We Don't Even Have A Partner To Receive Aid

As a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine of war go down, the Administration and Congress has talked of a "civilian surge" in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, providing more non-military and development aid to both countries. This was realized in the Kerry-Lugar bill, which gave $7.5 billion in aid over 5 years to Pakistan. It was one of Joe Biden's old bills that they repurposed, and would give an opportunity for the US to help Pakistanis out of grinding poverty and achieve some goodwill with them.

And Pakistan went apeshit:

The Obama administration's strategy for bolstering Pakistan's civilian government was shaken Wednesday when political opposition and military leaders there sharply criticized a new U.S. assistance plan as interfering with the country's sovereignty.

Although President Obama has praised the $7.5 billion, five-year aid program -- approved by Congress last week -- Pakistani officials have objected to provisions that require U.S. monitoring of everything from how they spend the money to the way the military promotes senior officers.

Their criticism threatens to complicate the administration's efforts in the region, where Pakistan's assistance is seen as crucial to the war in Afghanistan.

"Obviously, it demonstrates we've still got work to do," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said of the Pakistani criticism.

Kerry and Lugar tried to push back by calling out some myths being put forward by the Pakistanis. For example:

MYTH: The $7.5 billion (Rs. 62, 500 crores) authorized by the bill comes with strings attached for the people of Pakistan.

FACT: There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to these funds.

The $7.5 billion (Rs. 62,500 crore) authorized is all for non-military aid. These funds are unconditioned— they are a pledge of U.S. friendship to the Pakistani people. There are strict measures of financial accountability on these funds that Congress is imposing on the U.S. executive branch—not the Pakistani government, to make sure the money is being spent properly and for the purposes intended. Such accountability measures have been welcomed by Pakistani commentators to ensure that funds meant for schools, roads and clinics actually reach the Pakistani people and are not wasted.

MYTH: The bill impinges on Pakistan’s sovereignty.

FACT: Nothing in the bill threatens Pakistani sovereignty. Period.

This bill is an extended hand of friendship, from the people of America to the people of Pakistan. It will fund schools, roads, energy infrastructure, and medical clinics. Even when Americans are going through a deep recession and tough economic times, the United States is pledging $7.5 billion (Rs. 62,500 crore) as a long-term commitment to Pakistan. Those seeking to undermine this partnership, to advance their own narrow partisan or institutional agendas, are doing a serious disservice to the people of the United States and of Pakistan.

But this isn't going to be good enough. The real problem here is that the Pakistani people HATE the Americans, and any effort to infringe on their sovereignty will be met with this kind of anger, whether true or false. There are many in Pakistan who would probably want to be left alone rather than be given aid as a fig leaf for the destruction and death in the region. And disapproval of this package probably equals popular support across much of the country. In particular, the Pakistani army is angered by this, I would guess because so much of it is non-military aid, and they control a lot of the economy there. And remember, the Pakistani army and Pakistani intelligence is intimately linked to insurgent forces of the kind who may have blown up the Indian Embassy in Kabul, just like they did a year ago.

If we can't give money to Pakistan without an international incident, it says quite a lot about our prospects for controlling outcomes in the region.

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.

What A Leader

John Boehner, last seen crying on the House floor for no good reason, thinks that OTHER people are wimps:

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) called for comity Wednesday during a meeting of the Republican Conference after House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) referred to Senate colleagues who have begun to favor a change in course in Iraq as "wimps."

Wilson declined to comment directly on what Boehner had said during the closed-door meeting, but she noted that "Senator [Richard] Lugar’s (R-Ind.) speech was one of the more thoughtful speeches [she had heard] in the Senate in a long time."

The lawmaker added that the war and the thoughts of her colleagues about the conflict "should always be taken seriously."

See, some things are more important than American kids dying. Like not being a wimp.

Fucking 6th-graders run our country.

Small Glimmers of Hope

In the aftermath of the outrage of the Libby disgrace, there does appear to be a small turnaround in American Iraq policy being negotiated, and this time, it is the White House that is arguing from a position of weakness.

Gates made headlines during a trip to Hawaii a month ago when he called a decades-long U.S. troop presence in Iraq "a great idea." Now, reports the Wall Street Journal, Gates figures the path to Congressional assent for an enduring, South Korea-style stay in Iraq is to come up with near-term troop reductions. It's basically a trade-off: cut the surge short in order to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

In and of itself, this is a terrible idea. Our troops in Iraq permanently would have essentially no mission and would be exposed to a far more chaotic situation than South Korea ever was. Furthermore, the manpower strain on the Army is such that they can't keep up this surge anyway without a draft, and the troops will be drawn down by next spring all by themselves, so why would Congress give up something additional (permanent bases) for something due to happen by default?

But let's look at the big picture. Obviously, support for the war is really cratering on Capitol Hill, and at least the Secretary of Defense understands that. Richard Lugar's call for a drawdown, along similar lines as Gates actually, is a signal that Republicans who want there to be a party for them in this next generation are coalescing around a pullback of troops. And with Gates going hat in hand to Congress to argue for a permanent presence, he's clearly accepting the reality of what's happening in Iraq and trying to salvage something out of it. Whether he has backing in the White House is unclear. But this is a very high-level official in the White House admitting that the surge is essentially doomed. That's important.

Gates is also continuing to push to close Gitmo and change the entire system for trying detainees, before the judicial system, which has agreed to hear a challenge to the Military Commissions Act, changes it for them.

Essentially, the administration would propose legislation that would result in dividing the estimated 375 Guantánamo detainees into three legal categories. The one that would call for legislative action would include detainees like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 2001 attacks, and others whose trials would risk exposing intelligence operations. This group, estimated at two dozen to 50, would be placed indefinitely in military brigs on American soil.

A second group would also be moved to the United States, most likely to face trial in military courts, but perhaps with more legal guarantees than in the current military tribunal system.

The third, and largest, group would consist of detainees to be released to their home countries.

This would still be unacceptable to me, as there would still be an element of denying habeas corpus and indefinite detention without charges involved. It's still worth pursuing because Guantanamo's elimination would send a message of change to the world, and like in the Iraq negotiations, the White House is in the weak position, knowing that Gitmo must go and trying to figure out an acceptable alternative.

This all possibly runs into a brick wall once Fourthbranch gets his mitts on it, but Democrats who want to end our involvement in Iraq and restore Constitutional rights have an opportunity to drive the debate here if they want it.

UPDATE: Arlen Specter gives another line of attack.

Frustrated by the Bush administration’s continued use of presidential signing statements to challenge or ignore provisions of Congressionally approved legislation, Senate Judiciary ranking member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has reintroduced legislation to rein in President Bush’s ability to use the tactic.

Specter, who has long been a critic of Bush’s use of signing statements, quietly introduced his Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007 on Friday.

“The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like,” Specter said in a floor statement.

If the Democrats in Congress can't stand up for their own lawmaking powers, they really should pack it up and go home.

I Know What'll Stop Bush! A Nonbinding Resolution!

Sorry, fellas, but Dick Lugar is not prepared to do a damn thing to stop the occupation of Iraq. You know what he favored in an interview on NPR today? MORE NONBINDING RESOLUTIONS. Really.

Given what you said, the next time there is an opportunity for you to vote on the war, would you be a vote against the war?

I'm not going to have a vote for or against the war, at least I don't conceive of how this would occur. Most likely debate will occur once again when we take up money for the troops, for the prosecution of Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. I think the majority of the Senate, regardless of how they feel about the prosecution of the war, are not about to cut off funds that would jeopardize our troops in any way. That will be probably an overlying proposition.

Which sounds like you're saying that this is not going to change your vote.

Not with regard to support of the troops. I'm going to vote for the authorization and the appropriations. But there are many, many ways in which the Congress ultimately can influence even the president with regard to this war and we'll have to think through the most appropriate one.

Give me one — before we let you go — one thing that Congress can do.

Well, Congress could offer at minimum Sense of the Senate resolutions. They do not have the effect of law, but they clearly indicate how the country feels through its representatives. And that we really have not come to do simply because we have not really wanted to be ambiguous as a nation with regard to our foreign policy.

So why again is this guy getting lauded on talk shows and even liberal websites for "breaking with Bush"? He wants to do a bunch of Sense of the Senate resolutions, and he really and truly believes that the President and Fourthbranch care about public opinion:

If the president does not see things your way and continues on the same course, should the Senate and Congress in general force him to change?

I'm not certain how that occurs. I would just say that at some stage it will become apparent that the lack of support for the president not only in the Congress but with the public would command such a change. Even the president will understand that.

What an ignorant man. I mean ignorant in the sense that he's completely unaware of how Washington has worked the past 6 1/2 years, even while LIVING AND WORKING IN WASHINGTON. Dick Lugar is not going to lift a finger to bring any troops home. I suspect George Voinovich is the same way. They're still wedded to the "support the troops" nonsense and don't understand that defunding the war does not equal defunding the troops.

If this is the way they're talking now, whatever artificial happy talk comes from the guy that reported artificial happy talk back in 2004, David Petraeus, will even make them weaker on the issue. Face it, guys like Lugar and Warner and Voinovich are mush who have been rolled for years by BushCo. It's not changing anytime soon.

And Now Voinovich

They can talk about bringing troops home or they can do something about it. If they do the latter, I'll welcome them to the mainstream of American debate. If not, they are enabling a failed occupation, which is resulting in longer and more deadly combat tours for our men and women, who aren't even finding anybody when they want to fight.

Huh. I guess, maybe, insurgents run away from superior firepower:

The operational commander of troops battling to drive fighters with Al Qaeda from Baquba said Friday that 80 percent of the top Qaeda leaders in the city fled before the American-led offensive began earlier this week. He compared their flight with the escape of Qaeda leaders from Falluja ahead of an American offensive that recaptured that city in 2004.

In an otherwise upbeat assessment, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking American commander in Iraq, told reporters that leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia had been alerted to the Baquba offensive by widespread public discussion of the American plan to clear the city before the attack began. He portrayed the Qaeda leaders’ escape as cowardice, saying that "when the fight comes, they leave," abandoning "midlevel" Qaeda leaders and fighters to face the might of American troops — just, he said, as they did in Falluja.

Wow. Who could have predicted that? And while the challenge to Al-Qaeda's manhood is charming in a fourteenth century kind of way, I seriously doubt that the insurgent leadership is as stupid as, say, Right Blogistan or the braintrust of the Bush administration. Indeed, the idea that fleeing superior numbers, firepower, and technology is somehow "unmanly" is rather quaint; I suspect that insurgents would be happy enough if we threw down our tanks, cruise missiles, fighter jets, and armored personal carriers and settled this dispute by Marquess of Queensbury rules.

This is the stupid, "I'm more manly than you" logic which is getting people killed in Iraq. Including those sheikhs we're ballyhooing for "turning on Al Qaeda." Well, that just got them killed. And by the way, not every single enemy fighter we face in Iraq is Al Qaeda. This is an oversimplification of a very complex conflict that, again, people like Dick Lugar and George Voinovich have enabled.

So what's it going to be, Senators? Talk? Or action? (and does this mean the September strategy favored by the Administration is finally dead?)

Lugar Off The Reservation?

It certainly seems like the Senator from Indiana is done with this war, although if you read what he actually said, he's calling for vaguely "downsizing" the American presence in Iraq, which is a lot different than eliminating it. And he's talking up some kind of magic "third way" beyond the polarized debate which, if he actually articulated it, is probably the default position of most of the Democrats running for President. And there's also this:

Lugar's spokesman Andy Fisher said the senator wanted to express his concerns publicly before Bush reviews his Iraq strategy in September.

"They've known his position on this for quite a while," Fisher said of the White House.

However, Fisher said the speech does not mean Lugar would switch his vote on the war or embrace Democratic measures setting a deadline for troop withdrawals.

Another Hagel clone here, making pretty talk but then getting in lone to vote with his cronies. I suspect this is a plea to draw more attention to himself and get called for the Sunday talk shows. Lugar can show me his vote, and maybe I'll change my mind.