Right Wing Nut House

One of my heroes died last night.

Jeane Kirkpatrick was a genuine intellectual; brilliant, honest, ever curious, blunt, even “acerbic” - an adjective I’ve seen on three different obits already. One wonders if Ambassador Kirkpatrick had been male if she would have been described that way.

She may have invented snark. Her cutting wit was justly famous around Georgetown University where she taught before getting the call from Reagan to be Ambassador to the United Nations. She served on his foreign policy transition team and impressed the President with her spirited defense of democracy and Israel. Her article in Commentary Magazine “Dictatorships and Double Standards” gave an ideological answer to leftists who wanted to cut off American aid to dictatorships for violating human rights at a time when the Soviets were on the march.

And despite the controversy of the subject, I will point out that Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, and Irving Kristol - former liberal Democrats all - helped define neo-conservatism.

They epitomized the neo-conservative movement. Liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues, and dyed in the wool anti-communists who left the Democratic party not only for their ruinous economic policies but also their pacifism in the face of Soviet aggression. They were warily welcomed by Republicans of the time who had learned over the years to have a healthy mistrust of Democratic intellectuals. But Kirkpatrick and others made deep thinking popular among rank and file conservatives again. In fact, thanks to Reagan, who brought several genuine conservative intellectuals into government like Martin Anderson, conservatives began to embrace the ideas bubbling up from think tanks and academia. In those heady days in Washington, ideas mattered a great deal. And seminal thinkers like Jeane Kirkpatrick whose vigorous defense of America at the United Nations became the stuff of legend, was in the forefront of the most important foreign policy debates of the time.

She was also a wife and mother - something she never let people forget. In a press conference following a particularly grueling UN session on the Middle East, Kirkpatrick said:

When the Syrian ambassador acted up, what I really felt like saying to him was, “Go to your room!”

And this in response to a question at one of her numerous seminars given at college campuses across the country:

Truth, which is important to a scholar, has got to be concrete. And there is nothing more concrete than dealing with babies, burps and bottles, frogs and mud.

But what endeared her more than anything to conservatives was her speech at the 1984 Republican Convention were she invented the term “Blame America First” regarding liberal Democrats of the time:

They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do - they didn’t blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians - they blamed the United States instead.

But then, somehow, they always blame America first.

When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the “blame America first crowd” didn’t blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn’t blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

The crowd went nuts. And the Democrats have been on the defensive about foreign policy ever since.

It is perhaps inevitable that with her forceful personality that she should be compared to John Bolton who was a good friend and was queried today about his thoughts:

She took with her [to the UN] a reputation as a hard-liner on foreign policy. Because of this, she often was a lightning rod for the opposition. In some respects, she shared Bolton’s controversial profile. Bolton recently decided to resign when it became clear the Senate would not approve him full-time as U.N. ambassador.

Describing his work with Kirkpatrick at the American Enterprise Institute, Bolton told reporters Friday: “When I was at AEI in the late ’90s for most of that time our offices were right next to each other and…” His voice then broke, and near tears he closed his eyes briefly, cleared his throat, and then continued in a quavering voice, “I benefited very greatly. It really is very sad for America, but she will be greatly missed.”

When a reporter noted that Bolton and Kirkpatrick had very similar attitudes, he replied, “I don’t really want to address that question.”

Yes, I suppose they did have similar “attitudes” - as if an American ambassador to the United Nations shouldn’t aggressively represent our interests in that body. The question reveals more about the reporter than it does about Bolton or Kirkpatrick.

In the end, of all that she had accomplished and was known for, she would probably be proudest of the fact that first and foremost, she was an American. And I might add, an American original at that.

One of our country’s best friends is gone. And I can’t think of a time when we needed her wisdom, her courage, and her driving personality more than right now.

The blue blooded “wise men” have spoken.

The Iraq Study Group has dumped their report on the American people and surprisingly, there seems to be a somewhat unanimous feeling about what our foreign policy elites labored to produce; it sucks.

The right hates it because “victory” isn’t mentioned. And because the group gave an honest assessment of what was actually happening in Iraq. And because they want the United States to talk to Syrian cutthroats and Iranian fanatics. And because it calls the President’s policy a failure. And because James Baker is a poopie head.

Taking these bullet points one at a time:

1. Since the world, the media, and the left have already decided we’ve “lost” in Iraq there is no sense in working toward something that doesn’t exist.

2. The ISG assessment of what is happening on the ground, in the councils of government, and in the streets is, by my reading, not scary enough. Very little about the Shia v Shia battle being fought in the south between Sadrites and the Badr Brigades (where the two sides ignore the government in Baghdad and have set up their own Islamic courts and police forces). Nothing on Shia incursions into Kurdish oil areas in the north that has resulted in violent confrontations. In fact, no word on the PKK, the Kurdish terrorist group, and their influence on the the Peshmerga or the Kurdish government and how that spells trouble for NATO ally Turkey.

3. The ISG recommendation that we talk to Syria and Iran is probably a non-starter as far as bi-lateral exchanges go. But in a regional framework, it might just work. I will say to my friends on the right that we desperately need the help of Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia as well as the political muscle of Jordan and Egypt if we are going to get a handle on both the insurgency and the sectarian violence. And in any regional context, you simply cannot ignore the Iranians and the Syrians. Such a conference would not be rewarding them for anything and may lead to their helping us.

Why? The one thing that neither Syria nor Iran wants is a failed state on their borders. Syria is already bursting at the seams with Iraqi refugees, straining their ability to take care of them and/or integrate them into Syrian society. Something similar could befall Iran if all hell breaks loose in Iraq as Shias stream toward the only bordering state with a majority Shia population. In short, it is in the national interest of Syria and Iran to help tamp down the violence and prop up the Iraqi government if we make it clear that we’re leaving.

How they would exercise their influence after that would be beyond our control anyway so why worry about it?

4. The President’s policy is not working and hence, is a failure. This is one of those self-evident pronouncements from the ISG that they shouldn’t have had to put in there but were forced to because of the extraordinary myopia of some of my righty friends. Let’s give it the Reagan test, shall we?

* Are Iraqis better off today than they were two years ago?

* Is it easier for Iraqis to go and buy things in the stores than it was two years ago?

* Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was two years ago?

* Do you feel that Iraqi security is as safe as it was two years ago?

* Is America as respected in Iraq as it was two years ago?

With the possible exception of a marginally smaller unemployment rate (it’s tough to get much worse than the estimated 50% unemployment rate from 2004) every Reagan inspired benchmark trends downward. Bush’s plan is an utter and complete failure. Eleven million people voted for a government whose writ does not run much beyond Baghdad; a government people do not trust to protect them and a government that has proven itself weak, corrupt, divided, and unable to stem the vicious sectarian violence that kills 200 people a day.

These are not the conclusions of the media or left wing loons. Most of these conclusions come from our own military and State Department, from people whose job it is to give policy makers honest assessments of what is going on. I feel ridiculous having to say these things because this information is out there for anyone who is truly interested in finding out what is happening in Iraq. And at the moment, this idiotic denial of reality on the part of many on the right is not only getting on my nerves but making them part of the problem - as much as the idiot lefties who only want to get out of Iraq regardless of the consequences.

5. Yes. It’s true. James Baker is a poopie head.

Only Baker could propose a regional conference of all the “important” countries in the Middle East and not include Israel. Only Baker could advocate putting pressure on Israel to commit suicide by returning the Golan Heights to their mortal enemy Syria. Only Baker could advocate a “right of return” for Palestinians (whose “return” would displace Israeli citizens who have lived on that land for nearly 60 years). And only Baker could advocate a peace between Israel and the Hamas terrorists that contracts the Jewish state to its 1967 borders.

On the left, they hate the ISG report because they see it as a gigantic conspiracy to deny them the fruits of their electoral victory. And because it doesn’t advocate an immediate withdrawal of forces. And because the word “defeat” isn’t found anywhere in the report. And because it isn’t hard enough on Bush. And because Bush will ignore recommendations that they disagree with too. And because James Baker works for the Bush family and is a poopie head.

Although much harder to come up with intelligent commentary given the material, here are a few thoughts on liberal “critiques” of the report.

1. The ISG’s mandate was to come up with recommendations on how to improve the situation in Iraq. They were not charged with validating leftist talking points about the war.

2. The consequences of an immediate withdrawal would be catastrophic . Even Democrats are coming around to that conclusion.

3. The word “defeat” is absent for the same reason that the word “victory” doesn’t appear. Politics. And the fact there are still options that would bring the United States something short of both “victory” but a long way from total defeat (if they work). If not, we may revisit this issue in a couple of years.

4. The report doesn’t blame Bush enough? I’ve seen this criticism on a couple of lefty websites and I’m puzzled by it. It reminds me of the criticism by the left about The Path to 9/11 where the Administration was rightly skewered for its handling of both the intelligence leading up to the tragedy as well as its handling of the attack while it was underway. But because the show dared to show some of the failings of the Clinton people, the entire project was condemned.

With the ISG report, it seems that because there wasn’t a picture of Bush with a dunce cap on his head on the cover, the left believes they went too easy on him. No accounting for taste. Or stupidity when it comes to our lefty friends.

5. The idea that the left is complaining that Bush will ignore the recommendations of the ISG - recommendations that they violently disagree with - is pretty amusing. The irony inherent in their criticism seems to escape them which isn’t surprising - the capability for introspection being necessary to appreciate this kind of an ironic juxtaposition is not present among most lefties.

6. Baker’s ties to Bush 41 (and the shadowy Carlysle Group) have brought out both the humor and paranoia of the left. They actually applaud most of Baker’s prescriptions for a general settlement between Hamas and the Jews since they would mean the almost certain destruction of Israel. And there have actually been some pretty funny allusions to Baker pulling “daddy boy’s” chestnuts out the fire. But the descent into paranoia about the all powerful Carlysle Group wanting to control the world gets to be a bit much, especially when you consider that our corporate masters have botched things royally.

And yes, The left agrees. James Baker is indeed a poopie head.

Those Americans in the middle seem to take the attitude that the ISG’s finished product has some good things and bad things but that most are disappointed. I mentioned the other day that Baker settled for a single when he might have tried for the home run. That seems to be the consensus among many Americans who view the group’s finished product as an interesting, yet fatally flawed document.

It’s not quite back to the drawing board on Iraq. But clearly we need a better “Way Forward” than that offered by the ISG.

The votes are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council and the winner in the Council category is Joshuapundit for “Genocide? What Genocide?” I was the runner up with my post “The Art and Artifice of War Reporting.”

Finishing first in the non Council category was Flopping Aces for “Getting the News From the Enemy.”

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watchers Vote, go here and follow instructions.

I’d also like to thank AbbGav for serving on the Council and welcome new member Andrew Olmsted.

This post is for those of you who are struggling to come to grips with the “reality” of what we should be doing in Iraq.

Yes, yes, I know. “Reality” sounds too much like “realist” which is dirty word around these parts after the Baker Mob tried with yesterday’s fatwa to off Lebanon, Israel, and democratic movements around the entire Middle East by abandoning them to the tender mercies of our enemies.

I mean “reality” in the sense that we have arrived at a crossroads and none of our leaders seem to have a clue as to what to do next.

The ISG gave us milquetoast when we needed red meat. Bush gives us platitudes and a maddening vagueness that indicates either he refuses to accept that the mission is in deep trouble or that he can’t decide what is the best of a lot of unpalatable options.

The Democrats appear split. Some want to be part of whatever solution we can come up with. Others not so much.

And the left? The netnuts don’t seem to be interested in anything except humiliating Bush and driving him from office. The idea that the Middle East just might blow up if we do as they suggest hasn’t seemed to penetrate their pointy little heads. If that would be the price of marching Bush off to the guillotine, so be it.

Which brings us to the very real possibility that no matter what we do, no matter how many troops we send or how much pressure we put on the Iraqi government or how low we grovel before Syria and Iran, the worst case scenario will still play out and the region will erupt, Iran will dominate, al-Qaeda will make themselves comfortable in Iraq, and American prestige will take a nosedive we may be years recovering from. This means that for all practical purposes, we have already lost. In that respect, the netnuts may be right - for all the wrong reasons, naturally.

For those who don’t think things are “that bad” in Iraq I see no reason for you to keep reading. You’ll only pull an abductor muscle putting your fist through your monitor or lose your voice screeching obscenities at me.

And for those who believe we’ve already “lost” and there is no hope of retrieving the situation, get out of the way because you refuse to be part of a solution. You are entitled to your opinion. But many millions who look at the same facts on the ground in Iraq as you disagree. We are not stupid. We are not blind. We are not Pollyannas. We don’t minimize the problems or understate the dangers. You only reveal yourself to be a shallow thinker if you can’t see that there are, in fact, avenues to success in Iraq that would allow us to leave behind a relatively stable society not run by terrorists. How to traverse those avenues is the problem, not that the all avenues have been closed off. Yes we agree that this is not the dream of the “neo-cons” or Bush, that Iraq will not be as free as we like or as peaceful as it eventually will be. But if we’re talking about the art of the possible here then what we should be seeking with our exit is basically to avoid catastrophe. And almost everyone agrees that this can be done.

Does the fact that our original benchmarks for “victory” in Iraq - democracy, freedom, tolerance, peace - which have now fallen by the wayside, overtaken by the reality of events, mean that we have, in any sense, “lost” the war?

The netnuts are making this argument, although why they seem so eager to embrace defeat makes one question their sanity when you realize who then correspondingly would be victorious. Iran and al-Qaeda stand to be the biggest winners. And by gladly handing them the winner’s cup before the race is completely over is nuts.

There is still time to thwart some of what Iran hopes to gain with our hasty exit from Iraq. And there is still time to kill a lot of al-Qaeda terrorists, thus preventing them from realizing their plan to use Iraq as a base to strike western targets around the world. But what do we have to do in order for these goals - less than total victory but still very desirable outcomes - to be achieved?

I think the first thing we have to do is pretty obvious; don’t give up. If a consensus can be reached between Republicans and many Democrats that “The War Forward” now includes an exit from Iraq that will leave behind a viable government and not a failed state as well as the virtual defeat of al-Qaeda then we have the basis to proceed for perhaps the next two years in assisting the Iraqi government in their efforts to get control of the streets.

Beyond two years is probably not in the cards. As it stands now, there are two clocks ticking side by side; one for the Presidential election in 2008 and another for the significant draw down of American forces in Iraq. But recognizing that the clocks are running would be a significant victory for the Democrats and might just bring enough of them on board for what we have to do to achieve those very limited but very doable goals.

Would we be able to claim “victory” if we achieved those goals? Well, the world wouldn’t let us get away with that. And neither would our lefty friends. But if the goals are achieved, we might salvage a little of our prestige as well as prevent catastrophe. This in and of itself would be worth staying for. In reality, it’s all we have left.

Charles Freeman, a member of the ISG, called this strategy “mitigating defeat.” I don’t see it that way. Considering where the country is now, achieving those goals would be a considerable accomplishment. At any rate, it’s a damn sight better than “surrendering to the inevitable” which is what the left wants us to do.

Of course how we get there from here is the question. And as I said, it may all be for naught anyway. But given the circumstances as well as the consequences of not even trying, I don’t see any other way but to attempt to turn the war around.

It may not be “victory” as we would have imagined it or as it could have or should have been. But it’s better than the alternative which could only spell catastrophe for America and the region.

PEARL HARBOR FROM AIEA HEIGHTS, DECEMBER 7, 1941

PEARL HARBOR FROM AIEA HEIGHTS TODAY

Hawaii is one of those places that no matter where you turn your head, there is stunning natural beauty. Take a drive along H-1 and get off on one of the scenic highways that meander across the island of Oahu and you’ll suddenly find yourself in a world of stunning vistas and breathtaking overlooks. And Honolulu has one of the most extraordinary skylines in the world, set against an ocean backdrop with Diamond Head looming over it in the distance.

Couple that natural beauty with a climate that encourages relaxation and even sloth and you begin to understand why on that beautiful Sunday morning of December 7, 1941, the sailors and airmen posted on the island felt themselves the luckiest in the service.

The sailors especially must have felt themselves blessed. The Pacific Fleet was usually based in San Diego or some other west coast facility and only made it to Hawaii once a year during training cruises. But in April of 1941, the Empire of Japan was on the move and FDR made the controversial decision to relocate the fleet to Pearl. The Navy was extremely unhappy. Not only were the harbor’s dock facilities inadequate to service the Fleet’s 8 battleships but any Midshipman could tell just by looking at a map what a trap the harbor was in case of attack. Narrow and shallow with just one channel that led to the open ocean, the Navy felt that the fleet was a sitting duck - if someone could figure out how to attack it. But Roosevelt wanted to send a message to the Japanese that he was serious about blocking their plans for total East Asian hegemony.

But that didn’t matter to the thousands of ordinary seamen, airmen, their families, wives or their sweethearts on that lovely December morning. Many had spent the previous Saturday night as they normally did, attending parties or going to one of the many nightclubs that catered to servicemen in Honolulu. Peacetime military life was stupefyingly boring, filled with mind numbing routine and little chance of promotion. Kicking up one’s heels on Saturday night was about the only fun many of them had.

We know now that the Japanese never planned to attack Pearl Harbor without a formal declaration of war. But a communications snafu (gratefully intercepted by our diplomatic code breakers) meant that the timing of the attack had been blown. As it turned out, the Japanese diplomats didn’t make it to Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s office until after the attack was well underway. The attack therefore took place without any official warning although everyone in the government knew that war was imminent. The previous evening, Roosevelt sent a personal message to the Emperor of Japan pleading for peace. That message too never made it to its intended audience. Communications broke down between Washington and our embassy in Tokyo, delaying its transmission and preventing Ambassador Grew from delivering it.

Despite intercepting the message to the Japanese embassy in Washington that clearly indicated an attack was forthcoming, the military still didn’t know where the blow would fall. Some thought the Philippines would be the target (indeed, the Japanese bombed the Philippines on that day as well) while others thought Indochina was the objective. It did not occur to war planners in Washington that the Japanese would be audacious enough to steam thousands of miles across the Pacific ocean with a huge fleet of 56 ships and subs, not being detected, and creep up to within striking distance of the fleet.

The logistics of such an operation was only one reason American planners didn’t think Pearl could possibly be a target. It was also a fact that the harbor was too shallow for a torpedo plane attack, the preferred method of attacking surface ships at that time. The torpedoes would hit the bottom of the harbor before they had a chance to home in on their targets. The Japanese got around this problem by ingeniously attaching fins of wood along the axis of the torpedo that gave it enough buoyancy to prevent it from hitting bottom. They were used with deadly effect during the attacks.

Admiral Yamamoto’s huge gamble in attacking Pearl was justified by the recognition of the Navy that they could not long hold back the American Pacific Fleet once war broke out. In a long war, America would have a decisive advantage. Their only hope was to knock out the fleet in the first hours of the war and attack western possessions along the entire east Asian pacific rim, hoping to acquire enough raw materials and oil to prosecute a war that they hoped would lead to stalemate by 1943 and peace negotiations.

But on that morning, with American going about their normal Sunday routines - getting ready for church, enjoying time with their families - the Japanese fleet was targeting the symbol of American power in the Pacific. As Yamamoto’s ships came within 275 miles of Pearl, they launched a first wave of 183 bombers and fighters in the pre dawn darkness. On Oahu, the Army’s Opana Point radar station picked up the formation of Japanese planes but were told not to worry because a formation of 6 B-17’s were expected that morning and coming from the same direction. This mistake sealed the fate of our air force whose planes were lined up wingtip to wingtip on 3 separate air fields to prevent sabotage.

The result we know. Even today the figures elicit shock. Almost all of the 188 American aircraft were destroyed, including an astonishing 155 on the ground. The surprise was total and absolute. Our combined Army-Navy-Marine air forces could muster only 35 sorties during the entire attack. Little wonder bitter American sailors being strafed in the water at will by Japanese Zeroes cursed our Air Force for dereliction. For weeks after the attack, MP’s in Honolulu were kept busy as vicious fights broke out between airmen and sailors in bars and nightclubs.

Japanese losses were 29 planes (out of 340 engaged), 55 airmen - most of those in the second wave attacks that targeted ships already burning. And in wreaking havoc on the battleships of the Pacific Fleet, the Japanese gained a fleeting and, as it turned out, illusory victory. While they managed to sink 5 of our front line battleships and 13 smaller ships, damaging dozens more, by pure luck the three American aircraft carriers in the fleet had been sent out on patrol only 48 hours prior to the attack. Missing the carriers proved to be decisive because less than 7 months later at the battle of Midway, those three carriers were to deliver a massive blow against a Japanese invasion force and turn the tide to the American side for good.

In the meantime, FDR had to deal with the fact that for all practical purposes, the west coast of the United States was defenseless. He decided to downplay the extent of the damage to the fleet. In fact, it wasn’t until after the first investigation into what went wrong at Pearl had concluded its deliberations in 1943 that the American people were finally told the extent of the catastrophe. Nearly 2500 Americans lost their lives as opposed to the original false figure of 400 given by the government. The War Department also downplayed the number of ships that were damaged or sunk. In this case, the truth was just too horrible to tell.

It has become popular in the last 20 years to posit conspiracy theories regarding FDR’s foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor Attack. Most recently, Robert Stinnet in his book Day of Deceit used FOIA requests and examined nearly 200,000 documents related to intelligence about the attack, coming to the conclusion that Roosevelt had to have known that Hawaii was the target and let the attack happen in order to bring the US into the war against not Japan but Hitler!

An immediate problem with this conspiracy theory is that there was absolutely no guarantee that Germany would declare war on America, thus foiling FDR’s “plan” to assist the British. And the idea that the US would declare war on Germany was very controversial at the time. The feeling in Congress and much of the nation was “one war at a time.” There was no hue and cry to go to war against Germany despite the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt’s “Date of Infamy” speech on December 8th never mentioned Germany, the British, Europe, or gave any hint that we planned to add the Nazis to our list of enemies.

Hitler, God bless him, solved our problem for us by, for the first time in his life, honoring his word and declaring war on America in accordance with the technical requirements of the Tri-Partite Pact on December 11.

This little nugget of information always seems to escape the conspiracy theorists who want us to believe that FDR allowed the Japanese to attack and nearly destroy the Pacific Fleet. The idea is so stupid on its face - that any American politician or military commander would stand still while the primary defense for the west coast of the United States was knocked out - that is easy to see why most historians dismiss the theory as total rubbish.

But what about all that intelligence? As it turns out, Stinnett especially either deliberately (or out of ignorance) misread much of what he was reading. Pearl Harbor historian and former cryptologist Phillip Jacobsen explains:

The book misleads the uninitiated reader by lumping the relatively simple JN-25A code and cipher system that took 14 months to read with the much more complicated JN-25B system together as “Code Book D.” Thus, the final successes of JN-25A are imputed to JN-25B even though the first significant reported decrypt of the latter much more complicated code and cipher system was in early 1942. The book omits the fact that the November and December 1941 raw intercepted messages from Corregidor, Guam and Hawaii on which so much is relied were actually enroute to Washington DC by ship and rail on 7 December 1941 and thus were not decrypted until 1945-46 and the most promising of those decrypts were translated in 1946-47 and are available in the National Archives today. Also not discussed is the fact that Station Hypo in Hawaii under Rochefort was only permitted to work on the unproductive Admiral’s code system before Pearl Harbor and was not given the go ahead to work on JN-25B until a week or so after the attack. It is claimed that unkown censors are holding back vital decrypts in the National Archives or elsewhere because certain Station Message Serial (SMS) numbers and original versions of messages appearing on Japanese naval broadcasts are missing. However, the so called “missing” messages can be attributed to the fact that less than 60 percent of Japanese naval messages were intercepted and many were originally sent by land-line, cable or visual means when tied up at docks or anchored in a Japanese harbor.

Knowing an attack was imminent is not the same as knowing where it will happen. Sound familiar? Think of the summer of 2001 and perhaps now you see why the 9/11 conspiracists are as batty as Sinnett.

It was 65 years ago today. Every year, the ranks of veterans who lived through that horrific day when the water caught fire and the harbor was choked with the bodies of the living and the dead, grows thinner. They are old men now. Their memories are still tinged with the sadness that comes from the realization that soon, they will all be gone and, like other landmarks in American history such as Gettysburg and Antietam, it will be up to the rest of us to keep the remembrances alive and never, ever forget what happened on that impossibly beautiful Sunday morning when the world turned upside down and changed all of us forever.

ON THE RIGHT, USS ARIZONA AFTER A BOMB PENETRATED TWO DECKS AND EXPLODED IN THE FORWARD MAGAZINE, KILLING MORE THAN 1100 OF HER CREW - SOME OF WHOM LIVED FOR UP TO 10 DAYS AFTER THE ATTACK TRAPPED IN THE SHIP’S SUPERSTRUCTURE.

ON THE LEFT IS THE USS WEST VIRGINIA, BURNING AS A RESULT OF 7 TORPEDO HITS.

Allah has the grim details. He points to a surprise; “minor” troop increases are recommended. I can see their point. As I mentioned in my post from this morning, increasing troops won’t do any good unless there is corresponding political movement from Maliki’s government that will take some air out of the insurgency by opening a frank dialogue with the Sunnis and somehow diminish the role of Mookie al-Sadr in the violence:

It sounds like the leaks were accurate. They want a significant number of troops withdrawn soon — ideally within 16 months — and the rest redeployed to advise and support the Iraqi army. (Minor surprise: first they want a minor increase.) And of course they want us to talk to Iran and Syria, an initiative which most Americans (including most Republicans) support.

What could be significant about the ISG is that they may have initiated a change in the national conversation about Iraq. By painting such a dire picture of what is happening there and pointing out the catastrophe that is in the making, while establishing themselves as a bi-partisan voice, perhaps we can get away from this stupid, self defeating back and forth about “blame” which only scores political points and matters not a bit to what needs to be done, and start working together to figure out how we’re going to get out of this mess without blowing up the world in the process.

Certainly I have been critical of the ISG in that here are supposedly the greatest foreign policy and military brains in the country and this is the best they can do? I’m not looking for “victory” (whatever that means) but I am looking to avoid unmitigated disaster. And folks, this just doesn’t cut it. Too heavy reliance on the Iraqi military that will not be ready for any kind of security handoff in 16 months. Asking Maliki - actually pressuring the Prime Minister - to act in ways not in his best political interest (and that might get him killed by his own Shia supporters). And hardly a word about al-Qaeda in Iraq who, after all, is the real enemy and should be hunted down ruthlessly and killed.

Baker botched it. Giving a baseball analogy, he made sure he didn’t strike out by trying for a single when he should have risked it all and gone for the home run. His greatest fear evidently was that Bush would ignore their recommendations. That should have been the least of his worries. Bush resides somewhere between fanatasyland (”We’re winning”) and the river denial. The only way to shake the CIC out of this stupor would have been to dazzle him. Instead, Bush is perfectly comfortable with saying that the ISG is only one avenue in the way forward and that he has other choices.

Does Bush really believe that things are not that bad in Iraq? Watching him today, I wonder. While I don’t expect him to be wringing his hands crying “Woe is us” I was hoping for some indication that there is a sense of urgency attached to the ISG recommendations for him. And while he sits and ponders a change in course, Iraq slips further down the slippery slope and toward the abyss. By the time he gets around to deciding what to do, events may have outstripped any actions he might take. And no one seems to be able to impress this upon him. He’s been dawdling since before the election and things are worse today than they were the first week in November. What are they going to be like the first week in January?

Regardless of what the ISG report recommends, Bush must decide and decide quickly. The diplomatic options can wait. But whatever he’s going to do about troop strength or redeployments should have been done a month ago.

“The way forward” involves movement. Get going, Mr. President.

UPDATE

What’s the rush, you ask?

Conditions in Iraq are “grave and deteriorating,” with the prospect that a “slide toward chaos” could topple the U.S.-backed government and trigger a regional war unless the United States changes course and seeks a broader diplomatic and political solution involving all of Iraq’s neighbors, according to a bipartisan panel that gave its recommendations to President Bush and Congress today.

In what amounts to the most extensive independent assessment of the nearly four-year-old conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, the Iraq Study Group paints a bleak picture of a nation that Bush has repeatedly vowed to transform into a beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

Despite a list of 79 recommendations meant to encourage regional diplomacy and lead to a reduction of U.S. forces over the next year, the panel acknowledges that stability in Iraq may be impossible to achieve any time soon.

The group’s recommendations for the way forward in Iraq focus largely on building a broad international consensus for helping the nation, pushing Iraq to meet a set of rather ambitious deadlines for internal progress, and gradually reducing the U.S. troop presence there while boosting support for Iraqi army control of the security situation.

And Dan Balz agrees with me about the Iraq Study Group being able to change the national conversation: “Iraq Study to Reshape National Debate About War:”

The real value of the bipartisan report may come in pushing Bush and Democratic leaders in Congress toward more cooperative efforts to develop a workable strategy for beginning to disengage from combat in Iraq without leaving that country and the region in chaos.

Bush alluded to that this morning. “The country, in my judgment, is tired of pure political bickering that happens in Washington and they understand that on this important issue of war and peace, it is best for our country to work together,” he said.

Bush has contributed to the climate of distrust and polarization. Bush, Vice President Cheney and other Republicans used the fall campaign to warn that Democrats favor a strategy of capitulation to the terrorists. As Bush put it in October, “their approach comes down to this: “The terrorists win and America loses.”

But the Democrats, too, approached the Iraq debate through much of the past year as an opportunity to score political points ahead of the midterm elections. Those elections are now history, and the Baker-Hamilton report now stands front and center.

As Baker noted this morning in unveiling the findings, “there is no magic formula” that will convert Iraq into a qualified success story. Managing failure, preventing things from becoming worse and gradually turning around a bleak situation in the Middle East are the immediate challenges facing the president and the Democrats in Congress.

“So if victory is not possible and not feasible, even if you could define it, then what you’re left with is to find some way to mitigate defeat.”
(Chas W. Freeman Jr., a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and member of the ISG)

Today is the day that the Iraq Study Group will deliver its not so secret recommendations on how we can best pull out of Iraq without leaving behind a bloody mess, regional chaos, increased Iranian influence, and a helpless, toothless, Iraqi government dominated by theocrats and thugs.

This is our new battle cry; “We must mitigate defeat!”

Stirring, isn’t it? Not quite the ring that “Remember the Alamo” has but then, this is the 21st century and such patriotic and emotional displays are frowned upon by the blue blooded “wise men” of the ISG who have labored long and hard to produce this recipe for American retreat.

Many of the ISG’s bullet points have been leaked to the press already. No call for a troop increase but plenty of advice on how to train the Iraqi army as well as a push to bring combat troops home by early 2008:

The latest details to emerge from the commission’s report help flesh out a plan that also calls for the United States to withdraw nearly all combat units by early 2008 while leaving behind tens of thousands of troops to advise, train and embed with Iraqi forces. The report suggests that the Bush administration open talks with Iran and Syria about ways to end the violence in Iraq and proposes holding a regional conference to bring together all of Iraq’s neighbors.

Some proposals in the report track measures that the administration is already carrying out or is considering, but several directly challenge Bush in areas in which he has refused to compromise. The president has rejected talking with Iran and Syria and has resisted linking the Iraq war to the Palestinian issue. He has dismissed timetables for troop withdrawals, although the panel cites 2008 as a goal rather than a firm deadline. He has also declined to punish Iraqis for not making progress in establishing security.

Although the study group will present its plan as a much-needed course change in Iraq, many of its own advisers concluded during its deliberations that the war is essentially already lost, according to private correspondence obtained yesterday and interviews with participants. The best the commission could put forward would be the “least bad” of many bad options, as former ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer wrote.

You will excuse me if I believe that talking to Syria while it is in the process of gobbling up its tiny Lebanese neighbor to be one of the most cynical, immoral, and ill-considered diplomatic ideas in a generation - which of course is right up Baker’s alley. He is a specialist at sacrificing others for the greater good; just ask the Iraqi Kurds.

And talking to the fanatical true believers in Iran (Ahmadinejad purged the foreign service last year, replacing experienced hands with ideological purists) about helping with security in Iraq is like inviting the wolf in for a drink and having Little Red Riding Hood give him a lap dance; the temptation to insinuate themselves even more into Iraqi affairs just might be too much to resist.

I don’t know if there is a way to “victory” in Iraq. Clearly the rest of the world has already made up its mind (not to mention the American media) that we have lost so that no matter what we do in Iraq, how we leave it, what we accomplish from here on out, the onus of defeat will accompany our withdrawal.

Is the ISG simply acknowledging this fact? Or are they encouraging it?

Both, probably. But in the end, it comes down to doing the best we can to bring some kind of definitive denouement to our Iraqi adventure. And it appears that at least some Democrats - whether chastened by victory or freed from having to engage in partisan sniping to differentiate themselves from Republicans - are realizing that Iraq is not Viet Nam and that simply walking away now would be catastrophic:

In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”
The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.

But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.

Maybe it was the firing of Rumsfeld and the ascension of Robert Gates to the position of Defense Secretary (Gates was recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday). Maybe it’s the willingness of the Bush Administration to rethink (finally!) it’s Iraq policy. Perhaps it’s the burden of power that has settled on many Democrats who realize the genuine fix that the United States is in and rather than play the blame game they’ve decided to try and become part of the solution.

Whatever it is, it appears that many Democrats have decided to constructively engage on Iraq, a most welcome change and perhaps a turning point for both Bush and the Democrats. I say this because surprisingly, there actually seems to be a growing majority consensus that an increase of 20-30,000 troops temporarily may help the security situation in Baghdad.

Such a bump in the number of troops won’t mean much unless Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki matches the increase in security with some political moves that would lessen the influence of the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr as well as initiate reforms that would address some of the legitimate grievances of the Sunnis relating to power sharing and security. From here on out, Maliki will have to start delivering. It’s time to find out whether this fellow is really an empty suit, blown hither and thither by the winds of Iraqi politics or whether we can work with him to stabilize the country

If he proves incapable, the alternatives are not very palatable. Some are already calling for an abandonment of Iraqi democracy for some kind of secular authoritarianism, a strong man who will be able to command the army and put down the violence by force. We’re nowhere near that point yet but perhaps the idea will light a fire under the Prime Minister and embolden his actions. From what I’ve seen of Maliki so far, I am not hopeful that either course of action will bring about the desired result.

No number of troops will be able to deal with Sadr, a political force whose power is now so great that it is probable that he will dominate Iraqi politics for years to come. This revealing article in Newsweek - informative and maddening at the same time in that we had a chance to eliminate him long ago when he was a relative unknown and failed - shows just what ISG members mean when they say that Iraq will be in the clutches of radical Shia fundamentalists for years to come.

The ISG does not recommend a troop increase which may not matter that much. This is because in another surprising development, the Baker group has been either marginalized or co-opted in many areas by both the Administration and the Iraqi government since the election. Some of their leaked ideas like a regional conference involving Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Saudis, and others is already being considered by the Iraqis. And the idea of benchmarks to be met by the Iraqi government has also been embraced by Maliki:

The benchmarks laid out for Iraqi forces are similar to the goals the Iraqi government recently embraced, the source said. Unlike Bush, though, the commission recommends consequences for not meeting them. “If they don’t do it, we ought to reduce the military, economic and political support,” the source said.

At the same time, the source said, the U.S. military strategy ought to be implemented regardless of whether Iraqis meet their benchmarks. But the commission warns against turning over control of security to Iraqi forces until reforms are in place.

The Democrats have been calling for such a strategy for months. I can’t disagree with it although how reducing aid is going to speed our withdrawal is much too nuanced a concept for me to grasp. Reducing military aid will worsen the security situation which will necessitate our staying longer, won’t it? Perhaps if I started to think more like a “wise man” it would all become clearer.

One member of the panel seems to reflect the thinking of many hawks who, while not calling for immediate withdrawal, want to see something out of our government besides total surrender:

Clifford May, one of the working group’s advisers and a former Republican Party spokesman, was one of two advisers who opposed withdrawal and supported Bush’s strategy, but he said he “was willing to concede from the start that what Bush hoped for is probably not achievable. But it doesn’t mean that nothing is achievable.”

May said the report includes “at least 70 recommendations,” but a timetable for troop withdrawal is not among them. “Instead, it says we have a mission that can be accomplished, and it defines that mission as the need to leave behind a government that can sustain itself,” May said.

The “all is lost” crowd - and I admit to being one of them when it appeared that Bush would use the ISG as political cover for a quick exit - would do well to consider what is realistically possible to achieve in the next two years. This is because what the Iraq Study Group makes absolutely clear is also something being echoed on Capitol Hill by both Republicans and Democrats; the clock is ticking on our involvement in Iraq. The political will to sustain our current force levels has evaporated. Both parties would dearly love to see Iraq a minor issue in the Presidential campaign of 2008. For these reasons, it appears likely that no matter what shape Iraq is in by the summer of 2008, we will probably be in the process of leaving.

How many troops we leave behind to work with the Iraqis on security and reconstruction will be unimportant. The country will be in their hands by then. Let us hope that the sacrifices we will ask of our military to achieve these limited goals will be seen by them as being worth the effort - an effort that for more than three years has never flagged, and despite the incompetence of their leaders, has brought them honor and the satisfaction that they have done the very best they can in very trying circumstances.

This is an interesting development regarding the internal politics of Iran.

Just recently, you may have read that the Iranian parliament had taken the unprecedented step of reducing President Ahmadinejad’s term from 6 4 years to 5 3 by authorizing the next round of parliamentary elections to be held the same year as the next Presidential election. Since the parliamentary elections are to be held in 2008, this cuts more than one year off of Ahmadinejad’s term.

Was it a deliberate slap? One can hardly see it as anything else. The bill has a ways to go yet before it becomes law but with 80% of the legislature supporting the measure, it appears virtually certain to pass the constitutional tests required.

Now we have word that Ahmadinejad may have really stepped in it with his biggest boosters - the most fanatical believers in the Iranian theocracy - by attending the opening ceremonies of The Asian Games in Qatar (no bastion of liberalism itself) and watching women dancing and singing…in public…AND WITHOUT A VEIL!

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who flaunts his ideological fervour, has been accused of undermining Iran’s Islamic revolution after television footage appeared to show him watching a female song and dance show.

The famously austere Mr Ahmadinejad has been criticised by his own allies after attending the lavish opening ceremony of the Asian games in Qatar, a sporting competition involving 13,000 athletes from 39 countries. The ceremony featured Indian and Egyptian dancers and female vocalists. Many were not wearing veils.

Women are forbidden to sing and dance before a male audience under Iran’s Islamic legal code. Officials are expected to excuse themselves from such engagements when abroad but TV pictures showed Mr Ahmadinejad sitting with President Bashar Assad of Syria and Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister, during last Friday’s ceremony in Doha.
Religious fundamentalists, usually Mr Ahmadinejad’s keenest supporters, are asking why he attended a ceremony that violated his own government’s strict interpretation of Shia Islam.

The Baztab website, considered close to Mohsen Rezaee, a former revolutionary guard commander with links to powerful sections of Iran’s political hierarchy, said Mr Ahmadinejad’s presence had offended Shias in Iran and elsewhere. “The failure of Ahmadinejad to object and his constant presence has damaged the image of Iran’s Islamic revolution and its commitment to Islamic rules in contrast with the Arab countries in the Gulf,” it said.

The significance of the criticism is its source. Mohsen Rezaee is considered an ally of former President and Ahmadinejad rival Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The former President also chairs the powerful Expediency Discernment Council which advises Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei as well as ironing out differences between parliament and Council of Guardians (although in practice, what the Council of Guardians say is pretty much the law of the land).

Rafsanjani and another former President Mohammad Khatami have formed a loose opposition alliance to try and block some of Ahmadinejad’s more radical moves. They spoke out against his radicalizing the foreign service when Ahmadinejad fired several high level ambassadors and foreign service functionaries only to replace them with people who had little or no experience in foreign affairs. The President has carried out similar purges in other departments as well, each time replacing experienced technocrats with inexperienced fanatics.

Neither Rafsanjani or Khatami should be seen as wanting to do America any favors. Both are as rabid in their hatred of the United States as Ahmadinejad. However, they object to Ahmadinejad’s confrontational style, believing their revolution can advance farther and swifter if they lull the west to sleep by appearing to be reasonable and moderate.

And Rafsanjani, who initiated the Iranian nuclear program back in the early 1990’s when he was President, also fears Ahmadinejad’s anti-corruption campaign. It is an open secret that the former President is one of the richest men in Iran and got that way by stealing the country blind. While it is doubtful that Ahmadinejad would go after his rival in such a direct manner, the President could reel in some of Rafsanjani’s cronies in the ministries who helped him acquire his ill gotten gains.

Then there is the question of some of the assassination attempts on Ahmadinejad - two that we know of - and who might be behind them. Rafsanjani has been whispered as the mastermind but the official line is that separatists set the bombs off.

What does this attack on Ahmadinejad’s behavior really mean? It may help undermine Ahmmadinejad’s support with the powerful Assembly of Experts who will hold their election on December 15th. Getting an anti-Ahmadinejad majority elected to that powerful body would limit Supreme Leader Khamenei’s ability to back the President when he tries to enact his more radical agenda. The Assembly judges the actions of the Supreme Leader to insure that they pass muster with the Koran as well as the Iranian constitution.

The fact that Rafsanjani is running for a seat on the Assembly may have been at the bottom of this attack. Pure speculation, but given the circumstances, a logical deduction.

I find it deliciously ironic that the pious fanatic who constantly lectures others on godliness would be caught not only violating the tenets of Islamism but also lying about the transgression:

The president’s aides insist he was not present during the singing and dancing. His press secretary, Ali Akbar Javanfekr, claimed Mr Ahmadinejad had left for Doha airport before the performance.

However, Baztab posted footage which purported to show Mr Ahmadinejad in his seat after the show. Jalal Yahyazadeh, a rightwing MP, said: “We have heard from some sources that Ahmadinejad was in the stadium at the time. Those who created the conditions for his presence should be investigated as quickly as possible.”

It appears that Ahmadinejad is starting to enjoy his celebrity a wee too much, basking in the glow of the fawning masses who worship him for his tweaking the nose of the United States every chance he gets, lecturing President Bush and the American people, and addressing the United Nations in the manner of a hectoring church elder admonishing the congregation for their lack of morals.

It would be a satisfying turn of events indeed if this incident led to his being taken down a peg or two. I can’t think of anyone who would deserve it more.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey ruminates on the way Islam treats women:

Is it just me, or does it seem like radical Islamists deeply fear women and their sexuality? Their entire worldview appears focused on the oppression of females — burying them under yards of cloth, denying them any freedom of movement, and avoiding even their singing voices in public. After all of Ahmadinejad’s ludicrous diplomacy and aggressive posturing, having him lose power because of a sporting event’s opening ceremonies is nothing short of surrealistic.

Ahmadinejad will certainly atone for his sins shortly. All it will take is another conference on how beautiful the world will be once Iran removes Israel and the United States from it. The radicals will forgive all in their xenophobic ecstasy.

Note: Thanks to Nikolay for correcting the length of Ahmadinejad’s term.

As Hizbullah continues to ratchet up the tension in Beirut, frantic behind the scenes efforts by Arab diplomats and others to find a political solution to the crisis are picking up steam:

International and local efforts to contain the rising political tension picked up Monday, after a Shiite protester’s death raised fears that anti-government demonstrations could reignite sectarian clashes. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa warned that the crisis could worsen. Speaking during a 24-hour visit to Beirut, Moussa indicated that he had discussed a possible solution with Lebanese officials.

Moussa, who also met with Hizbullah officials, said that “the whole Arab arena can’t stand by and watch.”

After a visit to pro-opposition President Emile Lahoud, Moussa was asked for details about his efforts to broker a deal, replying: “It is still at the beginning, but I see that it is a start that gives some hope.”

“Yes, I am worried about the situation,” he told reporters. “However, if we all join hands we can save this country.”

Many observers believe that the situation is beyond compromise and that only total capitulation by Siniora’s government or total victory by Hizbullah in some kind of engineered coup will end the standoff:

Lebanon’s army commander warned the government that the daily protests and riots might get out of control, several newspapers reported Tuesday, as the authorities reported another night of unrest in the capital.

The comments of Gen. Michel Suleiman showed that the military was concerned that the political crisis between the pro-Western, Sunni Muslim prime minister and the pro-Syrian, Shi’ite Muslim-led opposition was approaching dangerous levels.

Thousands of troops are deployed across the capital where, since Friday, the Hizbullah-led opposition has been convening daily demonstrations to topple the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.

Large crowds were expected later Tuesday at the funeral of a Shi’ite Muslim youth, Ahmed Mahmoud, 21, who was shot dead in street clashes in the Beirut district of Qasqas on Sunday. Further clashes took place in the nearby neighborhood of Tarik Jedideh on Monday night, when two people were wounded, police said.

“The absence of political solutions, along with the recurrence of security incidents, particularly those with sectarian tinge, drains the army’s resources and weakens its neutrality,” Suleiman was quoted as saying. “This weakness will make the army unable to control the situation in all areas of Lebanon.”

While the diplomats talk, Hizbullah is carrying out what appears to some as a detailed and coordinated plan to overturn the government:

From Saturday late night into the early hours of the morning, more incursions by HizbAllah’s elements were signaled inside the traditional Sunni West Beirut. A battle with rocks took place in many streets leaving a number of wounded and one HizbAllah militiaman dead. The Iranian-backed militants staged their “thrusts” into Sunni areas from their launching pad in the “protest” areas in downtown, commonly described by the opponents as the “coup d’Etat” basis. According to sources in the Lebanese Army, the gradual “coup” is taking place with a minute preparation coordinated by the Iranian embassy in Beirut. A “War room,” including HizbAllah, Syrian intelligence, President Lahoud’s secret services, Baath Party, Syrian National-Socialists and representatives from General Michel Aoun’s group, is directing the campaign.

On the political level, the single most important development is the decision made by the March 14 movement and the Cedars Revolution leaders to “move the headquarters of the Government to Mount Lebanon if the Syro-Iranian militias would overrun the Prime Minister’s office.” Such a decision means that the Seniora cabinet and the leaders of the anti-Syrian majority in Lebanon will resist the onslaught of HizbAllah’s forces and would eventually call on the people to oppose the coup d’Etat. In Washington and Paris, Governmental sources said that bringing down the Government outside the Parliament is a red line. In New York, the Security Council members, particularly the US and French delegations have clearly signified their rejection of a violent crumbling of a democratically elected cabinet. This view is widely shared by the majority of Arab moderate countries, including Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.

Dr. Phares, a very good analyst, leaves the definition of “red line” up in the air. The phrase goes with a question I asked on Sunday: What will the world do to save Lebanon?

Nasrallah is counting on the world (including much of the Arab world) acquiescing in his coup. This is because he plans on observing the Lebanese constitution once he rids himself of the March 14th coalition. He has already designated Former Prime Minister Omar Karami (a Sunni) to succeed Siniora, a move designed to placate world opinion - despite the fact that Karami is a notorious tool of Syria. And it is likely that any faux “Unity Government” he installs will make its first project a reform of the outdated electoral law. Somehow, one can imagine that when bringing the law up to date, Nasrallah will find a way to marginalize the March 14th forces and, when the expected new elections are called for, elevate his pro-Syrian coalition to majority status.

This brings us back to what Washington and Paris mean by a coup being a “red line” that Nasrallah dare not cross. Are the two nations willing to go to war with Hizbullah? Are they willing to go to the United Nations and ask UNIFIL to protect the Siniora government? Do they have something else beside total surrender in mind?

If so, they best get busy. The clashes in the streets are bringing the nation closer to open warfare:

Hundreds of army troops in armored vehicles stepped in, firing warning shots in the air to break up renewed clashes late Monday between government supporters and protesters vowing to topple Premier Fouad Saniora’s cabinet.

About 300 angry protesters also blocked the Beirut airport highway after midnight, but the Lebanese army intervened and opened the road.

Fighting broke out in several predominantly Sunni neighborhoods after nightfall Monday as the body of Ahmed Mahmoud, who was killed in a similar street fight, was brought by ambulance to downtown Beirut, where thousands of Hizbullah-led protesters were camping for the fourth straight night demanding to overthrow Saniora’s government.

On Tuesday, angry mourners buried Mahmoud in the “Two Martyrs” cemetery in Beirut’s Shiite southern suburb, two days after the tragic death by gunfire from a mysterious source.

Hizbullah accused three persons from the predominantly Sunni Mustaqbal movement of shooting Mahmoud, 20, in a clash on Sunday night.

There are so many reports of Syrian intelligence infiltrating these mobs that they can’t all be rumors. Saudi Arabia believes that Syria has taken an active role in fomenting violence. So do many western governments. And the unrest is putting enormous pressure on Siniora to spare the nation a bloody civil war and resign. However, it appears that March 14th will not go without a fight of some kind, although it is difficult to imagine any of their militias standing up in open combat to Hizbullah’s crack troops.

It is equally difficult to see Hizbullah backing away by agreeing to some political settlement that doesn’t give them everything they are asking for; resignation of the government and the establishment of a government of national unity with leaders designated by Nasrallah. Anything less would not be acceptable to President Assad - even if the government agreed to the dropping of the International Tribunal. Both Assad and Nasrallah are committed to playing out their coup scenario to the end. And it is difficult to imagine a sequence of events that would lead to anything accept surrender by Siniora or civil war.

If the west were to attempt to assist Siniora, he would lose support among some of the swing Christians and Sunnis who are already suspicious of America and France’s friendship. Clearly, any help would have to come from Arab states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia - two nations who have made it clear that any move by Hizbullah to overthrow the government would be seen as illegal and unacceptable. How that would translate into anything other than moral support is difficult to see. Neither nation wants to fight Hizbullah either.

And don’t expect any help for Siniora to come from the United Nations - not with Russia ready to play her veto card if things get dicey in the Security Council. The Russians still consider Syria an ally and would not allow the timid diplomats at the UN to get any ideas about rescuing Siniora and democracy in Lebanon.

Would the Lebanese army fight for the government? It is believed that much of that army is pro-Syrian or, at least pro-Hizbullah. So far, General Suleiman has made all the right noises about the army staying above the fray - which means that in the event of an armed coup, they would probably have a good excuse to sit on the sidelines. Siniora may be able to count on several hundred troops and little more. For the rest, he must look to the militias for protection.

So in the end, the government of Prime Minister Siniora finds themselves facing Hizbullah with little prospect of outside help and only the amateurish, untrained sectarian militias to stand against Hizbullah’s well armed, highly trained cadres of fanatics. And as Lebanon rushes toward the abyss, there appears to be little that can be done to prevent a tragedy being engineered by Damascus and Tehran.

The world has become a tiny bit more dangerous today. John Bolton is resigning his post as United Nations Ambassador:

Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks, the White House said Monday.

Bolton’s nomination has languished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a year, blocked by Democrats and several Republicans. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (news, bio, voting record), a moderate Republican who lost in the midterm elections Nov. 7 that swept Democrats to power in both houses of Congress, was adamantly opposed to Bolton.

Critics have questioned Bolton’s brusque style and whether he could be an effective public servant who could help bring reform to the U.N.

His “brusque” style? HIS BRUSQUE STYLE?

Lebanon is in agony. Iraq is bleeding. Iran is blustering. Syria is plotting. Russia is swaggering. Hamas is stewing. Al Qaeda is growing. North Korea is disintegrating. Darfur is screaming.

And we’re worried about “style?”

I’ve said it before. The UN is not a serious place. It is a place of make believe, a gigantic fraud upon the human race. It’s charter is honored in the breach. Its ideals promoted as a cynical flim flam used by thugs and radicals to advance agendas that are the antithesis of the spirit that animated the post-war west to create it in the first place. It is a place where deadly serious matters go to be buried by little men with small minds and gigantic egos. And unless it is reformed drastically, it may prove to be the death of us all.

Bolton’s “style” was confrontational. He discomfited the comfortable. In an age when business as usual at the UN could get a lot of Americans killed, he said the things that needed to be said, that needed to be heard by those who see anti-Americanism as some kind of gigantic game where tweaking the tail of the lion is considered great sport - a sport that wins support back home amongst the ignorant, the paranoid, the easily misled masses seething under the jackboot of dictatorship and authoritarianism. Blaming America for one’s troubles is so much easier than assigning fault for the poverty, oppression, and murderous, thuggish, brutish government most people in the world live under.

Ton Blair saw this as something of a mental disorder:

For us in Europe and for you, this alliance is central. And I want to speak plainly here. I do not always agree with the US.

“Sometimes they can be difficult friends to have. But the strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in.

“The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved. The danger is that they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged.”

If true in Europe, then the United Nations should be considered the world’s most prestigious insane asylum.

Bolton’s reformation project at the UN barely got started. Basically, he was bulldogging an effort to reform the organization from the top down. And this got him into immediate trouble with the most powerful and influential elements at the UN - the wonks who work in the UN Secretariat.

It’s budget is a shambles. It’s departments a mish mash of overlap and duplication. No one knows who’s in charge of what because there is no clear delineation of lines of authority. And riding herd on this bunch of kingdom carving bureaucrats was supposed to be the Secretary-General - except even he was not master in his own house.

No one knows how much money is spent by the UN Secretariat’s more than 18,000 employees. A recent survey on integrity initiated by the SG among the Secretariat’s employees found the following:

The results, summed up in a cover letter by Mr. Annan, suggest that the Secretariat’s own employees believe they inhabit a snake pit. Highlights, as Mr. Annan cites them, include such failings as: “integrity and ethical behavior are not taken sufficiently into account in selection, promotion and assessment processes” and “staff believe that not enough action is taken to investigate and address instances of unethical behavior, and that those who expose such breaches may put themselves at risk of reprisal.”

More directly to the point, the report itself, on page 11, notes that “staff members feel unprotected from reprisals for reporting violations of the codes of conduct. This is not a perception confined to a few staff in remote locales and/or dangerous circumstances. Forty-six percent (46%) gave unfavourable response to this item, while only 12% gave favourable responses.”

What was the SG’s response to this shocking news?

Mr. Annan says that most of the problems are now (and forever?) being fixed: “Many of the actions proposed can be linked to actions or processes already under way.” He goes on to propose another action or process, this plan being to convene yet another group “to guide the process of follow-up to the survey.” This bunch–let’s skip the full names of the U.N. agencies and just zip through the acronyms–will include the Deputy Secretary-General and senior U.N. officials from the DPKO, DGACM, DESA, DM, OHRM, UNODC, UNEP and ECLAC, all to be supported by “a consultative group consisting of a wide cross-section of staff at different levels both from New York and from offices away from headquarters.”

In other words, having gone so far as to discover that Secretariat staff don’t trust the top management and are afraid to speak out for fear of reprisals, Mr. Annan’s response will be to convene a group of top managers and invite staff members to speak out. At some point they’ll probably issue another report, and then everyone can do it all again.

For this kind of stupidity, you don’t need a diplomat. You need a bull terrier. And that’s what John Bolton was. The sad fact is, the institution of the United Nations desperately needed John Bolton. He was the one of the only diplomats up there who was actually interested in making the UN a place of action a place where true collective security could be advanced rather than a place of daydreams and denial.

I can understand why some traditional UN supporters bristled at Bolton’s “style.” But if you really believe in style over substance (or worse; that style is substance) then you also aren’t paying very close attention to what is happening on our happy little planet. The world is in big trouble. And if there was ever a reason for the existence of the United Nations, it is now. But none of the mortal dangers facing the planet - rogue nuclear states, nations that coddle and support terrorists, even (if you think it important_ global warming will be solved or settled by the self-important, strutting peacocks who pretend to address the issues of the day but instead search desperately for ways to sweep them under the rug with platitudinous nonsense and wink and a nod at the brutes and thugs who threaten to destroy us all.

Rumor has it that George Mitchell is on the short list to replace Bolton. We could do worse. Mitchell is tough as nails and doesn’t mind getting his hands dirty. I don’t have a link but look for the Atlantic article from a couple of years ago on how Mitchell got the Irish to accept peace. He’s not above bashing heads together to achieve a diplomatic goal. And he has served this country honorably for his entire adult life.

John Bolton tried to reform an institution so resistant to change that they would rather wallow in their own filth and corruption than take even the simplest steps into the light. And when all is said and done, he will have the satisfaction of knowing that he was in the right and that his critics - superficial and shallow as they are - were wrong.