So anyway, maybe you guys were right after all...

Lost amidst everything else that has been going on, the US and Iraqi governments have quietly agreed to a withdrawal timetable, a timetable that includes the withdrawal of most combat troops by mid-2009. Bush is still in office, mind you. The same Bush who repeatedly warned us that such a thing would amount to surrendering to terror, a warning that was endlessly regurgitated by all the usual suspects in the Right Wing Noise Machine.

Never mind that the Iraqis have been requesting this for quite some time, withdrawal was a crazy moonbat Left Wing socialist Islamofascocommunist idea! Only the Defeatocrats and their terrorist allies would ever consider such a thing! USA! USA! USA!

Just thought I'd throw that out there...

Harper caught plagarizing

Plagarism is a pretty serious offense in academics. And we'll soon find out how serious an offense it is in politics:



Article

Harper's position on Iraq circa 2003 (supporting Bush) has clearly been something of an embarrassment for the Conservatives, and it's been quietly swept under the rug in the years since. One wonders how long the Liberals have been sitting on this, because you'd figure it could have helped them in 2006.

Of course, the question we should be asking is whether Harper has actually charted an irresponsible foreign policy course for Canada. Reading the posts headlining Progressive Bloggers, it sure seems to be the popular opinion, but I don't agree.

Sure, we're in Afghanistan, but we have the Liberals to thank for that. All our NATO allies are similarly engaged in that country. And the Harper government has pledged to withdraw within a few years.

Really, other than attempting to assert sovereignty over the Arctic (which, admittedly, will take a lot more than a few icebreakers), I'm not really sure what else the Harper government has done in terms of foreign relations. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe Canada is no longer punching above its weight, as Danielle Takacs argues here.

I'm not sure that this plagarized speech is evidence of that, only a reminder that Harper was wrong about the most bone-headed and destructive war of our generation and, for some reason, felt he needed to borrow rhetoric from other world leaders to defend it.

Generation Kill

I'd just like to write a quick recommendation of Generation Kill, the Iraq War miniseries (based on the book by Evan Wright) currently airing on HBO (six episodes in already, so catch reruns or get it On Demand).

Picking up right where they left off with The Wire, the writer/producer team of David Simon and Ed Burns set their sights on the US military. Not the men and women of the US military (they are portrayed honestly, neither heroes nor monsters, all nuanced characters in their own right), but the way the institution itself functions. It's not quite Catch-22, but it has a similar outlook. It deftly links the general disfunction of the military chain of command to the now-legendary mistakes that doomed the US adventure in Iraq.

The action is impressively staged, and there is little evidence of a TV budget. It looks convincing, quite a compliment in this age of 24 hour news, with pictures of Iraq beamed into our houses every night.

I don't know if I would put this quite in the same strata as The Wire, limited as this is by its setting and lack of dramatic license. There is nothing quite like that show's five year deconstruction of the ills of modern American society, but this is a worthy follow-up, and the first serious attempt (in my opinion) to deal with the Iraq war, either on television or on film. Although I'm still waiting for a definitive treatment of the US occupation of Iraq, which is much more representative of the American experience in that country as a whole. This is limited to those crazy days of Spring 2003, when anything seemed possible (but actually wasn't).

More depressingly predictable oopsies from the McCain campaign

So McCain has been going around saying that the surge strategy is to be credited for protecting the main architects of the "Anbar Awakening", Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha and other Sunni tribal leaders that decided to ally with US forces against Islamist militias in that province:

"Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks," said
the Senator. "Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik
and others. And it began the Anbar awakening."

The Arizona Republican's
campaign went further the next day, claiming that the major figures that turned
around Anbar province would have been killed had the surge policy not been in
place. "If Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening
would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda," said
spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Just one problem. That "major Sunni sheikh" referenced by McCain (most likely Sattar) was indeed killed in a terrorist attack in September 2007. Actually, two problems, since the "Awakening" had its origins in late 2006, well before the surge began to be implemented in late 2007. The truth is that the truce with Sunni tribal leaders and the troop surge are two separate events that occured independently of each other.

But don't think a little teensy-weensy mistake like that would faze McMaverick. No sir, he had other plans, such as attempting to upstage Obama's Berlin address with a publicity stunt on an offshore oil rig. He was going to talk about how great and environmentally friendly they are. Key word, "was", since the whole thing had to be cancelled because of an oil spill and a hurricane. Seriously. I'm not making this shit up.

Obama's huge win on Iraq

McCain is really running out of tricks. One thing he was really hoping to nail Obama on was the supposed success of the Iraq "surge", which he has supported ever since it was first proposed.

And it's true. Although Iraq remains a country afflicted by sectarian tension and frequent violence, the level of mayhem is nowhere near what it was only a year ago. American troop deaths are way down, and ceasefires are holding in both Sunni and Shiite areas.

Of course, the surge isn't wholly responsible for all of this; as Steve Benen summarizes, the Anbar truce was put into effect long before US troop levels increased, and the fact that most parts of Iraq have been effectively ethnically cleansed hasn't hurt either. Muqtada al Sadr has also held to a ceasefire for several months, probably in service to his own long-term goals, not any desire for peace and harmony.

The underlying problem (lack of central government power) remains, but for the moment, Iraq is in a period of relative calm.

So it's a win-win situation for McCain isn't it? Yglesias outlines it pretty well:

He'd spent, several weeks with the main theme of his campaign being, quite
literally, to criticize Barack Obama for not having been physically present in
Iraq recently. This (of course) got Obama to go to Iraq, thus setting up a
dilemma. Either Obama would survey the "progress" in Iraq and change his
position, thus making him a flip-flopper, or else he would refuse to change his
position, thus making him obstinate and out of touch with reality.

But what happens when the Prime Minister of Iraq says that Obama's withdrawal plan is a good one? It completely undercuts the two prior avenues of attack. How exactly can McCain argue with that? The Bush administration scrambled to do some damage-control (putting pressure on Maliki's office to say he was mistranslated or some other bullshit), but the damage should already be done. Maliki publicly endorsed Obama's Iraq plan (and his people made this very clear today).

I don't know if the US political media is smart enough to understand what has just happened here, but this is potentially a huge debacle for John McCain and indeed, the entire right-wing foreign policy worldview. McCain wants everyone to think that everything in Iraq is going just peachy because of the success of the surge, but at the same time, he speaks gravely about how irresponsible and reckless it would be to agree to any kind of withdrawal timeline. He can't have it both ways, especially when the fucking Prime Minister of Iraq is saying the exact opposite.

It astonishes me that so many Americans still give the Republicans the edge on foreign policy, even after a disastrous war and the total erosion of America's reputation worldwide. This should be a wake-up call.

Iraqis want a timetable for US withdrawal

Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable

Iraqi security adviser says country will insist on
timetable for withdrawal of American troops

SALLY BUZBEE
AP News
Jul 08, 2008 09:34 EST

Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country
will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains
specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi
official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a
day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending
troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for
withdrawal.

Heh. I'd say this throws a monkey wrench into Republican talking points. Timetables may be for pinko commie sissy Democrats, but they are also for the democratically elected Iraqi government, apparently.

I could be mistaken, but I believe majorities of Iraqi citizens have long desired a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces from their country, if not an immediate pullout. This is simply the result of Iraqi politicians being pressured by their constituents to do something about it. It's in situations like these that we more clearly see the political clout of the Iraqi government vis a vis the US military. The US cannot be seen as disregarding the will of the Iraqis, since that would call into question the motives behind the entire enterprise. But just how much is the US prepared to put up with? Suppose Maliki enters into some treaty with Iran that runs directly contrary to US interests? How would Bush react to that?

The mother of all roundups

I hope everyone had a nice Canada Day!

There's a whole bunch of things to mention today that don't quite warrant their own posts.

1. First, watch this, if you can stomach it.



I mean, I expect this from Fox, since they've long since descended into self-parody. But what excuse do CNN and MSNBC have? Disgusting.

2. Christopher Hitchens had himself waterboarded. His conclusion? Yup, it's torture. No shit, Sherlock. Click the link for the full article and video. I'm going to give him props for being a braver man than most of the right-wing blowhards who justify torture with their bizarre Jack Bauer fantasies. He makes all the right points about the utter senselessness and immorality of torturing terrorist suspects.

I like Hitch; some of his politics are just wacky and distasteful, but I can't help but admire his bluntness and utter lack of decorum. This is him discussing Jerry Falwell's death on Hannity and Colmes.

3. More whining from the crybabies in the McCain campaign:

Last night, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) was on MSNBC, and was asked about the
right’s flap over Clark. Webb thought this was much ado about nothing, suggested
McCain “calm down,” and said it’s time to “get the politics out of the
military.”

And in response, the McCain campaign is, once again, outraged by this
“attack” on McCain’s military service. McCain spokesperson Brian
Rogers told Greg Sargent:

“If you didn’t think this was a coordinated attack on John McCain’s
credentials before, it’s clear now that it is. Barack Obama’s surrogates are
telling the McCain campaign to “calm down” about attacks on his military record?
Seriously? Now somehow Wes Clark’s attacks are John McCain’s fault? It’s absurd.
If Barack Obama can’t control his own surrogate operation, how can he be trusted to run the country?”

I find it hard to imagine that Rogers even believes this nonsense
himself, highlighting why it’s a mistake to keep going to the same well over and
again. Not only did Clark not coordinate with Obama — the most controversial
remark in Clark’s interview originated with Bob Schieffer, not the Obama
campaign — but Webb didn’t attack McCain.

Is this what we're in for? Months of the McCain campaign whining and hyperventilating over everything?

4. This is more like it:

Obama takes a stand against gay-marriage ban

Also, today's statement on Wes Clark:

“I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we’ve got
to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?” Obama said, responding
to a reporter who asked the candidate why he hadn’t called on Wesley Clark to
apologize for his remarks yesterday. “I’m happy to have all sorts of
conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the
fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said
something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the
thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night."

Much better. I'm big enough to admit I may have been overly hasty in my judgement of Obama's "move to the center", but let's keep him honest.

5. For the second month in a row, US and coalition casualties were higher in Afghanistan than Iraq. Wow. I guess that means you should defeat one insurgency before you start fighting another one, huh?

6. I've seen Batman: Gotham Knight, the animated tie-in to the Nolan Bat-films (don't ask me how I've seen it). And as much as it pains me to say this, don't waste your time or money on it. Of the six episodes included on the disc, only two are really any good. The others are boring, poorly animated, and totally out of synch with the universe established in Batman Begins. I think it would have been a much better idea to make a single coherent animated movie, by one director, one writer, and one set of animators.

7. Finally, Brad Reed examines the 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency. It's one of those laugh or cry situations.

Narrowing down the Bush administration's various debacles to a mere 10 was no easy feat. In fact, I expect that many people will express dismay that their least favorite moment was left off the list. "How could commuting Scooter Libby's sentence not even make the top 10??!!" I can hear some of you shrieking already. Well, I'll tell you. Essentially, I tried to rate each Bush disaster by two main criteria: its body count and its damage to the country's reputation. So while Bush's awkward groping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel may be personally humiliating to everyone, it doesn't have the same heft as, say, the Iraq War.

But for those of you who insist on seeing your least favorite moment get its due, here is list of every honorable mention I could come up with: warrantless wiretapping; Valerie Plame; Scooter Libby's sentence commuted; Bush believes Rafael Palmeiro is innocent; soldiers face neglect at Walter Reed; signing statements; the Kyoto treaty ripped up; loyalty oaths; the fake turkey; a staged teleconference with troops, staged FEMA press conference, extraordinary rendition, support for junk science; endorsement of neo-creationist "intelligent design"; inaction against global warming; record oil prices; record budget deficits; record trade deficits; record number of Americans without health insurance; two recessions; no-bid contracts; bin Laden still at large; the Federal Marriage Amendment; stem cell research vetoed; waterboarding ban vetoed; "Last throes"; "Old Europe"; "It's hard work"; "Bring it on"; "Yo, Blair!"; "I'm the decider"; "I'm the commander guy"; "I'm a war president"; "This is the guy who tried to kill my dad"; "So?"; "Let the Eagle Soar"; John Bolton; Kenny Boy; Harriet Miers; John Roberts; Sam Alito; Blair talks Bush out of bombing al-Jazeera; Cheney shoots some guy in the face; the Military Commissions Act; Jose Padilla arrested and held without charge or access to counsel; endless tax cuts for the rich; let's waste a shitload of money by sending people to Mars and let's hire some Heritage Foundation staffers to rebuild Iraq.

The whole thing is worth a read, but I started to feel sick to my stomach by the end of it. Not to disparage Americans or anything, but how can this coming election not be a massive landslide? How much evidence of Republican misrule do you need?

I'm sure all my Canadian readers remember the sponsorship scandal. We all remember how that was the major contributing factor in Paul Martin's downfall. And he wasn't even PM at the time! That's what I call accountability; we bring down a government over the previous government's sins. And those sins were downright insignificant in comparison to this laundry list of Bush fuck-ups.

What's going on in Iraq, anyway?

To be truthful, I haven't followed the news from Iraq as diligently lately as I once did. Part of it has been because of the SUPER-EXCITING Democratic primary. (/snark) But part of it has been the general lack of news itself.

It's true that violence is down, though that is relative; large numbers of Iraqi security forces and civilians are still getting killed with some regularity, with little improvement over, say, 2005. It's even more true that violence against US forces is down. Total deaths this month are set to be one of the lowest of the entire war, no doubt aided by the increasing responsibility of Iraqi forces.

So what's happening? Is it the surge? Without going into more detail and examining the statistics province by province, I would guess that the US strategy has indeed produced some localized successes in reducing violence. Standard counter-insurgency doctrine requires large numbers of occupying forces to maintain order and clamp down on violence, and this has finally been realized in some areas.

But far more important in my mind has been the bribing of Sunni militias and insurgent groups in Al Anbar province, which was previously the hotbed of insurgent activity. This alliance of convenience has held up for quite some time, and depending on how things go, it may yet hold up for a while to come.

The violence that is still going on appears to be more the product of various sectarian militias vying for power; namely Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army and the more powerful SCIRI groups, which are backed by Iran and control much of the Iraqi government. It seems as though these groups are not interested in any lasting compromise, and they may be headed toward a major clash.

And the Sunnis may have been placated for the time being, but there is no indication that any of them recognize the legitimacy of the Iraqi government. The various tribal leaders all have their fiefs, and they're happy as long as no one challenges their authority.

But if Iraq is to become a functioning nation-state with a democratic government, this status quo must be overturned. And if the past five years are any indication, it will not be peaceful. Bush has succeeded in holding Iraq together long enough for the final outcome to become the next president's responsibility, but if things come apart as I suspect they will, he will not escape blame.