World Report

This has been a long time coming.

• Gaza: Gazans are quickly rebuilding the smuggling tunnels, making one wonder why 1,300 Palestinians had to die in what amounts to a large war crime, for no strategic gains. This of course hurts the chances for peace from Israel's perspective as well, as Bibi Netanyahu can demagogue that the current leaders "didn't finish the job" in Gaza, and as Prime Minister, he would. It's a sad pattern that wars embarked upon by "liberal" Israeli politicians do nothing but strengthen the hand of neoconservatives. I find the American engagement into the peace process promising, but without any partners, its success will be limited.

• Zimbabwe: Yet another failure to form a unity government while the countryside suffers from hyper-inflation and cholera attacks. Mugabe simply won't give up power, and the long-term crisis under his rule have to be a factor in the other nations in the region forcing his removal. I can't see how he stays on. There's a Southern African Development Conference summit this week - the other nations have a responsibility to the Zimbabwean people, let's see if they commit to it.

• Iraq: I have no idea what Ryan Crocker thinks he's accomplishing with this statement, warning against an "abrupt troop withdrawal" while simultaneously assuring everyone that Obama isn't doing that. Thanks, Ambassador, for boldly warning against the impact of a non-existent takeover of the government from a non-existent liberal hippie brigade calling for a non-existent immediate airlift of every US soldier. God, these guys are incompetent.

• Somalia: Nobody could have predicted that, when the Ethiopians invaded Somalia, they would soon pull out and leave the country to the same Islamists they went in to "vanquish." I hope the new Administration learns that you work for peace with the elements in a country who can actually enforce it. Creating "transitional authorities" never works.

• China: Man, the Chinese authorities don't mess around when their corporate executives screw up, do they? The death penalty for the head of the dairy implicated in the tainted milk scandal? Ouch.

• Congo: This is very good news in the bloodiest conflict in the world (also the bloodiest one you never hear about):

It seems the government of Rwanda cut a deal with the government of Congo to form an agreement to crack down on Hutu militias the Rwandans don’t like and have Rwanda turn on its proxy, the rebel leader Laurent Nkunda who Rwanda used to fight the Hutus but who’d been making all sorts of trouble and attempting, as Rwanda-backed rebels in Congo tend to, to overthrow the central government.

This is generally seen as an unexpected but positive move. Among African nations who are weary of war, perhaps Congo is the weariest.

• Sri Lanka: It looks like the Sri Lankan army is going to wrap up a successful counter-insurgency, now seizing Tamil Tiger strongholds and breaking the back of the rebels. Somebody should pay a visit to Colombo and find out how they did it. Hopefully the civilian casualties in this long-running war will stop.

Rob Andrews Ate His Wheaties

I'm following the Petraeus/Crocker hearings, and some of the liveblogging at Democracy Arsenal and The Washington Independent. So far, it's basically a rerun of yesterday. But Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) took a very strong line of questioning on the issue of political reconciliation that I thought was noteworthy. He was the first member of Congress that I've seen specifically state that the de-Baathification law as implemented bars top Baath Party members from key posts like the Defense and Interior Ministries, and doesn't do much de-Baathifying at all. Ryan Crocker tried to wiggle out of it by saying these were only top-level members being barred, but Andrews countered that those are precisely the kind of people, with actual expertise and knowledge, that you need back in the government. Crocker meekly said that the law "was done in the spirit of reconciliation," but the implementation shows that to be completely false. Andrews added that there had been no movement on an oil law, and that provincial elections haven't actually been fully passed as well. In fact the political progress is meager, and some of the laws which are being pointed to as "progress" actually harm reconciliation. In a particularly strong moment, Andrews said "The world didn't begin in September... as far as the American people are concerned this has been going on since April 2003," and it's not acceptable to have such little progress over those five years.

It should be noted that Andrews, who hasn't been entirely progressive on the war, is challenging Frank Lautenberg for the US Senate in New Jersey, and surely is trying to present his progressive bona fides by giving these tough questions on the war. But the points need to be made, that the "political reconciliation" being floated by the Administration and their spinners is the result of a bait-and-switch, where the initial progress on lawmaking is foregrounded and the eventual breakdown or negative consequences is backgrounded.

UPDATE: I should also mention Ellen Tauscher's question to Gen. Petraeus, asking him what he would do if his new commander-in-chief advocated for withdrawal, and he couldn't bring himself to say he would comply with those orders! He does "believe in civilian control of the military," in teh abstract however, so at least that's SOMETHING.

Frozen in Amber

Today the House gets its chance to question David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, and if the Senate hearings are a guide, the overwhelming emotion will be frustration with a policy frozen in amber and destined to be punted to the next President.

"A year ago, the president said we couldn't withdraw because there was too much violence," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "Now he says we can't afford to withdraw because violence is down." Asked Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.): "Where do we go from here?"

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said: "I think people want a sense of what the end is going to look like."

But the bottom line was that there was no bottom line. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker echoed what they said seven months ago in their last update to Congress -- often using similar words. Iraq's armed forces continue to improve, overall levels of violence are lower than they were last year, and political reconciliation is happening, albeit still more slowly than they would like.

"Iraq is hard, and reconciliation is hard," Crocker said in September. Yesterday, he added: "Almost everything about Iraq is hard."

In eight hours of testimony, the two men danced around the question of what constitutes success in Iraq. "As I've explained, again, from a military perspective," Petraeus said wearily as the day drew to a close, ". . . what we want to do is to look at conditions and determine where it is without taking undue risks. This is all about risk."

Seven months since the previous assessment, the general and the ambassador, standing in for George Bush and Dick Cheney, had nothing to offer the Senate, no glimmers of hope, really nothing other than a belief that the future is completely unknowable except that we know there'd be chaos if we leave. For a policy so important to our future, on an economic level and on a national security level, a policy we're shoving so much into to apparently get a chaotic muddle as a reward, this is unacceptable.

George Voinovich (R-OH) had the most honest take, and while I'm not sure he's willing to do anything about it, he definitely was able to add a touch of anger to the proceedings.

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) said that, because of the Iraq war, “we’re at a point where we’re really strained and stressed out.” “I hate to agree with Sen. Feingold,” he added, “but I think Osama bin Laden is sitting back right now looking at this thing [and saying] in effect, ‘We’re kinda bankrupting this country.’ We are eating our seed corn. We’ve got some really big problems today, and we are in a recession, and God only knows how long we’re gonna be in it.” [...] Voinovich argued that the course in Iraq should consist of the U.S. telling its Middle East allies, “Hey guys, we’re on our way out.” We need “a surge in diplomacy,” he added. “The American people have had it up to here.”

Ultimately, this is how things are going to stay. The American people will continue to have it up to here, and the policymakers in the White House won't give a damn, and the only expression of this frustration will occur on November 4. Beyond the personalities involved and the bullshit minutiae sure to be hyped in the broadcast media, that's the only choice that matters on Election Day; Iraq frozen in amber, or a long-awaited change.

UPDATE: The House Armed Services Committee hearing can be found here.

Joe Biden Just Obliterated Every Administration Argument About Iraq

That was a very significant moment at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings with Amb. Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus. Joe Biden asked Amb. Crocker where it would be better for American national security interests to eliminate Al Qaeda in Iraq or Al Qaeda along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Crocker had nowhere to hide with that question. Spencer Ackerman describes the outcome.

Crocker, in an impossible political position -- give the correct answer and humiliate the Bush administration; give the administration's answer and look like a fool -- dodged as much as he could. Then Biden forced him down. Crocker: "I would therefore pick Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

Game over.

Every single argument that the Administration and their lapdogs like John McCain have made or are making break down after that answer. The Ambassdor to Iraq just admitted that Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror. He just admitted that the potential for Al Qaeda to gain a beachhead in Iraq should the United States withdraw is miniscule compared to the already-established beachhead along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. He admitted that the global fight against terror is currently misdirected.

Whether the military is lowering casualties in Iraq or not, or whether political reconciliation is occurring or not, or whether Prime Minister Maliki won in Basra or Muqtada al-Sadr did, none of this is germane given the new information we just received here. We invaded Iraq to attack a group that did not attack us on 9-11, and we are continuing in Iraq and continuing to ignore the group that did attack us. So our policy is being held captive to developments inside Iraq while the terrorist threat that was supposed to be the impetus for this war and occupation in the first place goes on literally unabated.

(Biden's other great achievement was his strong statement that Congressional PERMISSION is needed to make any long-term commitment to Iraq. There were actually cheers in the hearing room after that one.)

You can actually end this hearing right now. We have all the information we need. Joe Biden made the entire Administration policy for 6 years look foolish. If deployed right by the Democrats, this election is over, too.

UPDATE: It should be noted that Amb. Crocker ought to know what he's talking about - one of his prior posts in the foreign service was in Pakistan.

UPDATE II: Russ Feingold is hitting on this as well, talking about Al Qaeda's presence in the safe haven in the FATA region in Pakistan. And he asked THE SAME QUESTION to Crocker... who's basically saying that he has to look at the Iraq perspective because that's his job. Petraeus is retreating into Zawahiri's statements about Iraq being the central front in the war against terror (we should absolutely listen to Zawahiri because he really has American interests at heart), but Feingold is hammering him, and Petraeus basically admitted that there's a safe haven for Al Qaeda in Pakistan. So now BOTH Crocker and Petraeus have admitted that we're focusing on the exact wrong issue.

UPDATE III: We've got video:

SEN. BIDEN: Mr. Ambassador, is Al Qaeda a greater threat to US interests in Iraq, or in the Afghan-Pakistan border region?

AMB. CROCKER: Mr. Chairman, Al Qaeda is a strategic threat to the United States wherever it is, in my view–

SEN. BIDEN: Where is most of it? If you could take it out? You had a choice: Lord almighty came down and sat in the middle of the tabel there and said mr ambassadro you can elimibnate every AQ source in afghanistan and pak, or every aq personell in Iraq, which would you pick?

AMB. CROCKER: Well given the progress that has been made again Al Qaeda in Iraq, the significant decrease in its capabilities, the fact that it is solidly on the defensive, and not in a position of–

SEN. BIDEN: Which would you pick, Mr. Ambassador?

AMB. CROCKER: I would therefore pick Al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.

SEN BIDEN: That would be a smart choice.

UPDATE IV: George Voinovich was very impressive; I'll try to find a transcript. Obama is up right now. He's getting right on to asking questions instead of making a speech. He corners Petraeus about Al Qaeda in Iraq, saying they weren't in there before we invaded. And he's asking whether we can ever reach a point where AQI couldn't reconstitute themselves. He's trying to pin down Petraeus on some metrics. This seems like a windup for a big pitch. I LOVE that he mentioned that Maliki said there was no room in the security forces for the Sunni Awakening groups and yet he recently added 10,000 Shiite Badr Brigade members, and he's picked up on Sen. Boxer's point that the Iraqi government is as pro-Iranian as the "special groups" that Crocker claims is the source of all Iraq's problems. I think Obama's remarks reflect a facility with the situation on the ground and a reasonable expectation of the goals we can expect in Iraq when we eventually withdraw. Best of all, Obama is doing his job instead of grandstanding. He added that the two malign groups Crocker and Petraeus keep discussing, AQI and Iran, were a DIRECT result of our initial invasion. He did an excellent job.

Democrats Fight At The Iraq Hearings

As the Petraeus/Crocker hearings shift to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden is doing a great job, hammering the President's non-strategy on Iraq and the costs to prestige, operational capacity, the fight against terrorism, lives and treasure. Actually, several Democrats have had fine performances today, and I wanted to highlight some of them from the Armed Services Committee session.

• Bill Nelson (D-FL) gets at the heart of the "political reconciliation" question, hitting the familiar tactic that we've seen by the Administration of highlighting initial votes passing pieces of legislation without mentioning that they never get signed into law or implemented. Worse, laws like the de-Baathification statute are being used to target Sunnis and increase sectarian tensions.

"It is with a great deal of respect and deference to you," Nelson said, that he pressed the issue: the point of the surge was to create political reconciliation. "Has political reconciliation happened?"

Petraeus: "As the Ambassador laid out, there has been agreement among different political parties on a number of pieces of important reconciliation laws, if you will, that represent reconciliation... [laws on] de-Ba'athification, a provincial powers law, a pensions reform bill..."

But have the laws been implemented?

Petraeus: I believe the pensions law is in the process of being implemented. De-Ba'athification --"

Nelson wondered: To the extent of bringing about political reconciliation "that is the goal in the first place?"

Petraeus kicked it over to Crocker.

This is a common "kick-the-can" tactic to prove some sort of ephemeral success of the surge, and I'm glad Nelson called it out.

• Claire McCaskill (D-MO) bluntly stated that Sadr won the battle for Basra, which is obviously true despite Ryan Crocker's spinning. This was buttressed by today's events, as the religious leadership in the country lined up behind Sadr, which is a complete thumb in the eye of Maliki and his call for the Mahdi Army to be disbanded.

• Evan Byah (D-IN) - yes, Evan frickin' Bayh - did a nice job of discussing the intelligence community's assessment that our presence in Iraq is actually creating more terrorists than we are defeating there. And there was this great moment:

He also wins huge plaudits from me for mentioning, in response to something Ambassador Crocker said, that "I would only caution us not to take our marching orders from Osama bin Laden."

Exactly so. It's really lunatic of hawks to keep citing OBL's desire to fight us in Iraq as a reason for us to fight him in Iraq. He likes the fight in Iraq because it's favorable terrain for his cause and his propaganda and lets him pose as the defender of the Arab world against American domination. They're suggesting we act like bulls running at the toreador's cape.

• I mentioned Jack Reed's (D-RI) questioning before, but he pressed Ambassador Crocker on a central point - that Iran is supporting all kinds of groups in Iraq, not just those "special groups" but also our "friends" in Maliki's Army like the Badr Brigade and the Dawa Party.

• Jim Webb noted as a side comment that the Anbar Awakening began well before the surge. That's something that always gets lost.

• Even Huckleberry Graham missed a layup, asking Gen. Petraeus if we could get a brigade a month out of Iraq, expecting the answer no, and Petraeus replied "It clearly would depend on the conditions at that time... that might be doable." Whoops.

I don't expect that these key facets of the crumbling of the Bush Iraq strategy will get much notice - that Petraeus and Crocker have to answer these questions instead of the policymaker-in-chief ensures that he is shielded from the consequences of his actions. But it's important to note that many Democrats are fighting to get out the truth about Iraq, and to change the debate from whether or not "we're winning" and whether our continued presence in Iraq makes sense for our economic and national security.

Speechifying

C-SPAN cut away fro their live coverage of the Petraeus/Crocker hearings and I couldn't seem to find it until Hillary Clinton's questioning had ended, so I missed it. But judging from the liveblogs it appears that I didn't miss many actual QUESTIONS. She kind of gave a stump speech about how the goals of the surge haven't been met and how our operational readiness around the globe has been diminished. Which is true enough, but really misses the opportunity before her. Clinton could have said that at any campaign stop - she had Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in front of her and the unique ability to ask pointed questions challenging their statements. She chose not to do so to a great extent, and it's a familiar tactic from members of the Senate to talk their time away instead of doing their jobs, but it was particularly a mistake in the case of these Presidential candidates. Sen. McCain had an advantage that others did not, being the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and able to make a statement before testimony. He spent his question time asking questions for the most part, so much so that he forgot to fearmonger on Iran. (He also screwed up Shi'a and Sunni yet again). But that doesn't mean that Sen. Clinton needed to offset McCain's speech with her own.

When she did ask a question, she certainly asked a good one, about the status of forces agreeement that is being created in secret, largely without Congressional input.

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.

The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force.

Ambassador Crocker tried to assure that Congress will be briefed on the SOFA agreement, and that they will have a vague and undefined amount of input. This is wrong. The SOFA agreement is essentially a long-term treaty that will absolutely tie the hands of the next President, and Congress must intervene to ensure that such an agreement is not signed. I wish Clinton did more of this kind of questioning than speechifying.

Lieberman, Crazed Warmonger

Joe Lieberman is living in a different universe. He is demanding that everyone recognize his progress pony at a time when violence is actually up. And to the extent that he admits that Iraq is not Shangri-La, it's all the fault of those Iranian "special groups" who are just ruining everything. You can almost see Crocker and Petraeus backing away from their chairs and trying to get out of the room with the crazy guy.

Lieberman is finished as a candidate for office in Connecticut. His re-elect number is 38. He has no future in the Democratic Party and the clock is ticking on his time in the Senate. His only chance for a future political career is to hitch himself to John W. McCain's wagon and ride it into a potential Cabinet position. That, and he's a confused and small armchair warrior. So his rhetoric has to be even bolder and further to the right than even McCain's, who actually ran out of time to warmonger on Iran and had to throw it in at the end as a footnote.

Lieberman's lies and omissions disgrace our soldiers and put them at unnecessary risk. His hard-on for war in Iran, which is beloved by the Iraqi government that we're defending, undermines the security of our troops and the entire world.

...Jack Reed is extremely pointed: "Do you think the Mahdi Army would disband?" Of course the answer is no, and Petraeus was forced to stammer. Maliki's demand that JAM disband is going to lead to extreme violence if he doesn't back down. "This is less an employment problem than an existential problem for one or the other." Reed is actually very knowledgeable and not letting Petraeus get away with his spin. "Basra illustrated the ultimate conflict between Sadr, Maiki and the government... they tried to solve it militarily but they failed. That conflict, the existential conflict, still exists, and we'll be caught up on it, either on the sidelines on in the thick of things."

...Matt Yglesias flags Lieberman's lowest moment, when he claims that the Iraqi government's progress is more sustained that the American government's progress. This is completely absurd, unless there are daily mortar attacks inside the Capitol Dome that I'm not aware of.

The Petraeus/Crocker Hearings: Armed Services

Max Bergmann and Ilan Goldenberg are liveblogging the Petraeus-Crocker hearings. Apparently I missed St. Maverick McCain's opening statement (he's the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee) and A Man Called Petraeus' opening statement. Ambassador Ryan Crocker is speaking now. Apparently Petraeus talked about largely peripheral issues like Al Qaeda in Iraq and this new boogeyman, Iranian "special groups," which were apparently responsible for all the violence in Basra. Except:

Q Hi. This is Courtney Kube from NBC again. Late last year, General Pace mentioned that -- before he left as chairman, mentioned that there was evidence that Iran had provided some weapons, munitions in Afghanistan. Have you seen any evidence of that in the past few months? Can you update us on any developments there?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: No, there's not been any military significant aid that we've seen in the last couple months. Earlier, there had been a couple of things that had come across, and again, whether that could be linked to any coordinated effort by any governments was not able to be determined. But that has not happened in the last couple of months, and it's been militarily insignificant overall.

Focusing on Iran and AQI instead of the larger problems in Iraq is completely myopic. Intra-Shiite tensions are on the rise Shiites are fleeing Baghdad, and the Mahdi Army cease-fire which has been the cause of much of the security gains in the country is in danger of dissolution. Iran is probably more entwined with the Iraqi security forces themselves than any "special groups," anyway. And the Sunni-Shiite civil war, exacerbated by Maliki's hiring of 10,000 Badr Brigade members when he told Sunni Awakening groups there were no jobs. Sectarian violence and conflict is the problem in Iraq, so Petraeus and Crocker are answering different questions.

The question and answer period should be interesting. Obviously you have every Presidential candidate among those doing the asking. But the key question will be whether the Democrats buy into the Petraeus frame of whether or not we're "winning" or if they step outside that frame and ask the key questions of whether our presence there makes America safer. Tom Dispatch puts this best.

When it comes to Iraq, though, the Bush administration's cakewalks never seem to turn out as planned. The renewed violence of these last weeks in Iraq, and the prospect of more to come, gives war critics ample ammunition for a counterattack. The Democrats, including Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, may find it irresistible to assault the general, and the President, with every argument they can muster in the hearings this week. However, a recent report suggests they may resist that impulse and treat the impact of the surge as an irrelevant issue.

Let's hope that report is right, because a debate focused on military success or failure is a trap, with Petraeus's testimony as the bait. After all, no debate in Congress will really be about the level of violence in Iraq. "Has the surge worked?" is just a symbolic way of asking: "Would you rather believe that America is a winner or a loser?" And in any battle over patriotic symbolism, the Republicans always seem to have the bigger guns.

So the Democrats would be smart to refuse the bait and insist that this is not an old-fashioned World War II- style conflict, where force can produce a clear-cut winner. Then they could refocus the debate on two crucial truths: We have no right to be in Iraq; the sooner we get out, the sooner we can begin to heal the terrible damage the war has done to us here at home.

Some of the best questions I've seen have come from some of our Democratic Congressional challengers. They could give someone like Carl Levin some pointers, although he just KILLED Gen. Petraeus on Basra, getting him to admit that it was inadequately planned, and therefore Levin railed that it was "unacceptable" to have American forces involved.

A protestor yelling out "bring them home" was applauded in the hearing room as he was escorted out. Cokie Roberts told me Americans want to win, though, so that must have just been some hippie.

Badges? We Don't Need No Stinking Badges!

As I mentioned yesterday, there's no guarantee that Blackwater will actually leave Iraq, no matter what the Iraqi government says.

However, it's unclear how the Interior Ministry would expel Blackwater. Unlike other private U.S. security firms in Iraq, as of May, Blackwater hadn't registered with the Iraqi government to operate in Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Authority -- the now-defunct occupational government -- issued a decree in 2004 (pdf) immunizing security contractors from Iraqi prosecution and placing their operations under the jurisdiction of U.S. authorities.

Blackwater, one of many security firms safeguarding U.S. personnel in Iraq, has an estimated 1,000 employees operating in the country, and Iraq-related contracts with the State Department worth over $100 million. Official estimates place between 20,000 and 30,000 private security contractors in Iraq -- the equivalent of about six U.S. Army brigades. Their operations are controversial in and outside Iraq: in May, the company was involved in two firefights in as many days in eastern Baghdad, right on the doorstep of an incensed Interior Ministry. One of the incidents began after an Iraqi driver drove too closely to a Blackwater convoy, resulting in the contractors killing the driver after attempting, unsuccessfully, to wave him away.

In Congressional testimony last week, Ambassador Ryan Crocker praised private security firms working in Iraq. He is unlikely to allow the Interior Ministry to expel Blackwater without a fight: not only is Blackwater a contractor with the U.S. government, its personnel and those of its rival rival firms keep Crocker and many of his colleagues alive. Expect the ministry's decision to spark a serious diplomatic row between the U.S. and the Iraqi government, which will be under public pressure to demonstrate that it's holding the firm accountable.

Condi Rice is already racing to apologize and cajole the Iraqis into "allowing Blackwater to stay" - in other words, making sure they know they don't have the jurisdiction to make them leave. I said yesterday that the best thing the Bush Administration could do for stability in Iraq would be to compel Blackwater to leave. But it won't happen - they simply can't afford to replace them with military forces, and giving new contracts out would damage relationships (and I don't see Iraq being pacificed by new mercenaries instead of old ones).

UPDATE: Looks like the Iraqi government is taking it a step further.

The Iraqi government said today that it would review the status of all foreign and local security companies working in Iraq after a shooting that left eight Iraqis dead [...]

A spokesman for the Iraqi government, Ali al-Dabbagh, said that the cabinet met today and supported the decision to cancel Blackwater’s license and begin an immediate investigation. The ministry has said that it would prosecute the participants in the shooting, but a law issued by the American occupation authority prior to the return of sovereignty to Iraq in 2004 grants American contractors, along with American military personnel, immunity from Iraqi prosecution.

Mr. Dabbagh said the investigation should “compel the company to respect the Iraqi laws, citizens’ dignity and the results and consequences the investigation would come up with.”The statement by the Iraqi government today seemed to blame Blackwater employees directly for the deaths, calling it a “vicious assault which was carried out by the employees of the American security company” against Iraqi citizens.

Day 2 in the Senate

Today's Senate hearings with Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus have been more interesting political theater. I particularly enjoyed when Russ Feingold boxed in Crocker, who was the US Ambassador to Pakistan before leaving for Iraq, by asking him whether or not the safe haven for Al Qaeda in Waziristan is a bigger problem than Al Qaeda in Iraq. This is an important point in the overall strategy of containing and disrupting terror, which after all was given as a proximate reason to attack Iraq. Given that the former Prime Minister of Pakistan was exiled again by a President who acts like a despot, that democracy is on the brink, and that the safe havens are likely where Osama bin Laden is broadcasting new messages on the anniversary of 9/11, I think that the Pakistan question is FAR more important.

Feingold also noted that American casualties have gone up every single month this year compared to last year. Senator Boxer explained that our role has become that of an occupying force, which General Petraeus himself has explained is not optimal.

"There's a half-life on our role here, you wear out your welcome at some point. It doesn't matter how helpful you are. We aren't here to stay."

Joe Biden gave a stirring speech this morning, reframing the debate.

“General Petraeus, you say the numbers show that violence is decreasing. Others, including the independent Government Accountability Office, have different figures and contrary conclusions.

“This debate misses the point.

“The one thing virtually everyone now agrees, is that there is no purely military solution in Iraq. Lasting stability requires a political settlement among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

“In announcing the surge, President Bush said its primary purpose was just that: to buy time for a political settlement to emerge.

“And so, the most important questions we must ask are these:

Are we any closer to a lasting political settlement in Iraq at the national level today, than we were when the surge began eight months ago?

And, if we continue the surge for another six months, is there any evidence that Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds will stop killing each other and start governing together?

“In my judgment, the answer to both questions is no.

John Kerry rightly knocked down the argument that the "Anbar miracle" has anything to do with reconciliation and not sheikhs taking over control of their own territory and not giving it up to foreign jihadis, which we ALWAYS KNEW they would not allow. They're not interested in reconciliation, whatsoever.

COOPER: And are these -- these tribal groups willing to work with the central government in Baghdad, the Sunni -- the Shia- dominated government, and vice versa? Is -- is the government of al- Maliki willing to work with -- with these Sunni tribes?

WARE: The answer is no on both counts, Anderson.

These guys made it very clear to us on this day and on other days when I have contact with other groups, they are opposed to the Maliki government and any government that they believe is beholden to Iranian influence, a belief shared by many within the U.S. mission. So, these are anti-government forces that America is supporting against the government it created. And, certainly, within the Iraqi government, they believe that this is America building Sunni militias to act as a counterbalance to their influence -- Anderson.

Michael Ware also gets on the record in that report that we're arming the Sunnis in Al Anbar.

This is about buying time. But the Senate Foreign Relations Committee isn't buying it.

UPDATE: Here's Senator Feingold grilling Crocker and Petraeus.

Hardball Does The Post-Petraeus Wrap-Up

Chris Matthews, who's been pretty anti-war for quite a while now, had a doozy of a show tonight, dominated by Democratic veterans (Joe Sestak, Tim Walz, Markos Moulistas, Jon Soltz) who made the case that today's Petraeus testimony failed to make the case that the surge was producing the results it sought when it was put into place - to allow for a political solution. Furthermore, Ryan Crocker said not to expect a political solution in the near future. So we're just putting troops in danger for the vanity of a stubborn man in the White House who doesn't want to lose a war. Furthermore, I'm heartened to see the point made over and over that it is incompatible to say "the surge is working" and "we have to draw down troops next year." If you're winning but haven't yet won, you press the advantage instead of backing up. There are two tracks by which the Iraq war is being fought; the political/military track in Baghdad, and the purely political track at home. Saying "the surge is working AND we can bring some people home within a number of months" is an effort to satisfy swing district Republicans.

But honestly, Matthews is nuts. He saved his most praise for Kos making the obvious point that the military has been continuously claiming that the surge would have to end next year because the military is broken, and so Petraeus appropriating it as a strategy is just ludicrous and shows how politicized the debate has become. Kos deserves praise for saying that, but Matthews' reason for the praise was 1) it's something he said 2 minutes earlier but not as well, and 2) he heard Colin Powell say that one time. Why that should be the reasons for praise is kind of beyond me.

We're in a stalemate in Iraq, with no gains being made at the street level. And whatever we do has no impact on the final outcome, which is likely to be an out-of-control civil war. It's always been the case that war supporters claim the problems are in the past, and NOW we have the right strategy. We've heard that for simply too long to credibly believe it anymore.

Arming The Sunnis

I wondered about this too. General Petraeus has said that we're not arming the Sunni tribes in Iraq to go against Al Qaeda. He says we're just "applauding" them when they do a good job. What he does NOT say is whether or not we're giving these tribes money. Which me most certainly are, and money buys guns. I'm not so sure we're not eliminating the middle man and giving the weapons too. Plus there's this:

Moreover, Petraeus and Crocker are both bragging about Anbar Sunnis joining the local police force and presumably we are arming the local police force and given that Shiite militias in Shiite areas find it easy to infiltrate the local police there, it seems like the new, Sunnified Iraqi local police in Sunni areas are just going to be Sunni insurgent groups, but this time with uniforms.

Just like the Iraqi police force is a Shiite militia, only with uniforms.

Ike Skelton's One Question

Paraphrase:

"It appears to this country lawyer that the leaders of Iraq have been sitting on their thumbs while our men and women have been dying for their security. The surge began in February and the political leaders have done nothing. Why should we expect the next six months to be any different?"

He could broaden that out to the security situation as well. It's the fundamental question. Why one more Friedman Unit, after all of these Friedman units have done practically nothing? Furthermore, if we're making all this progress throughout the country, why are deaths so high and why must we stay?

Crocker really can't answer that question, other than to say "the surge really started in June."

Crock(er)

Ryan Crocker is trying really really hard to find the pony, without much success. He's talking about "provisional de-Baathification" (what the hell does that mean, some Shiite shared an ice cream cone with some former Baathist one time?) and trying to make a parallel between Iraq and the tumultuous gap between our Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

It's clear what's actually happening. The assessment has been made that the political leaders won't be able to come to agreement, and that it's not even desirable if they do. So we're arming absolutely everyone to try and crate some kind of detente between the various ethnic groups. Only mutually assured destruction doesn't quite work as well as a policy between individuals. It's just going to make an inevitable civil war more deadly.

Crocker's talking about the fake agreement between Iraqi political leaders designed to save their own bacon, and this curious idea of bottom-up reconciliation, which again is arming people AGAINST a federal government, not for it.

2. What is the "bottom-up" reconciliation plan for southern and northern Iraq? Because Iraq's national political process is deadlocked, the Bush administration has tried to shift attention towards pockets of increased stability in the western al-Anbar province. This shift not only overlooks the fact that the central goal of the surge was to achieve progress in Iraq's national political process, it also ignores a deteriorating situation in the southern and northern parts of the country.

During the past six months, Iraq's south has seen escalating conflict between rival Shiite militias. In August alone, two governors of southern provinces were assassinated, militia clashes in the holy city of Karbala killed 50 people, and four top aides to the leading Shiite cleric Ayatollah Ali Sistani were murdered. These events are signs that various political groups in Iraq's Shiite ruling coalition are engaged in a deadly struggle for power. Northern Iraq is experiencing conflict between Arabs and Kurds -- much of it centered on the disputed city of Kirkuk. Will the new "bottom-up" reconciliation model address these problems?

Never mind though, because we built a couple sewers! And there's 6% economic growth! 6% of 0=0, by the way.

Guess What?

You're not going to believe this, but President Bush and all his top advisors want to keep troops in Iraq longer. This is really a stunner because everyone was waiting with such apprehension to see what the President would do. Would he call for troops to stay until the end of time, or just the end of his term? It's been agony, all the wondering.

President Bush's senior advisers on Iraq have recommended he stand by his current war strategy, and he is unlikely to order more than a symbolic cut in troops before the end of the year, administration officials told The Associated Press Tuesday.

The recommendations from the military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker come despite independent government findings Tuesday that Baghdad has not met most of the political, military and economic markers set by Congress.

And guess what, military officials aren't buying the GAO report because they don't like what it says the information is, like, so last month.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) said Pentagon officials had told Republican leaders that the GAO had relied on outdated information. Because the agency was told simply to assess whether the benchmarks had been met, the GAO was set up to deliver a negative report, Blunt said. He added that lawmakers were far more interested in the assessment coming next week from Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker [...]

The GAO concluded that all forms of violence remain high in Iraq -- causing senior military officials to complain that the report did not consider statistics for August, when, they said, trends in sectarian violence and the performance of the Iraqi security forces improved.

"They use the end of July as the data and evidentiary cutoff and therefore are not taking into account any gains in any of the benchmarks that may have become more clear throughout August," one official said.

Apparently there was just a rush of political and economic and security progress in August, right around the time that 500 Yazidis were killed in a previously stable area of the country, I'd gather.

Did I mention that the military officials gave no facts to support their argument that they're right and the GAO is wrong?

We see exactly what's going on here. The surge was initially defined as to give breathing space for a political reconciliation. That didn't happen, nor did the surge even curb violence, so the Administration is moving the goalposts and declaring that the surge created "bottom-up reconciliation" which is nothing more than militias and former insurgents arming themselves for the civil struggle to come.

The White House insists that Mr. Bush’s fresh embrace of Sunni leaders simply augments his consistent support of Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

But some of Mr. Bush’s critics regard the change as something far more significant, saying they believe it amounts to a grudging acknowledgment by the White House of something these critics themselves have long asserted — that Iraq will never become the kind of cohesive, unified state that could be a democratic beacon for the Middle East.

“They have come around to the inevitable,” said Peter W. Galbraith, a former American diplomat whose 2006 book, “The End of Iraq,” argued that Mr. Bush was trying to rebuild a nation that never really existed, because Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds had never adopted a common Iraqi identity. “He has finally recognized that fact, and is now trying to work with it,” Mr. Galbraith said Tuesday.

I would argue that he's just looking for anything to prolong the war and save face, so he latched on to the Sunni tribes who will still allow themselves to be seen with him. Indeed, he said, when cameras weren't rolling so it's more credible, that his goal is to force the next President to "stay longer" in Iraq. Keith Olbermann lambasted him for this remark, with good reason.

And there it is, sir. We’ve caught you.

Your goal is not to bring some troops home — maybe — if we let you have your way now;

Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal;

You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.

Be sure to read that whole thing.

So where do we go from here? If the Democrats weren't so consistently weak it would be simple; you shut down funding for this disaster before it's too late. All you have to do is not fund the war, and take the Feingold-Reid option of a date certain after which no money will be spent (it's big news that Kos finally signed on to this, BTW). But whether or not Democrats have the stones to do that is unclear. What's more likely is that something comes out of this...

Rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, are redoubling efforts to find bipartisan cooperation that could pressure the administration to begin bringing troops home. Six House Republicans and five Democrats released a letter yesterday to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio), asking them "to put an end to the political in-fighting over the war in Iraq and allow the House to unite behind a bipartisan strategy to stabilize the country and bring our troops home."

Breaking with the GOP leadership, the Republicans -- Michael N. Castle (Del.), Charlie Dent (Pa.), Phil English (Pa.), Scott Garrett (N.J.), Jim Gerlach (Pa.) and Tom Petri (Wis.) -- said they saw no reason to wait for testimony by Petraeus and Crocker.

"While we are hopeful that their report will show progress, we should not wait any longer to come together in support of a responsible post-surge strategy to safely bring our troops home to their families," the letter said.

...closer to the Lamar Alexander/Ken Salazar "Remember the Iraq Study Group" resolution, which is easily circumvented by the White House and makes everybody feel good for about 10 seconds before they realize it's completely toothless.

Very depressing.

That major reconciliation deal by Iraqi political leaders? Fraud.

At the beginning of this week, Iraqi political leaders announced in a press conference that they had reached a major deal on several of the US-recommended benchmarks for political progress in Iraq. Between the resignation of Fredo and Wide Stance Larry Craig and all the other hoopla that has occurred this week, this event got somewhat ignored. But it would have been a linchpin to the Petraeus-Crocker White House Iraq report scheduled for the middle of next month. Finally, we are starting to see real political progress, a coming together by the Shiite and Sunni and even Kurdish groups to reach solutions on such issues as de-Ba'athification and freeing some Sunni prisoners and more.

Except for one thing... it was a complete shadow play. Total bullshit.

From Baghdad, Charles Crain writes that the first sign that this was not much of a deal was that one of the participants isn't even part of the government, and has no plans to return:

But a day after signing the deal the country's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, announced that the Sunni bloc that walked out of the government August 1 still had no plans to return. "Our previous experience with the government has not been encouraging," he explained, "and we will not go back just because of promises, unless there are real and tangible reforms."

The deal was made between the figureheads at the top of the government and some of the various factions, but not others which are very significant and crucial to any parliamentary success.

And Sunday's deal was more notable for who wasn't involved than who was. The agreement didn't include representatives from the bloc loyal to Shi'ite politician and militia chieftain Moqtada al-Sadr. A senior Western diplomat earlier this month praised Maliki for distancing himself from Sadr, widely viewed as the Shi'ite leader most responsible for sectarian violence, but American officials are well aware that Sadr and his followers cannot simply be marginalized.

The Sadrists are a powerful presence in parliament and in several key government ministries. Their Mahdi Army militia has infiltrated the Iraqi Security Forces. As a practical matter, an agreement to reconcile with former Ba'athists is next to meaningless without Sadr's acquiescence. And the Sadrists weren't absent simply from Sunday's deal. At the moment they are not even part of the government; like their Sunni adversaries they are engaged in a boycott.

So this was a major deal between one piece of the Shiite block, a Sunni politician who isn't even part of the government, and none of the other major factions. As we've seen today, Sadr isn't even totally in control of his own militia, who would certainly be able to veto the move for any Ba'athists trying to reclaim their positions. The Parliament hasn't met in a month, and there's no indication they would actually pass any of these recommendations made by this "panel of leaders" which is emasculated politically. It's a fake document with no staying power.

One of the sharpest commentators on Iraq, Marc Lynch, adds:

Jalal Talabani's emergency summit (last week) produced a political coalition based upon the Maliki 4 - a sectarian four party bloc (the two Kurdish parties, SIIC and Dawa) which prefers to call itself "moderate" (it isn't) or "the majority" (it isn't). A few days ago, the Maliki 4 managed to get Tareq al-Hashimi of the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Tawafuq Bloc to sign on to an agreement which promised movement on some key issues, including Sunni prisoners and an end to deBaathification.

This agreement was likely produced for the sole purpose of giving Ryan Crocker something to bring back to Congress (and is what I expected weeks ago). But it doesn't actually solve anything: Hashemi has made very clear that he has no intention of rejoining Maliki's government, the agreements exist only on paper at this point, and nothing has been done about the deeply sectarian nature of what passes for the Iraqi state.

Hashemi likely agreed to sit up on stage for this kabuki because he's just as constrained by Sunni forces who want something to show for working with Maliki. But when this fails they are just as likely to completely break with the government and no longer even make a show of anything but open warfare.

Ilan Goldenberg has more, and notes that nobody has yet seen this "grand compromise" touted by Maliki and his cadre, probably because it's totally meaningless. Plus:

Back in early July the cabinet (Or should I say half cabinet , since all of the Sunnis as well as the Sadrists were already boycotting) approved an oil law which the Kurds and Sunnis both objected to. You had two to three days of news stories about it, but it became pretty apparent very quickly that there was no chance it would actually pass parliament. Conveniently, this happened one week before the Administration was set to give its midterm July 15 report on Iraq.

Now, we have Maliki taking heat from all sides and interestingly enough we have a "major" breakthrough.

Maliki is both trying to save his own bacon from a lobbyist-administered coup, and trying to help keep the American support that he needs to survive, so he concocted this little deal, which plays right into the hands of the GOP spin machine. The dissembling is not limited to The Green Zone Fog, as described by Rep. Tauscher today. There's going to be happy talk everywhere, a surge of lies which those who want an end to the occupation of Iraq will have to bat down in our own private Whack-A-Mole. We can point to nonpartisan reports, like the GAO's which will be released next week:

Congressional auditors have determined that the Iraqi government has failed to meet the vast majority of political and military goals laid out by lawmakers to assess President Bush's Iraq war strategy, The Associated Press has learned.

The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, will report that at least 13 of the 18 benchmarks to measure the surge of U.S. troops to Iraq are unfulfilled ahead of a Sept. 15 deadline for Bush to give a detailed accounting of the situation eight months after he announced the policy, according to three officials familiar with the matter.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been made public, also said the administration is preparing a case to play down its findings, arguing that Congress ordered the GAO to use unfair, "all or nothing'' standards when compiling the document.

There's just going to be a mass of bullshit coming in September. This so-called "political deal" is part of it. Be aware, and step lively.

Rabbit Ears

It's definitely a trying situation for Democrats. Any time they say they support the troops the Bush Administration makes it seem like they support the policy. Anytime they say they don't support the policy the Bush Administration makes it sound like they don't suport the troops.

Which is a tough situation. And yet 70% of the American people, with little help from the media or even Democrats, support the basic policy of ending the occupation of Iraq. So maybe the key here is to stop listening to what the Bush Administration is saying about you and carry out the policy that brings us closest to that goal. Stop playing chess and start playing checkers.

I mean, Rep. McNerney, this is nice and all...

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."

NOTHING is acceptable to them. They want to play out the string and keep Americans dying in Iraq indefinitely. It's nice to want to negotiate to find the pony, but the only thing that will come out of it is getting 3 Republicans to agree to a withdrawal 7 years from now. But only if we invade Syria first.

This focus on Prime Minister Maliki is similarly absurd. You think some other Prime Minister is going to unify the country? Who? Iyad Allawi? Didn't we already try that? Meanwhile, Levin acknowledges progress on the military front after a hasty two-day trip, getting spun about the utility of Iraqi forces. So this is what to expect in September.

Senate Democrats largely will not challenge, but rather will embrace and celebrate, the notion that The Surge Is Working and that we are making "military progress," whatever that might mean this month. To "oppose the war," they instead will follow the strategy Hillary Clinton has adopted this year -- namely, blaming the Iraqis for failing to take advantage of the great opportunities we are creating for them. Levin's demand that Prime Minister Maliki be replaced is designed to accomplish exactly that. Democrats are afraid to challenge the U.S. military's claims that we are Winning, and are even afraid to oppose the Surge, so instead, they will take the safest course -- heaping the blame on the Iraqi government and demanding that they improve [...]

Iraq is so disintegrated, so ethnically cleansed, so broken that, as (Nir) Rosen points out, it does not really exist as an entity any longer:

Iraq has been changed irrevocably, I think. I don't think Iraq even -- you can say it exists anymore. There has been a very effective, systematic ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad, of Shias --from areas that are now mostly Shia. . . . And Baghdad is now firmly in the hands of sectarian Shiite militias, and they're never going to let it go.

Rosen reports that the number of externally displaced Iraqis is now close to 3 million -- most of them Sunnis, representing a sizable portion of the Iraqi Sunni population which, in turn, further ensures Shiite sectarian militia control of most of the country. Always obscured by the exciting debate over whether we are "winning" is what happens if we "win" -- the installation of an Iran-and-Syria-friendly Shiite "government" surrounded by an ethnically divided country armed and ruled by sectarian militias loyal to a whole variety of Middle East actors. In light of all of that, Sen. Levin's claim of "military progress" is just incoherent.

Democrats have put themselves in a horrible spot. There is going to be a drawdown of troops, mainly because of physical realities of manpower, that they won't be responsible for, and it will be seen by the media as "piling on" to suggest it's insufficient, especially after they've determined that "the surge is working." The 100,000 or so contractors will stay, of course, there will be no talk of them. And there may be an internal coup that will be used as a rhetorical weapon by the White House ("We need to give the new Prime Minister time to succeed"). None of this will have any bearing on Iraq's inevitable slide into absolute chaos.

Things that the Democrats could do: highlight reports like this in the same way they're highlighted against you...

In Baghdad, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker was downbeat in his assessment of Maliki's ability to end sectarian warfare between the Shiites and Sunni Arabs. He called progress toward national reconciliation "extremely disappointing" and said Maliki and other members of his government needed to reach compromises to help quell the bloodshed.

"We do expect results, as do the Iraqi people, and our support is not a blank check," Crocker told journalists.

Speak absolutely clearly that the surge is a failure.

“No matter how brilliantly and bravely our troops and their commanders perform — and they have performed brilliantly and bravely — they cannot and should not bear the responsibility of resolving grievances at the heart of Iraq’s civil war,” Mr. Obama said. “No military surge, no matter how brilliantly performed, can succeed without political reconciliation and a surge of diplomacy in Iraq and the region.”

Bird-dog the other side to get them on the record about Bush's war:

But, unlike most lawmakers who return from the war-torn country, Voinovich is refusing to offer an assessment of what he saw on his trip. “He’s not going to get into that right now — what’s working, what’s not working, is the surge working,” his spokesman, Chris Paulitz, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “He’s not really interested in a soundbite response.”

And be extremely firm in calling for a specific end to this war, asking Republicans for their support but also firmly explaining to them the consequences of their opposition; namely, the end of their political careers.

And quit listening to every word the Republicans say on this thing.

Cue The Fred Sanford-Style Heart Attack

I'm just so shocked that the Bush Administration and military officials would try to change the target date for assessing the situation in Iraq! It's a "surge" to my aortic valve! I'm coming to ya, Elizabeth!

The Bush administration and U.S. military officials predicted Thursday that a key September report would show progress in Iraq, but that it would be November before they could judge the success of the troop buildup.

The comments — coming a day after congressional Democrats failed to force a change in the U.S. war strategy — were a new indication that the White House planned to seek still more time for its troop "surge" to stabilize the situation in Iraq.

Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of day-to-day operations in Iraq, said via teleconference from Baghdad that the military would produce the report on time as required by Congress. But, he said, September would be too early to determine whether security improvements would last and whether the buildup had worked.

"In order to do a good assessment, I need at least until November," Odierno said. "If I have 45 more days of looking at those trends, I'll be able to make a bit more accurate assessment — if it's something that we think is going to continue or something that was just a blip."

Here's how this is going to work, by the way. In November they'll say "how about January," and then they'll ask to wait until the spring, and then May, and then September, and then November, and then Bush is out of office and "crew you guys, I'm goin' home."

And it wouldn't be a Bush Administration tactic if it didn't exploit the words of an unnamed soldier for political gain!

Underscoring his view that an extension of the surge is needed, Odierno described a conversation between Command Sgt. Major Neil Ciotola, his top enlisted advisor, and an unnamed Marine lance corporal in Ramadi.

"He looked at my sergeant major and asked, 'We're not going to be given enough time to finish this, are we?' " Odierno said. "I hope that that young Marine warrior is wrong."

Yes, you wouldn't want to break poor Jimmy's heart, would you? Don't you want to hit him a home run and win the big game? He has leukemia!

I like the part, also, where the US Ambassador determines that nothing that happens in Iraq is a measure of progress:

Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday not to place the most significance on the benchmarks.

"In many cases, these benchmarks do not serve as reliable measures of everything that is important," Crocker said, adding that there may be better ways to show progress on, for example, national reconciliation.

How dare you try to assess what's happening in Iraq by making... assessments!

This is all a game to these fucking people. Well, I'm with that nearly 1/3 of House Democrats: not one nickel, not one dime, not one penny, not this time. No more money for failure.

Why We Fight. No, Seriously, Why?

While the continued attempted attacks by random, unskilled and technologically illiterate nuts in the UK put the lie to the whole "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" nonsense, some additional information is calling into question just why we are fighting over there in the first place. According to soon-to-be-axed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace, success in Iraq means "the Iraqi people feel a little bit better today than they did yesterday." Shit, if that's the case, give them increasing levels of Swedish fish and Nerds candy every day and let's declare victory!

But truly, the fight in Iraq, against al-Qaeda, because everyone in Iraq who isn't our bestest buddy is al-Qaeda, even though the evidence shows that al-Qaeda isn't all that involved with the violence... where was I? Oh yeah, we're supposed to be fighting there to create "breathing space" for a political solution. Except that political solution isn't forthcoming, and since the surge things on the political track have gotten worse.

Iraq Sunnis to boycott government

Iraq's main Sunni Arab bloc has said it will boycott government meetings because of legal steps being taken against one of its ministers.

The Iraqi Accord Front (IAF) has six ministers, and its move is seen as a blow to the Shia-led cabinet as it tries to reconcile the two communities.

Earlier this week, an arrest warrant was issued for Culture Minister Asaad Kamal al-Hashemi, an IAF member.

The case concerns the killing of two sons of a Sunni politician in 2005.

IAF head Adnan al-Dulaimi told the BBC that the bloc's ministers would continue their work apart from the cabinet meetings.

al-Hashemi is accused of carrying out murders on other Parliamentarians. When the government tried to hold him accountable, the Sunni bloc boycotted government meetings. That should give you a picture of how well that "breathing space" is serving the Iraq government.

Meanwhile, while everyone talks about Gen. Petraeus' report in September, the report from US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker is arguably more important, since it provides the basis for the escalation in the first place. Crocker will be reporting on this tattered political situation in Iraq, and early indications are it won't be promising:

Some recent comments Crocker made to a reporter that have gone almost entirely unnoticed suggest that he is on the verge of concluding in his report that the Iraqi political scene is flatlining and that there's really no hope for political reconciliation. And if he does say this come September, it would likely undercut Petraeus's expected plea for more time to prosecute the surge. It would also give antiwar critics much more ammo to pressure wavering Republicans in Congress into abandoning Bush and the war [...]

When (Joe) Klein met up with Crocker in Iraq, he found the Ambassador in something of a frustrated mood, thanks to Maliki:

The Iraqi government is irresolute to the point of near collapse. It is nowhere near to figuring out how to make a political deal amongst the contending parties that might lead to stability. "All this attention on benchmarks has actually been bad for the process," Ambassador Crocker says. "We've wasted so much time and energy on getting a hydrocarbon law" — that is, a law to divide oil profits amongst the ethnic and religious parties, likely to be approved soon — "but it has very little to do with getting a functioning government in place." The truth is, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is puttering along, happily dependent on the U.S. "There are no consequences for them when they screw up," Crocker says. "Whatever's wrong, we take care of it."

Given that the only plausible reason for us to still be in Iraq is to give the government a chance to reconcile and succeed, and given that this report is very likely to say that the government has no hope of reconciliation or success, how can a continued commitment be justified? The answer may be that Crocker's report will be completely buried in favor of Petraeus talking about how many schools have fresh paint and how the enemy's on the run and we just need another Friedman Unit until all's well. But the entire justification for our presence in occupying Iraq is going up in smoke.

...adding, it's also quite telling that Crocker is frustrated about the emphasis on an oil law. Clearly he's not in charge of the priorities of the US government regarding Iraq, and clearly that bid to allow private oil companies to participate in profit-taking is being given major precedence.