Progress In Iraq

The last time we were here, the Parliament passed a de-Baathification law that the Presidency Council refused to sign because it would have put a target on the backs of ex-Baathists. So I'm going to have to wait and see what comes of this, especially because there appear to be little catches to everything and nobody has actually read the bills:

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s parliamentary leaders on Wednesday pushed through three far-reaching measures that had been delayed for weeks by bitter political maneuvering that became so acrimonious that some lawmakers threatened to try to dissolve the legislative body.

In a classic legislative compromise, the three measures, each of which was a burning issue for at least one faction, were packaged together for a single vote to encourage agreement across sectarian lines.

“Today we have a wedding party for the Iraqi Parliament,” said Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the speaker, who is a Sunni. “We have proved that Iraqis are one bloc and Parliament is able to find solutions that represent all Iraqis.”

But the parliamentary success was clouded because many of the most contentious details were simply postponed, raising the possibility that the accord could again break into rancorous factional disputes in future debates on the same issues.

The three measures are the 2008 budget; a law outlining the scope of provincial powers, a crucial aspect of Iraq’s self-definition as a federal state; and an amnesty that would apply to thousands of the detainees held in Iraqi jails.

It was unconstitutional for the Iraqi Parliament to bundle the laws in this way, but hey, whatever gets you through the night.

Juan Cole has some insight into the deals:

The budget that the parliament sort of passed, on its sixth try, awarded the Kurdistan Regional Government 17% of the $40 billion central government budget, with the proviso that this proportion be revisited in 2009 after a census, to be completed by the end of December, 2008. (Many Arab delegates do not believe the Kurds constitute so large a proportion of the total population of Iraq).

The law of the provinces bestows special prerogatives on them that al-Hayat does not specify. McClatchy says it also sets Oct. 1 as the date for provincial elections.

The setting of a date for provincial elections is extremely important. I have argued that elections in the Sunni Arab-dominated provinces are a necessity for calming Iraq. Diyala, for instance, is 60% Sunni Arab but is ruled by the pro-Iranian Shiite party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. The Sunni Arabs largely boycotted the provincial elections of January, 2005 (the turnout in al-Anbar was 2%). Thus, virtually none of the governments in the center-north and west of the country has much real legitimacy. It will be easier for the US to turn over security duties to elected provincial authorities who have the backing of significant numbers of Sunni Arabs, and so the elections could pave the way to a US drawdown in those provinces.

One reason that the provincial elections have been delayed is that there are fears in Baghdad that the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr will sweep to power in the Shiite south. It from all accounts has gained in popularity as the current dominant provincial party there, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, has become much less popular. (ISCI has been trying to run many of the southern Shiite provinces, but has not been able to provide security and services at the level desired by local people). Presumably one reason for bundling the law of the provinces with the amnesty law was to make Sadrist MPs vote for the package. They did not want to grant amnesty to Sunni Arab prisoners, but only by supporting this step could they get a date certain for provincial elections, which they think they will largely win.

Sounds like the provincial elections are a Catch-22 and could lead to an explosion of violence. Yet this has to be what passes for progress in Iraq nowadays.

Such A Success, Nobody Wants To Go There

At what point does this cross over into forced labor?

Uneasy U.S. diplomats yesterday challenged senior State Department officials in unusually blunt terms over a decision to order some of them to serve at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad or risk losing their jobs.

At a town hall meeting in the department's main auditorium attended by hundreds of Foreign Service officers, some of them criticized fundamental aspects of State's personnel policies in Iraq. They took issue with the size of the embassy -- the biggest in U.S. history -- and the inadequate training they received before being sent to serve in a war zone. One woman said she returned from a tour in Basra with post-traumatic stress disorder only to find that the State Department would not authorize medical treatment.

Yesterday's internal dissension came amid rising public doubts about diplomatic progress in Iraq and congressional inquiries into the department's spending on the embassy and its management of private security contractors. Some participants asked how diplomacy could be practiced when the embassy itself, inside the fortified Green Zone, is under frequent fire and officials can travel outside only under heavy guard.

Service in Iraq is "a potential death sentence," said one man who identified himself as a 46-year Foreign Service veteran. "Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now," he said to sustained applause.

What the... don't these diplomats know that we've turned the corner and they're in the last throes?

Let's be clear, these public officials, who know a bit more about the situation on the ground than the layman, are resisting attempts to be deployed to the GREEN ZONE, ostensibly the most secure area in all of Iraq. Now, it could be because they're just afraid of being caught in Blackwater's crossfire, but now that the military will be taking control of convoys, that should be less of a problem. So maybe it's just that these State Department employees know what the GAO has determined:

The U.S. and Iraqi governments have failed to take advantage of a dramatic drop in violence in Iraq, according to a report issued Tuesday by a U.S. watchdog agency, which warned that prospects were waning "for achieving current U.S. security, political and economic goals in Iraq."

Iraqi leaders have not passed legislation to foster reconciliation among Shiite Muslims, Sunnis and Kurds, and sectarian groups still retain control of ministries and divide Iraqi security forces, according to the Government Accountability Office report.

Moreover, the Bush administration's efforts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq are plagued by weak planning, a lack of coordination with the Iraqi government and among U.S. agencies, and an absence of detailed information on "the current and future costs of U.S. involvement in Iraq," it said.

"U.S. efforts lack strategies with clear purpose, scope, roles and performance measures," the report said.

All of this "progress" could go up in a moment, because it's not sustained by any structural changes. It's a play-out-the-clock strategy. And when the clock runs out, these people forced to deploy to Iraq will be among the most vulnerable.

That's why I agree with Juan Cole: it's time to close the US Embassy.

Now is that time for all Americans to stand up for the diplomats who serve this country ably and courageously throughout the world, for decades on end. Foreign service officers risk disease and death, and many of them see their marriages destroyed when spouses decline to follow them to a series of remote places. They are the ones who represent America abroad, who know languages and cultures and do their best to convince the world that we're basically a good people [...]

The guerrillas in Iraq constantly target the Green Zone and US diplomatic personnel there with mortar and rocket fire. State Department personnel sleep in trailers that are completely unprotected from such incoming fire. At several points in the past year, they have been forbidden to go outside without protective gear (as if outside were more dangerous). The Bush administration has consistently lied about the danger they are in and tried to cover up these severe security precautions.

The US embassy in Iraq should be closed. It is not safe for the personnel there. Some sort of rump mission of hardy volunteers could be maintained. But kidnapping our most capable diplomats and putting them in front of a fire squad is morally wrong and is administratively stupid, since many of these intrepid individuals will simply resign. (You cannot easily get good life insurance that covers death from war, and most State spouses cannot have careers because of the two-year rotations to various foreign capitals, and their families are in danger of being reduced to dire poverty if they are killed) [...]

The Democrats have been facing the dilemma that they are blocked from doing much about Iraq. This is something they can do. Cut off funding for the embassy and force most of the diplomats home. This is the way to start ending the war.

Now.

Amen.

Proof That I Watched Several Hours of Iraq Testimony

Let's be clear that the MoveOn ad is getting all of this attention because of one word: Betray. The rest of the ad makes the mainstream argument, made by almost every Democratic politician, that the facts General Petraeus are asserting to prove military progress are random numbers without sourcing. And it's been reported plenty that the White House and Petraeus are coordinating with one another. The apoplexy over MoveOn would not be nearly as great without that word, Betray.

(by the way, the LA Times runs a point-counterpoint between professional conservative operative Hugh Hewitt and former special assistant to President Reagan Doug Bandow? The hell?)

And it's instructive to note that the original construction, General BetrayUs, comes from Rush Limbaugh.

Anyway, it also appears to have been borrowed, indirectly, from Rush Limbaugh. According to a Free Republican diary, Rush took a call in January from a listener who suggested he contrast General Petraeus with Senator Chuck Betrayus -- i.e., Hagel.

Hagel is ALSO a military veteran, who left Vietnam with two Purple Hearts. So this faux shock at a group "questioning the patriotism" of an officer who wears the uniform is just precious. I guess that recently retired general cited in this story is incredibly unpatriotic, too.

It's a WORD. It was an unwise choice of words, but a word all the same. Sticks and stones. The facts are pretty simple. David Petraeus has been cooking the books, spinning whatever has been under his leadership, for some time. He's emphasizing small events and not the big picture. He's doing that intentionally, because the big picture offers no encouraging signs. A reversal of violence in Iraq in 2007 to mid-2006 levels doesn't really do much for anyone, even if it's true; 1,000 attacks a week remains an unstable security environment. You have a US Ambassador claiming that provincial government began in Anbar after security improved, yet they're also claiming that Baghdad's security has improved as well and none such provincial governments are seen. It's incoherent. The commanders on the ground are trying to thread a needle between touting grand progress and warning that the country would collapse when we leave so we must stay for years and years. As I've heard many times before, if it remains true that, the day American troops leave Iraq, the country will collapse, then we might as well leave now, because all you're doing is wasting lives and treasure. And since four years have passed with that exact same dynamic in place, I believe withdrawal is the least worst option.

Juan Cole has a provocative piece today that delves into this a bit, but is a bit more charitable than I am about David Petraeus and the purported leaders of Iraq. In fact, he hopes that they can do the impossible and build up the country so that it doesn't collapse when we inevitably leave.

But in all likelihood, when the Democratic president pulls US troops out in summer of 2009, all hell is going to break loose. The consequences may include even higher petroleum prices than we have seen recently, which at some point could bring back stagflation or very high rates of inflation.

In other words, the Democratic president risks being Fordized when s/he withdraws from Iraq, by the aftermath. A one-term president associated with humiliation abroad and high inflation at home? Maybe I should say, Carterized. The Republican Party could come back strong in 2012 and then dominate politics for decades, if that happened.

It is all so unfair, of course, since Bush started and prosecuted this disaster in Iraq, and Bush is refusing to accept responsibility for the failure, pushing it off onto his successor.

But life is unfair.

So what can the Dems do to avoid being made the fall guy this way?

They could try to legislate stronger US diplomacy aiming at ensuring peace between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran even if there is sectarian violence on a greater scale in Iraq. They could resist the temptation to demonize Iran or to push it onto a war footing with threats or even bombings.

As for Iraq itself, the best hope for the Dems may be that Gen. Petraeus actually succeeds, over the next year, in significantly reducing ethnic tensions. It is a slim reed to hold onto, as they recognize.

But from the moment Bush went into Iraq, Americans were screwed. And that includes the Democratic Party, which is being set up to take the fall.

I'm a severe skeptic on the likelihood of anything that looks like success in Iraq. But I don't think career public servants such as Ryan Crocker and David Petraeus are acting as partisan Republicans in their Iraq efforts. I think they both are sincere, experienced men attempting to retrieve what they can for America from Bush's catastrophe. They may as well try, since the Democrats can't over-rule Bush and get the troops out, anyway. If the troops are there, they may as well at least be deployed intelligently, which is what Gen. Petraeus is doing. I wish them well in their Herculean labors. Because if they fail, I have a sinking feeling that we are all going down with them, including the next Democratic president. And their success is a long shot.

This is a "cork in the bottle" strategy, and I think a few Democrats know it, even the Presidentials, which is why they're being more aggressive about the "great advantage to our enemies" to keeping all of these troops over there. Another year of the status quo makes Cole's scenario much more likely. We've seen a little movement today with Rep. Walsh, and Senator Lugar called out the Iraq strategy this morning.

WASHINGTON - A prominent Republican on Tuesday said he remains deeply skeptical of the U.S. war strategy in Iraq, comparing the long and bloody military campaign to a farmer risking his savings to plant on a flood plain.

"In my judgment, some type of success in Iraq is possible, but as policymakers, we should acknowledge that we are facing extraordinarily narrow margins for achieving our goals," Sen. Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the top U.S. military commander there.

Hopefully everyone gets that through their heads.

Jonah Goldberg Day - the Aftermath

It happened yesterday, but this is a great example of how the conservative side of the blogosphere only tears down, while we on the left both tear down and build up (multitaskers).

Two years ago yesterday, Jonah Goldberg (who is who he is only because his mom is a super-rich publisher and he writes for all of those money-losing conservative mags, making him the recipient of both nepotism and welfare) made a bet with Juan Cole that went as follows:

Anyway, I do think my judgment is superior to his when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now). This way neither of us can hide behind clever word play or CV reading. If there's another reasonable wager Cole wants to offer which would measure our judgment, I'm all ears. Money where your mouth is, doc.

One caveat: Because I don't think it's right to bet on such serious matters for personal gain, if I win, I'll donate the money to the USO. He can give it to the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or whatever his favorite charity is.

Ha, ha, liberals are terrorists!

Well, yesterday the bill came due, and clearly Goldberg lost the bet. Iraq is in civil war, the constitution is doing nothing for security or political reconciliation and is a worthless document, and the majority of Americans and Iraqis believe the war was a mistake. Goldberg kind of admitted this, but claimed that because Cole never took the bet, as he found the notion of wagering on human lives revolting, he doesn't have to pay up.

As a matter of intellectual honesty, I'm perfectly willing to admit that, had Cole had the courage to accept the wager, he would have won and I would have made good on it. But, since he didn't, I won't be jumping through hoops for this crowd beyond this post.

It's intellectually honest to admit that he lost the bet, but dishonest not to admit that his judgment on Middle East matters, which was the entire point of his bet, pales in comparison to Juan Cole's. In fact, he's yet to admit that.

So Goldberg got a good thrashing in the blogosphere. But then Nitpicker made the best decision of this entire affair; he decided he'd get a group to COVER JONAH'S BET. And he did.

Here's the list of the people who've covered Jonah's bet:

David Rees
Matt Ortega
Charles Kuffner
Christopher Dumler
TRex
Sean-Paul Kelley
Jesus' General
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga
Adam Bonin
Tom Tomorrow
Ian Welsh
Stephanie Taylor
Hoffmania
Taylor Marsh
Robin Marty
David Neiwert
Walter Ludwig

And there are others, some who asked not to be named and some who said they simply could not bring themselves to post "in honor of" Jonah. I'll post others as they come in, but it should suffice to say that far more than $1000 was raised.

It's a good cause and I hope you consider donating more to the USO. It really is a great boon to service members and their families.

So Goldberg comes out of this looking like a fool, a cheapskate, out of his depth on matters of foreign policy AND a petulant whiner, giving him the perfect resume to continue his career as an LA Times columnist. Meanwhile Nitpicker and the aforementioned bloggers look like people who are smart, classy and generous.

This is the entire division between right and left, at least on the blogs, in microcosm. I'm glad to be on the side I'm on.