stop it,” he told The Wall Street Journal this week.

Meanwhile at a conference in Baghdad on regional co-operation, Iran claimed the US was supporting groups mounting attacks from Iraqi territory in the Kurdish north.

Said Jalili , Iran’s deputy foreign minister, last night said: “I think [the US and its allies] are going to prevaricate with the truth because they know they have been defeated in Iraq and they have not been successful. And so they are going to put the blame on us, on the other side.” ++

Iran Linked to Iraq Rocket Attack
Camp Victory Blast Wounded 11, Killed 1
JONATHAN KARL ABC News
Sept. 12, 2007

U.S. military officials in Iraq tell ABC News that a rocket used in an attack on coalition headquarters at Camp Victory Tuesday was made in Iran. Officials say the rocket, which narrowly missed its target, was fired from an area of Baghdad controlled by Shia militia leader Moqtada al Sadr.

Officials say it landed so close that it shook the windows of the al Faw Palace, which houses the operational headquarters of U.S. forces in Iraq. The top two American military officials in Iraq — Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno — both have offices in the building. A video teleconference of senior officers was abruptly halted as officials rushed outside to see what was hit.

The attack wounded 11 coalition troops and killed one foreign worker.

Officials say Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, the spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, will display fragments of the 240mm rocket — complete with Iranian markings — at a press conference in Baghdad Thursday.

“We want to show the link between the Iranian weapons and the damage they are doing,” said a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad.

The official said the rocket was fired from Baghdad’s West Rashid neighborhood. The area is controlled by Sadr, who is known to have ties to Iran.

The rocket traveled more than two miles, triggering the air defense system at Camp Victory, which tracked the rocket shortly after it was fired but did not respond quickly enough to stop it.

On Aug. 29, Sadr made a pledge that his Mahdi army would suspend offensive operations against coalition forces. The official said the rocket attack shows that the Mahdi army “is not honoring Moqtada al Sadr’s pledge of honor” to suspend offensive operations. ++

Report: US to attack Iran in 8-10 months
The Jerusalem Post
Sep 13, 2007

Germany’s unwillingness to impose further sanctions on Iran has pushed the United States closer towards a decision on a military strike, FOX News reported on Wednesday.

A satellite image showing the Natanz nuclear enrichment plant.
[open link for picture]

According to the report, Germany’s decision has spurred senior US army officials to try and convince US Foreign Secretary Condoleezza Rice to abandon once and for all the diplomatic route of preventing a nuclear Iran. The report further stated that the date of preference for an attack against Iran is in eight to 10 months - after the US presidential candidates for both the Democrats and the Republicans have been chosen, but before the major presidential campaign kicks off.

The report stated that the attack would be comprised of two main strategies: cutting off the Iranian gas supply, which the US hopes would pressure the Iranian people towards action against their government, and an aerial bombing campaign, which would be meant to paralyze Iranian defenses and allow American bombers to destroy the nuclear facilities.

Opponents to a military strike claim that an attack would require at least one week of intense bombing, and that it would only set the Iranian nuclear program back a few years, the report said. Two other claims of the opponents is that an American strike would provoke Iran into attacking Israel, and that abandoning diplomatic action would negatively impact Iraq and the US troops stationed there. ++

Obama to Bush: Don’t invade Iran
CNN Political Ticker
September 13, 2007

Sen. Barack Obama spoke in Iowa on Wednesday.

CLINTON, Iowa (CNN) — Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama warned the Bush administration against expanding the war in Iraq to neighboring Iran, telling an Iowa audience Wednesday that he hears “eerie echoes” of the rhetoric that led up to the invasion of Iraq.

“George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear loud and clear from the American people and the Congress: You do not have our support, and you do not have our authorization, to launch another war,” he said.

The Illinois senator’s comments came during a speech on the future of the 4-year-old war in Iraq, which he said has only bolstered Iranian influence.

Obama said the Islamic Republic poses a “grave challenge” to U.S. interests in the Middle East by refusing international demands to freeze its nuclear fuel program and supporting Shiite Muslim militant groups — “But we hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way the president and vice president talk about Iran.”

“They conflate Iran and al Qaeda, ignoring the violent schism that exists between Shia and Sunni militants,” he said. “They issue veiled threats. They suggest the time for diplomacy and public pressure is running out, when we haven’t even tried direct diplomacy.”

There was no immediate response to Obama’s remarks from the White House.

A U.S.-led army invaded Iraq in 2003 after months of Bush administration warnings that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was concealing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and efforts to build a nuclear bomb. But U.N. weapons inspectors found no sign of banned weapons before the invasion, and the CIA later concluded that Iraq had dismantled its weapons programs in the 1990s.The Bush administration now accuses Iran of arming Shiite Muslim militias that are attacking U.S. troops in Iraq, and of developing a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, told CNN on Wednesday that there is “no doubt” that Iran is supplying advanced explosives that have been used against American troops.

U.S. forces have conducted two rounds of naval exercises in the Persian Gulf this year. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., questioned Tuesday whether Petraeus needs the authorization to strike targets in Iran “in order to protect America’s troops in Iraq.” And administration officials have refused to say whether they believe they have that authority now.

Obama said he would use “tough and sustained diplomacy backed by real pressure” to limit Iranian influence, reminding Tehran that it faces further isolation — “including much tighter sanctions” — if it continues to defy international demands regarding its nuclear programs and to support violent elements in Iraq.

“As we deliver this message, we will be stronger, not weaker, if we disengage from Iraq’s civil war,” he said.

Earlier, Obama told CNN that Congress needs to send President Bush a “clear message” that change is needed in Iraq. He said that unless Congress forces the president to accept a timetable for withdrawing American troops, “We are essentially engaging in a bunch of symbolic action there.”

Senate Republicans have managed to block efforts to wind down the war, using filibuster tactics that require a 60-vote majority to move ahead. But in Iowa, Obama said U.S. troops should begin to withdraw immediately despite Bush’s warnings that chaos would follow a premature American withdrawal.

“He warns of rising Iranian influence — but that has already taken place. He warns of growing terrorism — but that has already taken place. And he warns of huge movements of refugees and mass sectarian killing — but that has already taken place,” Obama said.

“These are not the consequences of a future withdrawal, they are the reality of Iraq’s present. They are a direct consequence of waging this war.”

Obama also used Wednesday’s speech to remind supporters that he opposed the now-unpopular Iraq war from the beginning — unlike his leading Democratic rivals, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards, both of whom voted for the 2002 congressional resolution that authorized the invasion. Obama, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, was an Illinois state senator at the time.

And he discounted Petraeus’ congressional testimony this week about reduced levels of violence since Bush ordered 30,000 additional troops to Iraq in January. Despite the reduction from levels earlier this year, “We are at the same levels of violence now that we were back in June of 2006,” he said.

“The same people who told us that we would be greeted as liberators; about democracy spreading across the Middle East; about striking a decisive blow against terrorism; about an insurgency in its last throes — those same people are now trumpeting the uneven and precarious containment of brutal sectarian violence as if it validates all of their failed decisions,” Obama said. “The bar for success is so low that it’s almost buried in the sand.” ++

Fox analyst: Germany’s actions leave us ‘no choice’ but to bomb Iran
David Edwards and Muriel Kane, Raw Story
Wednesday September 12, 2007

According to Fox News, advisers are telling the White House that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and as a result officials are making plans to attack Iran as early as next summer.

“A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime,” Fox reported on Tuesday.

Lt. Gen. (ret.) Thomas McInerney told Fox, “Since Germany has backed out of helping economically, we do not have any other choice. … They’ve forced us into the military option.”

“I think the option should initially be tit-for-tat,” McInerney went on. “For every explosively formed projectile from Iran that goes off in Iraq, two go off in Iran, no questions asked.”

“The one I favor the most, of course, is an air campaign,” he continued. “Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2500 aimed points to take out their nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back.”

McInerney described such a bombing campaign as “easy” and spoke enthusiastically of the weaponry involved, including “a new massive ordnance penetrator that’s 30,000 pounds, that really penetrates … Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can’t penetrate.”

Although introduced by Fox merely as a military analyst, McInerney has been prominent for several years as an advocate of war against Iran and chairs the advisory council of the hardline Iran Policy Committee, known for its backing of the anti-Iranian terrorist group, MEK. McInerney was quoted in February 2005 as saying, “[Bush] doesn’t have any choice. “He understands [the Iranians] are the king of terror right now. They are striving for nuclear weapons that can get into the hands of terrorists, and then it’s too late.”

Excerpts from Fox article:

Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran’s nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, “everyone in town” is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.

On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin a systematic attack on Iran’s known nuclear targets.

The following video is from Fox’s America’s Newsroom, broadcast on September 12.
[open link for video]

++

Let’s hear from someone besides the neoconservatives about Iran
Reporters should be seeking out experts who actually understand the Middle East — because the vast majority of them think that attacking Iran would be a huge mistake. Here’s an annotated list of some excellent possible sources.
Dan Froomkin, Nieman Watchdog
August 20, 2007
[open article for additional links]

A small group of neoconservatives is ever-more-loudly beating the drums for military action against Iran – and getting a lot of attention.

Robin Wright recently provided an overview of the drum-beating in The Washington Post.The people involved and their arguments are all too familiar: They are more or less the same so-called “experts” who enthusiastically advocated the invasion of Iraq, making similarly authoritative-sounding declarations about the uselessness of diplomacy and the easy triumph of military might.

But far from being ignored – not to mention laughed out of town – these neoconservatives are getting their message out largely unrefuted.

What’s particularly inappropriate about the one-sided coverage is that a quite significant majority of experts who do know a lot about the region believe that an attack in Iran would be a disaster for America and the world. They think it would backfire at least as badly as Iraq.

The general consensus within the foreign policy community is that an attack on Iran would more likely rally the Iranian people behind their radical leaders than it would lead to regime change. It would more likely encourage the Iranians (and others) to accelerate their development of a nuclear deterrent, rather than abandon it. It would more likely set off waves of terrorist attacks in Iraq, Israel and the U.S. than it would strike a blow against terror. And it would make the U.S. even more of a pariah nation on the international stage — particularly among Muslims — than it is now.

I’ve read remarkably few stories in the traditional media exploring the possible downsides of an attack on Iran. One was this Dana Priest story in The Washington Post in April 2006.

She wrote:

“As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.”

Possible Sources

So who should reporters interested in fleshing out the downsides be talking to? And what questions should they ask?

Paul R. Pillar, formerly the CIA’s top Middle East analysis and now a Georgetown University professor (and NiemanWatchdog.org contributor) wrote an essential op-ed in The Washington Post in February: What to Ask Before the Next War. Among the questions he raises:

“What would be the urgency of taking forceful action, given that the announced estimate is that Iran is still several years from acquiring a nuclear weapon?

“How malleable (and how well-defined) are Tehran’s intentions, and what changes in Washington’s policy might lead Tehran to abandon a weapons program? Even if Tehran’s intentions do not change, what other options would impede or slow its nuclear program? If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, how would that change its behavior and affect U.S. interests? In particular, why would deterrence, which has kept nuclear peace with other adversaries, not work with Iran?

“The likely hardening, concealment and dispersal of Iran’s nuclear facilities raise questions about the impact any military strike would have on the program. How much would Iran’s nuclear efforts be set back, especially given that bombs are not very good at destroying knowledge and expertise? Would the Iranian response be appreciably different from that of Iraq after Israel bombed its nuclear reactor in 1981 (Iraq redoubled its nuclear efforts while turning to different methods for producing fissile material)?

“The most neglected questions concern other consequences of a U.S. strike or any other U.S.-Iranian combat, even if such combat did not lead to a prolonged occupation. How would Tehran respond to an act of war? What terrorism might it launch against the United States? How would it exploit U.S. vulnerabilities next door in Iraq, where it has barely begun to exploit the influence it has assiduously been cultivating? What other military action might it take, with the risk of a wider war in the Persian Gulf?

“Other effects concern Iranian politics. How much would the direct assertion of U.S. hostility strengthen Iranian hard-liners, whose policies are partly premised on such hostility? How much would it add to all Iranians’ list of historical grievances against the United States and adversely affect relations with future governments?”

I spoke to Pillar recently, and he said that the advocates of attacking Iran are in a definite minority within the foreign policy community. “I think a strong majority of informed foreign policy observers would believe it would be a big mistake,” he said.

Of course what really counts is what one or maybe two people in the White House think.

“To the extent that I’m worried — and I am worried,” Pillar said, it’s not about what President Bush and Vice President Cheney are hearing from experts – it’s about “what is going through the psyche of those two individuals.” That’s a real concern: Pillar says he fears that one morning he’ll wake up to hear on the radio that U.S. warplanes are headed back from Iran.

Pillar, who himself is available for interviews, suggests reporters also talk to
Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations. In his July 2005 Foreign Affairs article, Regime Change and Its Limits, Hass wrote:

“U.S. strikes might succeed in destroying part of Iran’s weapons program and set it back by months or even years. But even if this were to occur, Iran would surely reconstitute its program in a manner that would make future strikes even more difficult. Moreover, Iran has the ability to retaliate by unleashing terrorism (using Hamas and Hezbollah) against Israel and the United States or by promoting instability in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. A U.S. strike on Iran would also further anger the Arab and Muslim worlds, where many already resent the double standard of U.S. and international acceptance of Israel’s and India’s nuclear weapons programs. Much of the Iranian population, currently alienated from the regime, would likely rally around it in the case of a foreign attack, making external efforts to bring about regime change that much more unlikely to succeed. Attacking Iran would also lead to sharp and possibly prolonged increases in the price of oil, which could trigger a global economic crisis. Nor would the United States avoid these costs if Israel carried out the strike (a scenario suggested by Vice President Dick Cheney in January 2005), since Israel would be widely viewed as doing the United States’ bidding.”

Steven Simon, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. In an April 2006 New York Times op-ed, coauthored with Richard Clarke, Bombs That Would Backfire, Simon wrote:

“[H]ow would bombing Iran serve American interests? In over a decade of looking at the question, no one has ever been able to provide a persuasive answer. The president assures us he will seek a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis. And there is a role for threats of force to back up diplomacy and help concentrate the minds of our allies. But the current level of activity in the Pentagon suggests more than just standard contingency planning or tactical saber-rattling. The parallels to the run-up to war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002 President Bush declared that there was ‘no war plan on my desk’ despite having actually spent months working on detailed plans for the Iraq invasion. Congress did not ask the hard questions then. It must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well.”

Shaul Bakhash, George Mason University professor and former Iranian journalist. In his January 2005 NiemanWatchdog.org article, A guide to reporting on relations between the U.S. and Iran, Bakhash wrote:

“Historically, in the last century and a half, political change in Iran has been accelerated by engagement with the West; political upheaval has coincided with periods of extensive engagement with the outside world. It can be plausibly argued that Iran’s wider engagement with the international community, foreign investment, an expansion of employment and a growing middle class would feed the forces of change, rather than strengthen the regime. [By contrast,] advocates of military strikes against Iran’s nuclear targets need to consider Iran’s likely response carefully. Iran is hardly likely to engage the U.S. militarily. Its modus operandi is well known. It is likely to use its assets in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere to cause difficulties for U.S. forces and to undermine U.S. interests. Whatever the long-term damage done to Iranian interests, the American/Israeli experience in Lebanon shows the Islamic Republic is adept at this kind of shadow war.”

Chas Freeman, president of the Middle East Policy Council and a NiemanWatchdog.org contributor, also urges reporters to interview Wayne E. White, former State Department Middle East analyst and Adjunct Scholar, Middle East Institute. In his February McClatchy Newspapers op-ed, Iran: Best to Avoid Another Gulf Crisis, White wrote:

“Already bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be sheer folly for the US to take military action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Such a move could trigger a protracted conflict and have myriad adverse consequences, from destabilizing the Persian Gulf and Iraq to a sizeable spike in world oil prices.”

Ray Takeyh, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. In his March Foreign Affairs article, Time for Détente With Iran, Takeyh wrote:

“If it hopes to tame Iran, the United States must rethink its strategy from the ground up. The Islamic Republic is not going away anytime soon, and its growing regional influence cannot be limited. Washington must eschew superficially appealing military options, the prospect of conditional talks, and its policy of containing Iran in favor of a new policy of détente. In particular, it should offer pragmatists in Tehran a chance to resume diplomatic and economic relations. Thus armed with the prospect of a new relationship with the United States, the pragmatists would be in a position to sideline the radicals in Tehran and try to tip the balance of power in their own favor. The sooner Washington recognizes these truths and finally normalizes relations with its most enduring Middle Eastern foe, the better.”

Leon Hadar, Cato Institute research fellow. Hadar writes in his September 2006 op-ed, US-Iran Shootout Is Inevitable:

“As the Bushies see it, they need to ‘do something’ to ‘correct’ the current balance of power which has been shifting in favor of Iran (thanks to US policies, that is)…. Leaving office with Iraq in ruins and Iran emerging as the military hegemon the Persian Gulf – equipped with nuclear military power! – would damage whatever remains of the Bush-Cheney ‘legacy.’”

Juan Cole, University of Michigan history professor and blogger. Cole wrote in his June 2003 article in the Nation, Taking Aim at Iran:

“There is a real danger that the Washington hawks will undermine the reformist movement in an Iran still touchy about foreign intervention by making the liberals look like Western puppets. Iranian hard-liners have been warning for decades about evil American intentions, and the US hawks inside and outside the Defense Department are only playing into their hands and giving them credibility with this saber-rattling.”

W. Patrick Lang, former military intelligence officer, consultant and blogger. In a March 2006 article in the National Interest coauthored with Larry C. Johnson, Contemplating the ifs, Lang wrote that

“before we embark on another military operation, we must reckon the costs; we must ensure that we are willing to pay those costs; and we should ensure that neoconservative enthusiasts would not be tempted to say–if venturing into Iran becomes a misadventure–that it was impossible to foresee negative consequences.”

UPDATE: Gideon Rose, managing editor of Foreign Affairs, also suggests a few more good sources for reporters. Rose himself, speaking at a February 2007 National Interest roundtable entitled Revisiting Iran?, had this to say:

“Containment . . . deserves more respect than it gets, since it has been quite good over the years at managing risks at acceptable costs. The danger Iran poses may be real, but it is far less than the dangers that were posed by, say, the Soviet Union or Mao’s China—and in both of those cases the United States managed to outwit, outlast and outplay its rival. It did so by, among other things, keeping its head, rejecting suggestions to strike first and relying on time to reveal its own system’s strengths and its opponents’ weaknesses.

“The reason so many in Washington have forgotten this is not because Iran is uniquely terrifying, but because the United States is uniquely powerful. Only now that it is a global hegemon can it calmly consider an unprovoked strike against a substantial regional power, simply because it worries about what that power might do with the weapons it might eventually acquire. The whole discussion is a sobering reminder that America’s foreign policy faces two separate challenges: managing the world and managing itself.”

Rose urges journalists to speak to Vali Nasr, professor, Naval Postgraduate School and adjunct senior fellow, Council of Foreign Relations. In a February Washington Post op-ed, The Iran Option That Isn’t on the Table, Nasr and co-author Takeyh (see above) wrote:

“As Iran crosses successive nuclear demarcations and mischievously intervenes in Iraq, the question of how to address the Islamic republic is once more preoccupying Washington. Economic sanctions, international ostracism, military strikes and even support for hopeless exiles are all contemplated with vigor and seriousness. One option, however, is rarely assessed: engagement as a means of achieving a more pluralistic and responsible government in Tehran.”

Geoffrey Kemp, director of regional strategic programs at the Nixon Center. In a 2005 article for the Hoover Digest, Iran: What Are the Options? Kemp wrote that

“an attack would only delay the regime’s ambition, and third-party countries would likely aid a post-attack Iran such that the delay would not be very significant. Even more important, some senior Iranian officials are not convinced that moving from a nuclear infrastructure to the actual fabrication and deployment of nuclear weapons is in Iran’s national interest. But the more likely a U.S. attack seems, the less influence such doubters are liable to have. A U.S. attack could also be counterproductive politically, in that those opposed to the regime could be harmed by a welling up of Iranian nationalist fury.”

Yitzhak Nakash, professor at Brandeis University. As part of a symposium for Dissent in early 2007, Nakash wrote:

“American advocates of military or other tough action against Iran have based their case on the argument that its hard-line government’s pursuit of a nuclear program constitutes a grave threat to peace and stability worldwide. In reality, the development of a nuclear program is mostly a matter of national pride. A U.S. military strike against Iran, even if executed successfully, would unite Iranians and further isolate America in the international arena. A sanctions regime, including a travel ban on Iranian officials, would yield few benefits and is not likely to stop Iran from developing its nuclear program. Sanctions did not prevent North Korea from testing a nuclear device in October 2006.”

Ali Ansari, professor at the University of St. Andrews and director of the Institute for Iranian Studies. In an article in the Summer 2007 issue of Nieman Reports, A Master Narrative About Iran Emerges, Ansari wrote that

“while some journalists have belatedly sought to reflect on their poor performance during the walk-up to the Iraq invasion, few lessons appear to have been absorbed. Signs abound that too many journalists are making similar mistakes in their coverage of Iran, as skepticism and hard questioning give way to a slippage back into worn-out narratives.”

How Likely Is an Attack?

Neonconservatives have long been offended by Iran’s anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric — and their passion for a military response heightened once the evidence emerged that Iran was pursuing its nuclear ambitions.

As I wrote in my June 4 column for washingtonpost.com, Cheney, By Proxy, there are indications that Cheney fears that the president is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously and may be planning an end-run strategy that would box Bush in, making him feel he has no option but to attack. One such scenario: Nudging Israel into bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.

But now there’s a new twist: Unproven administration allegations that Iran is providing training and weapons to anti-U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my August 10 column, Cheney’s Secret Escalation Plan?, I made note of a report that the vice president is advocating for air strikes inside Iran that, while nominally in defense of American troops, would be hugely provocative and could easily lead to an escalation of hostilities.

Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker has been almost alone in documenting the ongoing military planning – and operations – in support of a possible attack. In his April 2006 article, The Iran Plans; Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? Hersh wrote:

“The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.”

See also Hersh’s November 2006 article, The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?

The American public is not in favor of an attack on Iran. According to pollingreport.com, a CNN poll in May found 63 percent of respondents opposed to military action in Iran. But that number would presumably go up even higher if the media was a bit clearer about the likely downsides. ++

Dan Froomkin is the deputy editor of the Nieman Watchdog Project. He also writes the White House Watch column for washingtonpost.com

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Add comment September 14th, 2007

One, two — buckle my shoe

We had quite a little spectacle in Georgie’s speech last night … we were witnessing [and yes, I couldn’t escape it, since the pundit wrap-up’s kept playing it again and again] the equivalent of a visit to Dubby’s personal Potemkin Village, kicking the can down the road as he’s done a couple of times a year since he launched Shock ‘n Awe — another in a long line of McMessages from a man who behaves as if we’re all with him, even as he lies to our face.

If that’s not the definition of nutcase, what is? This is HIS war, it’s all going BEAUTIFULLY and he will see that FREEDOM follows his dictates well into the coming century — smile! It’s All Good! As Iraq vet Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, commented, “Bush may yet ‘take credit for the sun rising.’” Yes, he’s the Cock o’ the Walk that will keep God in His heaven and all right with the world, never looking back at the disaster in his wake.

A couple of shoes dropped during these last few days — the first came two days ago:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 12, 2007

Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

White House News

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, last extended on September 5, 2006, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2007.

Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Oh, WELL — it’s all RIGHT, then; the Dubby gave himself PERMISSION [again] to do whatever he damned-well wants with the free world! He will, by-God, keep us “safe” in defiance of every statistic that proves we’re worse off, and hold us hostage to the NeoCon principals that got us in this mess. We are, after all, just children that need a strong, determined Daddy like George.

Last night, as a second shoe to smack us on the head, came announcement of a “Permanent Iraq Presence” — Iraq is now the 54th state, right after South Korea. Oh, and it’s a hungry, needy, cash cow of a state, too — it will require SOOOO MUCH FROM US, citizen! Open a vein, won’t you, in the pursuit of “spreading democracy” … and those of your children? And give us an IOU on their children?

Well, gosh — all these years of worry and blogging and activism were all for naught, apparently — we don’t need benchmarks or time lines; what’s time, when you’re ruling the world and so full of yourself that you think you can unitarily plunge the country into a decades-long commitment to fulfill your tweaked and delusional daydreams? Political pundit David Gergen thought that the most surprising and startling of Bush’s stilted proclamations [more from David next post.] We’re not surprised, of course, having followed the building of permanent bases, the action of the Blackwater boyz and the presumptions of capitalizing on the lion’s share of the Iraqi oil … but to announce this — to make PROMISES — without ANY Congressional input or American reaction is unspeakably deluded.

Here’s a nice piece from Comedy Central that shows us how to do that voodoo the Dubby do:
John Hodgman, The Daily Show Reveals Bush’s 8-point “Plan for Success” in Iraq

The public isn’t buying all this — but that won’t stop Bush from working his worst; thanks to Huffington Post for these headlines:

NYT: ” Bush Has No Strategy To End His Disastrous War”…

LA Times: “Word ‘Victory’ [Has] Quietly Disappeared” From Bush’s Vocabulary…

SF Chronicle: “No One Should Be Fooled” By Attempt To Repackage Policy…

NY Post: Bush “Consigning The Future Of Iraq” To The ‘08 Elections

And Thanks to Christine for these Youtubes of John Edwards from his blog –

MSNBC

CNN Larry King

Re: my request for your input last night, Thanks to Earlene who said John looked “very presidential;” to Eileen who says he isn’t, as far as we know, connected to the shadowy Illuminati world-dominance organizations so he’s even more than “dark horse” and has a harder ceiling to break through; to Greg in Australia who mentioned that CBS recently reported that the Dem Congress was hamstrung because it didn’t have enough support from “the people” [yeah, right! Snort! GOSH … that’s an awful message to go out internationally, huh?!]

Oh, and we have a new Merril Lynch’ian slogan for Bush’s Middle Eastern delusion — “Return on Success;” trust Dub to frame in terms of profit. Remarkable words in the obvious face of NO appreciable success, and from a man who has failed the Republican “win, or die” test … this guy’s “pushing up daisies” in that regard, his lifelong track record dismal to the point of laughable. And all this comes as we have just faced the astounding [gulp] task of having to raise the national debt limit to increase our ability to borrow … now it stands at $9.82 trillion; the fifth such increase in Dubbys tenure.

Here’s an excellent collection — you’ll find a most interesting piece from The Street, a marketing site, that cuts George no slack, the Times editorial, others including Krugman. I’d suppose there’s a Jude-equivalent on the Right putting out a collection of kick-ass Righty stuff, starting with a pompous Giuliani article, somewhere in the blogosphere, and capitalizing on our long-standing conceptualization that “war is peace” and “occupation is stability;” George Bush isn’t clever enough by half to make that a national banner by himself — we’re a militaristic society, sucking from the tit of Guns and Butter … he’s just the latest opportunist to have co-opted the underlying arrogance of America’s romance with Manifest Destiny. It’s going to take a real dose of reality to shake this mental/emotional habit!

The most disturbing element of the day? Too little focus on this “staying forever” business … if we think Bush won’t try to do this without us, we’re dead wrong; the Congress needs to step up on this one, and I was pleased to see Nancy Pelosi reject it out of hand in her comments.

We simply MUST grow up!

One, two — buckle my shoe. Shoe, shoe — what to do?

Three, four — SLAM THE FRIKKIN’ DOOR!!!

Jude

[First, a snip from our go-to guy in WaDC, Dan Frookin, with section titles including Jaw Droppers, Incredulous and Backfire]

It Came From Planet Bush
Dan Froomkin, WaPo
Friday, September 14, 2007

In the alternate universe that President Bush occupies, he gave a smashing speech last night.

Over there, the people of Iraq need our help to save them from the al Qaeda terrorists who intend to overthrow their brave and united government on the way to attacking America. It’s a battle of good versus evil. We have 36 countries fighting alongside us. And the fight is going very well indeed. Ordinary life is returning to Baghdad.

A few more things about Bush’s universe: There, the president can make things true simply by solemnly pronouncing them from the Oval Office. He can reach out to his critics just by saying he is doing so. And people believe him.

But over here in the real world, things are different.

Iraq is mostly ruled by armed gangs, not a central government. American troops are dying in the crossfire as the country continues to violently disintegrate along ethnic and sectarian lines. We’re in it pretty much alone. There’s no end in sight. And the real al Qaeda is regrouping in Pakistan.

President Bush is trying and failing to rally support for a war that the majority of Americans have concluded is not worth fighting. He’s not going to change anyone’s mind because he’s too stubborn to change his own. And in any case, his credibility is shot to hell…

[open link for full article]

No Exit, No Strategy
NYT Editorial
September 14, 2007

This was the week in which Americans hoped they would get straight talk and clear thinking on Iraq. What they got was two exhausting days of Congressional testimony by the American military commander, hours of news conferences and interviews, clouds of cut-to-order statistics and a speech from the Oval Office — and none of it either straight or clear.

The White House insisted that President Bush had consulted intensively with his generals and adapted to changing circumstances. But no amount of smoke could obscure the truth: Mr. Bush has no strategy to end his disastrous war and no strategy for containing the chaos he unleashed.

Last night’s speech could have been given any day in the last four years — and was delivered a half-dozen times already. Despite Mr. Bush’s claim that he was offering a way for all Americans to “come together” on Iraq, he offered the same divisive policies — repackaged this time with the Orwellian slogan “return on success.”

Mr. Bush’s claim that things were going so well in Iraq that he could “accept” his generals’ recommendation for a “drawdown” of forces was a carnival barker’s come-on. The Army cannot sustain the 30,000 extra troops Mr. Bush sent to Iraq beyond mid-2008 without serious damage to its fighting ability. From the start, the president said that the increase would be temporary. That’s why he called it a “surge.”

Before he spoke, Iraq’s brutal reality had debunked the claims of political and military success made by Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the ambassador in Baghdad. First, The Times reported that the only sliver of political progress — a tortuous compromise on sharing oil revenues — was evaporating. Then came news of the assassination of the Anbar tribal leader whose decision to fight alongside the Americans was cited by Mr. Bush as proof that the war’s tide was turning — even though it had nothing to do with the increase in forces.

Mr. Bush’s claims last night about how well the war is going are believable only if you use Pentagon numbers so obviously cooked that they call to mind the way Americans were duped into first supporting this war.

There will be a lot said in coming days about Mr. Bush’s “new strategy,” just as there was after each of his previous major addresses on the war. If there was a new strategy, it would be easy to recognize. Mr. Bush would drop the meaningless talk of victory and stop trying to sell Americans the fiction that the war keeps them safe from terrorism. (To his credit, General Petraeus declined to adopt that bit of propaganda.) Instead, Mr. Bush would do what the vast majority of Americans want — plan an orderly withdrawal while doing what he can to mitigate the consequences of the war.

Mr. Bush was right when he said last night that the aftermath of withdrawal would be bloody and frightening, but that is a product of his invasion and his gross mismanagement of the aftermath. Mr. Bush’s endless insistence on staying the course will only make Iraq more bloody and frightening.

If Mr. Bush had a new strategy, he would have talked to the American people last night about what he would do to draw Iraq’s neighbors into a solution. Last January, when he announced the troop increase, Mr. Bush promised to “use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East.” The world is still waiting.

A strategy for ending the war would include real efforts to hold Iraq’s government to verifiable measures of political conciliation — and make clear to Iraq’s leaders that they cannot count on America’s indefinite and unquestioning protection.

A real shift in strategy would have included an effort to deal with the massive problem of refugees. Nine months after the surge began, ever more Iraqis are being driven from their homes — and Mr. Bush never even mentioned them last night.

If Mr. Bush were serious about ending the war, rather than threatening Iran and Syria, he would make a serious effort to persuade them that they too have a lot to lose from a disintegrating Iraq. And he would enlist the help of the leaders of Britain, France and Germany for serious negotiations. Then, perhaps, Mr. Bush’s promise from January to stanch the flow of men and weapons into Iraq from Iran and Syria would not have sounded so hollow.

Once again, it is clear that Mr. Bush refuses to recognize the truth of his failure in Iraq and envisions a military commitment that has no end. Congress must use its powers to expose the truth and demand a real change in strategy. Democratic leaders, forever parsing polls, are backing away from proposals to impose a deadline for withdrawal and tinkering with small ideas that mostly sound like ways to enable the president’s strategy of delay.

The presidential candidates, as well, have a duty to take Iraq head-on. Some Democrats have started to talk in some detail about how they would end the war, but the burden is not just on the war critics. Republicans like Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain, who love to proclaim their support for the president and hide behind the troops, need to explain their vision as well. What do they think would constitute victory in Iraq, and how, precisely, do they intend to achieve it?

After all, it seems the burden of ending the war will fall to the next president. Mr. Bush was clear last night — as he was when he addressed the nation in January, September of last year, the December before that and in April 2004 — that his only real plan is to confuse enough Americans and cow enough members of Congress to let him muddle along and saddle his successor with this war that should never have been started.

A Surge, and Then a Stab
Paul Krugman, NYT via WelcomeToPottersville

To understand what’s really happening in Iraq, follow the oil money, which already knows that the surge has failed.

Back in January, announcing his plan to send more troops to Iraq, President Bush declared that “America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.”

Near the top of his list was the promise that “to give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”

There was a reason he placed such importance on oil: oil is pretty much the only thing Iraq has going for it. Two-thirds of Iraq’s G.D.P. and almost all its government revenue come from the oil sector. Without an agreed system for sharing oil revenues, there is no Iraq, just a collection of armed gangs fighting for control of resources.

Well, the legislation Mr. Bush promised never materialized, and on Wednesday attempts to arrive at a compromise oil law collapsed.

What’s particularly revealing is the cause of the breakdown. Last month the provincial government in Kurdistan, defying the central government, passed its own oil law; last week a Kurdish Web site announced that the provincial government had signed a production-sharing deal with the Hunt Oil Company of Dallas, and that seems to have been the last straw.

Now here’s the thing: Ray L. Hunt, the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body.

Some commentators have expressed surprise at the fact that a businessman with very close ties to the White House is undermining U.S. policy. But that isn’t all that surprising, given this administration’s history. Remember, Halliburton was still signing business deals with Iran years after Mr. Bush declared Iran a member of the “axis of evil.”

No, what’s interesting about this deal is the fact that Mr. Hunt, thanks to his policy position, is presumably as well-informed about the actual state of affairs in Iraq as anyone in the business world can be. By putting his money into a deal with the Kurds, despite Baghdad’s disapproval, he’s essentially betting that the Iraqi government — which hasn’t met a single one of the major benchmarks Mr. Bush laid out in January — won’t get its act together. Indeed, he’s effectively betting against the survival of Iraq as a nation in any meaningful sense of the term.

The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia. And I suspect that most people in the Bush administration — maybe even Mr. Bush himself — know this, too.

After all, if the administration had any real hope of retrieving the situation in Iraq, officials would be making an all-out effort to get the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to start delivering on some of those benchmarks, perhaps using the threat that Congress would cut off funds otherwise. Instead, the Bushies are making excuses, minimizing Iraqi failures, moving goal posts and, in general, giving the Maliki government no incentive to do anything differently.

And for that matter, if the administration had any real intention of turning public opinion around, as opposed to merely shoring up the base enough to keep Republican members of Congress on board, it would have sent Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, to as many news media outlets as possible — not granted an exclusive appearance to Fox News on Monday night.

All in all, Mr. Bush’s actions have not been those of a leader seriously trying to win a war. They have, however, been what you’d expect from a man whose plan is to keep up appearances for the next 16 months, never mind the cost in lives and money, then shift the blame for failure onto his successor.

In fact, that’s my interpretation of something that startled many people: Mr. Bush’s decision last month, after spending years denying that the Iraq war had anything in common with Vietnam, to suddenly embrace the parallel.

Here’s how I see it: At this point, Mr. Bush is looking forward to replaying the political aftermath of Vietnam, in which the right wing eventually achieved a rewriting of history that would have made George Orwell proud, convincing millions of Americans that our soldiers had victory in their grasp but were stabbed in the back by the peaceniks back home.

What all this means is that the next president, even as he or she tries to extricate us from Iraq — and prevent the country’s breakup from turning into a regional war — will have to deal with constant sniping from the people who lied us into an unnecessary war, then lost the war they started, but will never, ever, take responsibility for their failures.

Surge Reduction Fans Political Flames
John Fout, TheStreet
9/14/2007

President Bush addressed the nation on Iraq last night — his eighth installment on the ongoing war. The American people have heard a stream of edicts on Iraq over the last 4½ years: “mission accomplished,” “the insurgency is in its final throes,” the “surge is working,” and now the “return on success.” After considering all this, the term “quagmire” needn’t be applied only to the progress of the war, but can also be attached to the political and economic impact of this latest iteration.

The president’s position on Iraq has been unpopular for years and his approval ratings stand in the low 30s. But the president has forged on and ignored public disregard for the effort. Will he be able to continue his war in Iraq, or can the Democrats in Congress stop him?

The president did tonight what any good used-car salesman would do: He painted a pretty picture in the hope that nobody notices what is under the hood. When he spoke on Iraq on Jan. 10, the president announced a strategy called the “surge” — an increase in U.S. troops to create an environment for political reconciliation in Iraq.

Technically, the “surge” has failed. The president never discussed his initial reason for the “surge.” He instead focused on the gains made by the military. He proudly touts the success of improved security in the Anbar Province and Baghdad against al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

Intelligence experts and the U.S. military, however, agree that AQI only accounts for about 5% of the violence in Iraq. Yet the president barely mentions sectarian violence or the insurgents in the speech, whereas AQI gets 12 mentions. The public received an incomplete, and thereby incorrect, picture of violence in Iraq.

Political reconciliation has been an utter failure. The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have only achieved one of eight of their legislative priorities. The most important legislation remains an accord on oil revenue. Not only has no agreement been signed, but the Kurds have agreed to oil-and-gas sharing contract with Hunt Oil and Impulse Energy. So the Kurds prefer to make agreements to share oil with a Texas company before bothering to deal with their fellow Iraqis. Not encouraging.

Bush had hung his hopes on working with our former Sunni enemies in Anbar, like Sheikh Sattar Abu Risa, who led the Council for the Salvation of the Anbar Province. The sheikh had begun the struggle of fighting the extremism of AQI on his own last summer and had requested help from the U.S. for many months. We finally joined him during the surge.

But the gains made by the combination of Sunni fighters and the U.S. military are in doubt after the sheikh was killed by a huge blast at his home Thursday. A state of emergency was declared in the province following his assassination. So Anbar isn’t so safe after all.

Despite the bad news, Bush only sees the bright side. He announced the endorsement of Gen. Petraeus’ recommendation for troop withdrawals because of the “improving” security situation. As many as 5,700 could come home by Christmas, and another 21,000 may return by next July. This assumes no change for the worse, by the way.

The troop withdrawals are not really withdrawals. The Pentagon has said that the “surge” couldn’t be continued any longer than next spring because of a lack of troops. Troop tours presently last 15 months — up from 12 months before the war started. The surge troops were deployed between January and June of this year and would be returning anyway. Troop levels merely will return to pre-surge levels.

This raises the economic impact. A report from Merrill Lynch assessing the economic impact of a troop withdrawal suggests that the reduction in troops could have an impact on GDP. Based on CBO estimates, the spending on Iraq accounts for 20% of GDP. This leaves the two parties facing interesting challenges as the presidential campaign heats up.

The Democrats in Congress possess significant arguments to oppose the president’s plan: the “surge” failed, Iraq remains violent, and troop withdrawals aren’t withdrawals.

Still, I don’t believe the opposition can succeed. The Democrats have a small majority in the House, where they can pass what they want. But the Senate is another story. They have 49 votes and possibly 50 with Bernie Sanders (D., Vt.) included. They can forget about Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.). The Democrats cannot muster 60 votes to end a filibuster, nor can they come close to 67 to override a veto.

But the Republicans face troubles of their own. The president has handed a lemon to the Republicans in Congress. The Republicans in Congress can in turn say to their constituents that we have made “progress” in Iraq and the troops will come home.

Ultimately, I expect no change of our policy in Iraq until January 2009. That means defense companies will maintain the high profit margins they have enjoyed since 2002 and there won’t be any significant reduction in spending to drawdown on GDP.

The president also alluded to a future after he’s no longer in office. “These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America,” he said. “And we are ready to begin building that relationship — in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.”

That future will be fought out all next year during the congressional and presidential elections where the public will finally weigh in on this long-term view.

Yes, Surge, That’s My Baby: Press Responds to Bush Speech
E&P Staff
September 13, 2007

Bush Speech: Iraq Another Korea
Taylor Marsh, HuffPo
September 13, 2007

Again with the mission creep. I don’t know how many times Mr. Bush has expanded our goals in Iraq, but what he’s offering tonight takes it around the bend and back again.

On an enduring relationship with Iraq that requires many fewer American troops:

This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.

These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship — in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.

[…]

Mr. Bush can throw in the “fewer American troops” pony, but the the highlighted section above is ominous. What it implies is that Mr. Bush is about to enter into an agreement with the Maliki government that will extend beyond his presidency and commit the U.S. permanently to Iraq. This was obviously the plan all along, especially when you take in the largest embassy on earth, and the football-long bases for troops.

Korea is the model? Only in Bush’s little mind. We haven’t taken serious casualties in Korea since the late 1960s. Does anyone believe casualty rates will plummet with Bush’s new Operation Enduring Nightmare? Just for the record, Bush has been hinting at this for a while (via email from a friend):

“Korea may be Bush’s model for Iraq, officials say”
“President Bush is looking at the decades-long U.S. troop presence in South Korea as a model for a future U.S . role in Iraq, senior administration officials said Thursday.”
[CNN, 9/13/07]

“With Korea as Model, Bush Team Ponders Long Support Role in Iraq”
“Several visitors to the White House say that in private, he has sounded intrigued by what he calls the “Korea model,” a reference to the large American presence in South Korea for the 54 years since the armistice that ended open hostilities between North and South.”
[The New York Times, 6/3/07]

“Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea”
“White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea.”
[Reuters, 5/30/07]

“White House envisions ‘Korean model’ in Iraq”
“President Bush would like to see the U.S. military provide long-term stability in Iraq as it has in South Korea, where thousands of American troops have been based for more than half a century, the White House said Wednesday.”
[The Seattle Times, 5/31/07]

“S. Korea Eyed as Model for U.S. Troops in Iraq”
“White house spokesman Tony Snow said last week that President Bush looks to South Korea as a sort of model.”
[NPR, 6/10/07]

This new plan for a permanent commitment in Iraq, not just a long-term presence that has been Bush’s launching pad to tonight’s gem, should not go unchallenged by Congress. Of course, we’re likely to hear a chorus of we don’t have the votes blah-blah-blah instead.

Oh, as an aside, the military isn’t fooled by Bush’s Iraqi hearing pageantry. The military are supporting the Democrats in droves. Sign ‘em up and get ‘em to run for office.

Iraq as another Korea?

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse.

Rebutting Bush, Edwards: “No Timeline, No Funding, No Excuses”
After Bush’s lame speech on keeping the war going for a decade, the Democrats came out swinging.
Howie Klein, Down With Tyranny! via Alternet
September 14, 2007

If you didn’t listen to Bush’s lame plan to keep the war going for a decade, here’s the full text. Perhaps someone can name the 36 countries fighting along side us in Iraq. The response from Democrats was… muted and underplayed. We owe John Edwards for buying a couple minutes on MSNBC to give an Outside-the-Beltway response where he said, among other things

No timeline, no funding. No excuses. It is time to end this war.

Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) gave a perfectly fine Inside the Beltway response on behalf of the very loyal semi-opposition. Personally I preferred Howard Dean’s r