Right Wing Nut House

When I read this on Glenn Reynold’s blog this morning, I could hardly believe it. In response to an Ed Morrissey piece on Austrian weapons sold to Iran ending up with the insurgents in Iraq, the Professor drops his normally mild mannered personae and advocates hitting the Iranians with targeted assassinations:

I don’t understand why the Bush Administration has been so slow to respond. Nor do I think that high-profile diplomacy, or an invasion, is an appropriate response. We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and iranian atomic scientists, supporting the simmering insurgencies within Iran, putting the mullahs’ expat business interests out of business, etc. Basically, stepping on the Iranians’ toes hard enough to make them reconsider their not-so-covert war against us in Iraq. And we should have been doing this since the summer 2003. But as far as I can tell, we’ve done nothing along these lines.

The outrage from all the usual suspects had to have been anticipated by Reynolds. He’s too experienced in the ways of the blogosphere not to have realized the second he wrote those words about assassinating “radical mullahs” and atomic scientists that a full blown blogswarm wasn’t in the offing. Sure enough, leading the pack of finger waggers and tsk-tskers is the number one hysteric in the blogosphere:

Just think about how extremist and deranged that is. We are not even at war with Iran. Congress has not declared war or authorized military force against that country. Yet Reynolds thinks that the Bush administration, unilaterally, should send people to murder Iranian scientists and religious leaders — just pick out whichever ones we don’t like and slaughter them. No charges. No trial. No accountability. Just roving death squads deployed and commanded by our Leader, slaughtering whomever he wants dead.

How Lambchop managed to wangle a column at Salon is a mystery. They obviously haven’t been reading his shallow, calumnious, hate filled rants toward conservatives and Bush supporters. His generalized assaults on people who disagree with him are wildly beyond the pale of decency and common sense - coarse, exaggerated, full of laughably simplistic analysis coupled with nauseating, moralistic lecturing. Lambchop is a Calvinist without the redeeming belief in God’s mercy.

“Cartoonish,” Goldstein correctly avers:

What I do find repugnant, however, is people like Greenwald(s) who hide their immense contempt for “the values of this country” behind pieties and outrage offered in bad faith, a rhetorical position intended to keep those who are trying to puzzle through difficult issues on the defensive, making them endlessly “prove” they aren’t “rogue” elements in the war against Islamism. And for all of Greenwald’s(’s) constant carping about how Bush supporters “routinely” label the loyal opposition “traitors,” he is fairly quick to insist that those who float the idea of covert warfare tactics are somehow hostile to individual liberty, freedom, representative government, and rule of law.

Lambchop’s absolutist, unyielding, unbending logic when it comes to anything the United States might do to protect itself does not carry over into criticizing the barbarians who violate every known international codicil that relates to establishing comity between nations. Nor does his resolute moral compass allow him to take the enemies of civilization to task for trying to achieve their goal of, if not destroying us, most certainly grievously injuring our interests and killing our citizens.

And we have no acknowledgement from Lambchop about Iran’s declaration of war against the United States on November 4, 1979 when they violated his precious international law, international tradition, and the rules of civilized behavior by attacking United States soil, capturing our diplomats, torturing them, and holding them hostage for more than a year. That, my dear sock puppet, is an act of war as surely as anything that has occurred in the international arena since the end of World War II. The fact that you choose not to recognize it as such is immaterial. For someone who pretends to be “reality based,” Lambchop’s concept of what is real seems to depend entirely on what he believes - which puts him in the same league as the holy rollers, the evangelicals, and other conservative Christians he takes such delight in savaging on a regular basis.

Leaving aside Lambchop’s bloviations, is it ever morally permissible to act like a barbarian to defeat a barbarian?

Conventional wisdom says no, that once started down that road we lose our identity as a nation and become exactly what we are fighting. I don’t know about that. We did some pretty horrific things in World War II to defeat Japan and Germany and managed to maintain our democracy while retaining a certain moral authority in the world left over from the Wilsonian era. The fact that we appear to have lost some of that authority today says more about the rest of the world’s refusal to acknowledge the threat of radical Islamism than it does about any actions we’ve taken to fight that menace.

By its nature, war is barbaric. I find it curious that absolutists like Lambchop somehow believe there is a “civilized” way to fight and win. We don’t target civilians. We don’t bomb cultural or religious symbols. We don’t behead our captives. Torture is a stain on our honor but it is apparently not a widespread problem. How much more “civilized” should we be? Idiots like Lamchop won’t be happy until we start warning the jihadis we’re coming because surprise attacks are barbarous.

From a purely practical standpoint though, Reynold’s proposal won’t work. Mathew Yglesias gets it about right:

I mean, how is this going to work? We’re talking, presumably, about the clandestine branches of the same intelligence agencies who can’t decide what the state of the Iranian nuclear program is, don’t know where Iran’s nuclear facilities are, and are unsure who, if anyone, in the Iranian government is responsible for Iranian weapons winding up in Iraq. Nevertheless, Reynolds believes they have an off-the-shelf plan for placing assassins in close proximity to key Iranian nuclear scientists. But not only for doing this, but for doing it quietly! American agents are infiltrating Iran killing Iranian scientists and religious leaders and none of them get caught. How? Are there really dozens of Farsi-speaking ninjas working for the CIA? I was going to compare this to a fun-but-stupid movie like The Bourne Identity but the point of that movie (and its sequal) is actually that if you somehow did build a hyper-competent utterly secret government agency it would likely become a cesspool of corruption and abuses of power.

Actually, I’m pretty sure our Special Forces boys, if tasked with specific targets, would probably have the capability to carry out a couple of missions. After that, I daresay the Iranians would increase security to the point that the question of assassinations would be moot.

And, at the risk of agreeing with Lambchop, how do you define “radical” mullah? You don’t get to be a mullah in Iran without possessing some fairly radical views like opposing the existence of Israel. How radical is too radical? What factors or beliefs do your base your targeting criteria?

Lamchop highlights the Executive Order outlawing assassination, something every President since Ford has followed. And if you lift that stricture, why target some obscure mullah? Why not go for the gold and kill Khamenei or Ahmadinejad? For the same reason no President has lifted the Executive Order on assassinations; what goes around, comes around. We kill one of theirs, don’t you think they’d do their damndest to kill one of ours?

And I’m not sure targeting atomic scientists is such a good idea either. The Iranians have had help from a number of countries including North Korea, Pakistan, and there is some evidence that former Russian scientists have also worked on the Iranian nuclear program. Besides, would it really do any good? Would it really cause the program any damage? Would it really make the mullahs think twice about helping the insurgents in Iraq? I doubt it.

I understand Reynold’s frustration with our inaction regarding Iran. We’ve dithered for 28 years about working to establish a genuine democratic movement there. It’s not like we haven’t done it before. One need only look at Poland or the former Czechoslovakia where we clandestinely set up a democratic facade for potential reformers that allowed for an indigenous movement to sweep those countries when the time was right. Of course, that type of operation takes patience and a lot of spade work.

The problem has always been that anything we do to Iran will result in counter measures that have the potential of hurting us even more. And anything we do to Iran will enormously complicate if not totally doom our efforts in Iraq. Fighting a Shia insurgency against our occupation along with war against the Sunnis and al-Qaeda would be a disaster. If Professor Reynolds believes that assassinations of the kind he is suggesting won’t set off the Shias in Iraq, he should read some recent speeches from al-Sadr where he warns against any American actions against Iran. And of course, the political situation - already tenuous - would go to hell in a handbasket. Forget about the Shias sharing power with the Sunnis or Kurds at all. In fact, that turn of events would make staying in Iraq a complete exercise in futility.

I too wish to avoid a generalized conflict with the Iranians. But assassination isn’t the way. And I believe that despite the sabre rattling by the Administration in sending 3 carrier battle groups to the Gulf, they too wish to avoid military action because of the consequences domestically and in the Middle East. In fact, it appears to me that the Administration may be willing to allow the Iranians their enrichment program, hoping that the technical problems they have been experiencing will continue while working to undermine the regime from the inside.

Short of war, that’s the best we can do.

UPDATE

Hugh Hewitt applauds Reynold’s idea while drawing a conclusion about Hizbullah:

Note that Hezbollah hasn’t kidnapped any Israeli soldiers lately. There’s a reason.

Nasrallah has his own reasons for not tweaking Israel’s tail at the moment, not the least of which is that he needs his militia to assist him in his efforts to overthrow the Siniora government and not trying to fight off Israel’s retaliation for such an act. For the last several months, Hizbullah has been trying to show that they are good Lebanese citizens who only want what they believe they deserve; increased representation in the Lebanese cabinet. Of course, that’s a crock. But that, plus the UNIFIL force have kept Hizbullah from any confrontations with Israel recently.

The operation to get control of the streets in Iraq’s capitol is apparently underway according to both AFP and Omar of Iraq the Model.

AFP is reporting that one of the initial operations is mainly made up of Americans:

Iraqi and US forces have pushed deep into one of Baghdad’s most notorious Sunni bastions, making arrests and seizing weapons as part of a new plan to overrun insurgent strongholds in the capital.

The US military, meanwhile, said Wednesday it was probing reports of another helicopter crash near Baghdad.

A US military official said a crackdown on Sunni insurgents in the northeastern Adhamiyah district of the Iraqi capital began Tuesday in an operation involving some 2,000 US troops and hundreds of Iraqi soldiers.

According to an AFP photographer embedded with the US military more than a dozen people were detained overnight and large numbers of weapons seized.

Major Robie Parke of 3-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team said the security sweep in the Shaab and Ur areas of Adhamiyah marked the start of the much-vaunted crackdown by US and Iraqi forces against Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents in Baghdad.

“Iraqi and US forces conducted clearing operations in Adhamiyah today, which is the beginning of the new security plan,” Parke told AFP late Tuesday.

“Operation Arrowhead Strike Six” is apparently only one of the thrusts planned to clear the capitol of insurgents and blunt the activities of the death squads:

One US officer who asked not to be identified told AFP the operation would set the conditions for a “control and retain” force to move into Shaab and Ur and establish combat outposts in conjunction with Iraqi security forces.

The high-ranking US army official stressed that the Baghdad security plan was a process involving a broad range of troop and logistics movements as well as strategic planning.

“The process has already begun. The Baghdad security plan is a process, it’s a long operation, it’s not going to be a three day operation or a three week operation,” the officer said.

“You have to look at the whole process instead of just thinking in terms of a raid, or an operation in one of the districts, it’s much, much larger than that.”

As usual, the Iraqis are slow, disorganized, and have been hampered by sectarian squabbling over the command structure:

Pressure is increasing on the Maliki government to show signs of progress on the security plan that was announced more than a month ago, especially after three weeks of bloody violence that has killed 3,000 civilians.

Mr. Maliki made it clear to the commanders that they needed to show results soon. “I call on you to quickly finish the preparations so that we don’t disappoint people,” he said.

Mr. Maliki offered no reasons for the delay, but Iraqi military officials have expressed frustration over the slow pace and have cited several problems, including the failure of Iraqi troops from other parts of the country to arrive on schedule in Baghdad, the capital.

The choice of top commanders, drawn from the army and the police, has largely been settled, the officials said, but was slowed by sectarian disagreements, with Shiites objecting to Sunnis and Sunnis objecting to Shiites.

Integrating the Iraqi police force with the army, essential to the plan, remains a problem, officers say. Some Sunni neighborhoods remain off limits to the police, because they are thought to be deeply infiltrated by Shiite militias and are widely distrusted by Sunni residents.

This is actually the second Baghdad security plan signed off on by Maliki. The original plan back in July called for upwards of 10,000 Iraqi troops and policemen to set up check points and patrol neighborhoods while American forces (augmented by around 5,000 in early July) carried out “sweep, clear, and hold” operations, handing over control of pacified areas to Iraqi police and army units.

Of course, Maliki couldn’t get 10,000 troops to come to Baghdad. Kurdish units in the north balked at the idea of patrolling the streets of Baghdad and mutinied, according to US Army sources. And Sunnis were reluctant to go after their co-religionists who were part of the insurgency. In the end, Maliki was able to scrape together less than 4,000 troops which, by the middle of September, it became apparent that the forces he had were inadequate to meet the security challenge.

This is where the second security plan came in. It envisioned up to an additional 17,000 American troops for Baghdad - the “surge” announced by the President - but also another 20,000 Iraqi troops divided between east and west Baghdad with an Iraqi commander in overall control. No word yet on whether Maliki has been able to achieve the troop levels he called for.

But we do know that he has enough to begin operations. This includes moving joint American and Iraqi forces into Baghdad neighborhoods to establish a permanent presence:

American officers said the new plan, under which an additional 17,000 American forces are to be deployed in Baghdad, would not necessarily have an official start. They said it would be more accurate to describe the effort as a broader strategy shift that would put American troops in Baghdad neighborhoods in more aggressive ways, living and working with Iraqi troops.

The Americans are arriving in staggered intervals over months, and troops on the ground are beginning to carry out the new strategy, the officers said. In western Baghdad, American forces are living with Iraqi soldiers at new Joint Security Stations in two neighborhoods. More stations are under construction.

From the beginning, American officers have cautioned that the new plan would take time, because any chance of success rests on building trust with a population whose faith has been severely tested by nearly a year of vicious sectarian violence. But they know that time is not on their side.

Time - something the President does not have. That, and the luxury of the surge plan being given a fair chance to succeed in reducing the violence in Baghdad.

There is no way that war critics will allow this plan even the perception of success. Any progress made will be minimized. Every car bombing, sectarian massacre, and terrorist attack will be lovingly dwelt on - proof that the plan is a “failure.”

We will have the interviews with Baghdad residents in a few months who will complain that they see no difference in their daily lives - that things are still dangerous. Every miscue by the Iraqi army will be headline news. And God help us if Americans were to kill an innocent civilian. Or at least a civilian that the AP tells us was innocent.

The sad fact is that no matter what progress is made in securing Baghdad, the only thing that can turn perception on its ear and actually start changing some minds is progress in the political arena by the Iraqis. If this surge had been accompanied by an announcement by al-Maliki of some political overtures to the Sunnis, of concessions on oil rights, amnesty for insurgents, and other necessary political steps that would start the process of giving the Sunnis a reason to stop fighting, then I think the surge would have had a vastly better chance of exceeding expectations and thus being pegged a success.

But Maliki and the Shia nationalists who hold sway over the government are not interested in sharing power and, in fact, are desirous of seeing Iraq “Sunni free.” This from StrategyPage:

The Sunni terrorist organizations are now attracting some truly fanatical recruits. It appears that a small percentage of the Iraqi Sunni Arabs are willing to fight to the death. Of the four million or so Sunni Arabs in Iraq in 2003, about half have already fled their homes, and either left the country, or moved to areas where the population is entirely Sunni. But even if only three percent of the Iraqi Sunni Arabs fight to the death, that’s over 100,000 people who would rather die than live in a democracy with the majority Shia Arabs. These diehards are getting financial and emotional support other Sunni Arabs in the region, who see an Iraq run by its Shia Arab majority, as a danger to all Sunni Moslems. That’s because of the ancient feud between Sunni and Shia (who disagree on who should be the supreme authority in the Islamic world, and on several other religious issues.)

While the United States would like to have the Iraqi government take care of these diehards, that would be a messy process. Many of the Shia and Kurd troops that predominate in the security forces are willing to kill all Sunni Arabs they encounter in a hostile area. The American troops can go in and just pop the bad guys, leaving most of the innocents unhurt. But to the majority of Iraqis, there’s no such thing as an innocent Sunni Arab, and would prefer to see them all dead, or gone to some other country.

As long as there are Shia militias, rogue Interior Ministry units, and killers-for-hire who are seeking to eliminate the Sunni presence in Iraq, the insurgents will continue to fight no matter how many of them we kill. Many of these insurgents belong to tribal based militias whose numbers are constantly being replenished. While it is true that we have made some progress with the tribes in Anbar at getting their help and cooperation, we are less successful in other Sunni provinces at bringing the tribes to our side. This is partly because al-Qaeda in Iraq has been most active among the tribes in Anbar, building resentment with their heavy handed administration and fierce religious conservatism.

For the tribes, they feel their own survival is at stake. With more than a million and a half Sunnis already having fled Iraq in the last 3 years and an estimated 350,000 displaced inside the country, the burden for proving that there is a place for the Sunnis at the table in Baghdad rests with the Shia majority. And al-Maliki - for a variety of reasons - has proved unable and unwilling to take the necessary steps to take the fire out of the hearts of both Shias and Sunnis and attempt a reconciliation that would lead to a more peaceful and just society.

I hope and believe the surge will do everything it is supposed to do - make Baghdad a safer place and give Maliki a political boost among the Iraqi people. What he does with this breathing room will determine whether or not the blood and treasure we are expending in this final effort to turn the situation around in Iraq will have been in vain.

The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq contains few, if any, surprises regarding the situation on the ground in that bloody country but offers “a glimmer” of hope that things can improve significantly:

A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document.

In a discussion of whether Iraq has reached a state of civil war, the 90-page classified NIE comes to no conclusion and holds out prospects of improvement. But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption.

The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus.

Reading between the lines of what was leaked to the Washington Post, the NIE nevertheless seems to me to make the correct judgements and draws the right conclusions:

Sources familiar with the closely held estimate agreed to discuss it in general terms yesterday on the condition that they remain anonymous and not be directly quoted. But Negroponte and others in the intelligence community have made frequent references to its conclusions in recent testimony.

On Tuesday, Negroponte referred to the NIE in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Iraq is at a precarious juncture. That means the situation could deteriorate, but there are prospects for increasing stability” that depend on the commitment of Iraqi government and political leaders to take steps to end Sunni-Shiite violence and “the willingness of Iraqi security forces to pursue extremist elements of all kinds,” he said.

Congress, which requested the Iraq NIE last August, has pressured the intelligence community to complete it in time for consideration of Bush’s new strategy. Intelligence officials have insisted that their best experts were working on the project at the same time they were meeting the demands of policymakers for current intelligence reports.

In the end, we can send 10 times 21,000 troops to Iraq. But if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continues to avoid tackling the political problems that are fueling the sectarian violence, then all is for naught and we might as well redeploy our troops to Kuwait or some other base now.

I don’t envy the task of the Prime Minister but to date, he has been his own worst enemy. His cozying up to Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army is only one of his problems. The fact is, the Sunnis see Maliki trying to establish Shia hegemony over the rest of the country and indeed, this is what has been happening. The coalition of political parties that governs Iraq are dominated by Shia nationalists who refuse to back Maliki in taking the steps necessary to broaden participation of the Sunnis and Kurds as well as adding the secular parties to the mix. Every plea we have made, every attempt to engage the Shia parties in the kind of nation building that will take the fire from the hearts of both Shias and Sunnis and start the healing process which would begin to reduce the violence has been rebuffed.

The Shias, by their lights, don’t see the need. They point to their victories at the polls and have expressed the fear that if they give up too much power to the Sunnis and Kurds, their own voters will turn on them. Then there is the threat of assassination by one of the dozen or so militias. Sadr has made it clear that Iraq will be a nation dominated by Shias and any politician that advocates sharing power with the Sunnis does so at their own peril.

Meanwhile, the Sunnis are trapped by history and by the blood on their hands from generations of oppressing the Shias and Kurds. The only way out for them is amnesty. And at the moment, amnesty is a non-starter for Maliki who would have to please both the radical Shias represented by Sadr and the Americans who would not look kindly on pardoning insurgents who killed our soldiers.

So the insurgents believe they have no choice. They must fight or die - either at the hands of Shia death squads or in battle against the Americans. Getting the Americans to go away may seem to be the height of stupidity since the American Army is the only thing standing between the Sunnis and a human rights tragedy that could dwarf what is going on in Darfur - a bloodletting and refugee crisis that would involve more than 5 million people. But the insurgents, who have made common cause with al-Qaeda in Iraq in some instances, feel that their only play is to try and reclaim power. And they know the Americans would never allow that to happen.

This Gordian Knot cannot be cut by American troops no matter how spectacularly they perform in the field. It won’t be cut simply by reining in the militias or killing Shia and Sunni extremists, although this would be extremely helpful and give the Iraqi government some breathing room to initiate at least some political reforms. It might not even be possible for the Iraqis to cut it alone. I can understand the resistance by the Administration to a regional conference on Iraq that would include the Iranians and the Syrians. But the Saudis are apparently going to start taking a more active role in defending their Sunni brethren while Iran shows no signs of slacking off in their support for the militias. It would make sense that a regional conference, with a well defined agenda, could come up with solutions that would use the influence of those two nations (and possibly Syria) in helping the Iraqis achieve a consensus on how to move forward toward political stability.

This most recent NIE, if it does nothing else, will, I hope, disabuse those who are inclined to believe that the application of military power alone by America can do much to solve the long term, systemic political problems that keep the insurgency going. At this point, we can do little more than act as a buffer between Shia extremists who seek revenge and Sunnis who are being hunted down and killed by both regular and irregular forces. For this reason alone, our continued presence in Iraq is well worth the effort.

But if the government of Prime Minister Maliki continues on its course and refuses to engage the other factions in a dialogue that would lead to a truly non sectarian government of national unity, we should look very hard at exploring other options up to and including a redeployment of our troops outside of Iraq.

UPDATE

Allah points to this McClatchy dispatch from yesterday that blames the US for the rise in influence of the Mahdi Army. The story quotes American troops on the ground in Baghdad saying that the the Iraqi army is lousy with Sadrists and that their plan is to wait for us to leave and then carry out a nationwide massacre of Sunnis.

Bryan points out in an update that this is not entirely accurate, that Sadr appears to have lost total control over his own militia and that there are several agendas at work among Sadrists.

First of all, there is nothing very new here. Perhaps the idea that roughly half the Iraqi army in Baghdad is made up of Sadrites would be news - if it were true. Maliki has deliberately tried to sprinkle Kurdish units in with the Shias to head off just such an eventuality. The problem is, in the past, the Kurds have been reluctant to go to Baghdad and have gone so far as to mutiny against the idea - probably because they realize all too well the truth in some of what has been reported here. I agree with Bryan that it is the local police who are truly lousy with Sadrites and that the army is trusted to a much greater degree by all Iraqis.

Bryan’s take below sounds about right:

The case of JAM is, as I’ve mentioned before, not as simple as the press usually makes out. Of the entire JAM militia, probably half are truly loyal to al-Sadr. The other half joined up for various reasons from needing the money to being threatened if they don’t join to having a grudge against Sunnis to wanting to tamp down local petty crime, etc. JAM isn’t a monolithic force in the way that Al Qaeda is, all joined by one ideal. There are factions within it, and those factions can be and are being exploited politically by the US forces. That also takes time. I will say that all the panic in Washington these days strengthens the hand of Sadr, since he seems to be on the winning side right now and everyone who chose to side with us seems to be on the losing side. The momentum right now is undoubtedly with the Sadrists, not because of the infiltration, but because anyone who is on the fence in Baghdad is being compelled by events to choose a side, and one side appears to be running away. The rational choice for an awful lot of people will be to join the side that is staying and looks like it will have a great deal of power after we’ve withdrawn. Had we stayed and not shown so much panic over the years, those who sided with us would be in a stronger position in Iraqi society than they may be in the coming months and years–if they survive that long.

None of this is to minimize the threat of militia infiltration into the ISF. But stories like the one above present the negative gotchas–see here, the whole Iraqi military is nothing but JAM–while leaving out the positive things our troops might have said about the ISF or how they see the infiltration being dealt with. The same troops at FOB Justice who were candid with us about JAM infiltration in the ISF also noted that some units are standing up fairly well and some are taking their missions very seriously and doing them well. You’ll hear about that in a bit more detail in tomorrow’s Vent, actually.

Following up my post from Sunday where I linked Bill Roggio’s piece on the possibility of the Karbala attack that killed 5 Americans being an operation carried out by the Qods Force of Iranian Revolutionary Guards, it appears that the Pentagon is indeed taking a closer look to see if the Iranian footprint can be detected:

The Pentagon is investigating whether a recent attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives, two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said.

“People are looking at it seriously,” one of the officials said.

That official added the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation into the January 20 attack that killed five soldiers.

The second official said: “We believe it’s possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained.”

Five U.S. soldiers were abducted and killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing U.S.-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports.

Both officials stressed the Iranian-involvement theory is a preliminary view, and there is no final conclusion. They agreed this possibility is being looked at because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination.

“This was beyond what we have seen militias or foreign fighters do,” the second official said.

The investigation has led some officials to conclude the attack was an “inside job” — that people inside the compound helped the attackers enter unstopped.

One of the commenters from my Sunday piece offered some interesting speculation; that the attack was carried out by former Iraqi Special Ops members. It makes sense since what the Pentagon is looking at is the level of training and planning that went into the operation. And while not indicative of militia or insurgent participation due to the operation’s sophistication, it might point the finger at units in the old Revolutionary Guard who were among Saddam’s most effective troops.

After some investigation, I had to conclude that this is not likely. We haven’t seen many operations that showed the kind of intensive training and discipline that would be the hallmark of Special Forces. In fact, the insurgents and militias are so ill trained and undisciplined that whenever they stand toe to toe with our boys, we win easily. Unless one speculates that this is among the first operations carried out by a Special Ops force that has been in hiding for nearly 4 years, it just isn’t likely that Saddam era commandos were involved in the Karbala attack.

The possibility of a traitor operating inside the compound would partly answer one question I had when I first read of the attack; how could the enemy penetrate our security? But for these guys to have talked their way past a couple of checkpoints is still a mystery. Unless security was just so lax that the cruised through based on the color of their uniforms. If that were the case, I hope some heads are rolling in that command.

But what of Iran? I speculated on Sunday, based on reports I linked to from Bill’s site, that it may have been a hostage situation gone bad. The enemy seized our soldiers and took off toward the Iranian border with them. After acting suspiciously at a checkpoint, Iraqi troops gave pursuit. It was during the chase that the Americans were apparently executed by their captors. And there was a report that 4 suspects had been arrested, although we haven’t heard anything since then about their nationalities or whether they were even involved.

Time’s Robert Baer speculates that the motive may have been revenge:

The speculation that Karbala was an IRGC operation may have as much to do with Iraqis’ respect for IRGC capacity for revenge as it does with the truth. Nevertheless, we should count on the IRGC gearing up for a fight. And we shouldn’t underestimate its capacities. Aside from arming the opposition, the IRGC is capable of doing serious damage to our logistics lines. I called up an American contractor in Baghdad who runs convoys from Kuwait every day and asked him just how much damage.”Let me put it this way,”he said.”In Basra today the currency is the Iranian toman, not the Iraqi dinar.”He said his convoys now are forced to pay a 40% surcharge to Shi’a militias and Iraqi police in the south, many of whom are affiliated with IRGC.

Mindful of the spreading chaos in Iraq, President Bush has promised not to take the war into Iran. But it won’t matter to the IRGC. There is nothing the IRGC likes better than to fight a proxy war in another country.

This also makes sense. The Qods Force has a clandestine arm that has been involved in several assassinations of Iranian dissidents in Europe and the Middle East. Our buddy President Ahmadinejad cut his bones as a senior commander in the Force and it has been charged but never proven that he participated in the assassination of Iranian Kurdish leader Abdorrahman Qassemlou in Vienna in 1989. I have no doubt that Ahmadinejad sees our raid on the “consulate” in Irbil and the taking and holding of 5 Qods Force members as a personal affront and a national humiliation. It would make sense that he would send some of his old friends into Karbala to avenge this blow to Iranian honor.

On a related note, it appears that the Bush Administration will not reveal specifics of Iranian involvement in the violence in Iraq after all. The press conference that was scheduled for today which would have supplied chapter and verse of Iranian assistance to the militias and the insurgents has been postponed:

A plan by the Bush administration to release detailed and possibly damning specific evidence linking the Iranian government to efforts to destabilize Iraq have been put on hold, U.S. officials told FOX News.

Officials had said a “dossier” against Iran compiled by the U.S. likely would be made public at a press conference this week in Baghdad, and that the evidence would contain specifics including shipping documents, serial numbers, maps and other evidence which officials say would irrefutably link Iran to weapons shipments to Iraq.

Now, U.S. military officials say the decision to go public with the findings has been put on hold for several reasons, including concerns over the reaction from Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — as well as inevitable follow-up questions that would be raised over what the U.S. should do about it.

This stinks of State Department meddling. Their concern is that there is a possibility Ahmadinejad is on the ropes in Iran thanks to his spectacularly incompetent rule and the restlessness of some of his supporters and any serious charges made regarding Iranian complicity in the violence in Iraq will only strengthen the President and unite the Iranians behind him.

I will admit to not knowing enough about internal Iranian politics to enable me to make an informed judgement as to whether that is true or false but I know enough to believe that reports of President Ahamdinejad’s demise could be greatly exaggerated. He’s not going anywhere anytime soon. Most of these reports about unrest regarding his rule are coming from predictable sources - ex-Presidents Ayatollah Ali Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami. Rafsanjani’s lists did very well in local elections last month and Khatami has been a font of criticism of Ahmadinejad’s foreign policy for a long time. The only person Ahmadinejad has to keep happy is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Only the Big Tuna could engineer his ouster in the Iranian Majlis.

This from an Iranian insider:

“I don’t think Ahmadinejad will leave the presidency before his mandate expires but I am also convinced he will not succeed in winning a second term,” added Saharkhiz. “Many factions and personalities who supported Ahmadinejad’s candidature at the 2005 presidential elections have already abandoned him and don’t spare criticism, even harsh and direct, of the president and his government.”

One other possibility for the delay in releasing the evidence of Iranian perfidy in Iraq may be that they want to complete the investigation into what happened in Karbala. The problem there is that could take weeks. And I assumed that one reason the Administration wanted to get this information out there was to stiffen some Congressional spines about our involvement in Iraq. With Iran contributing to the deaths of Americans and Iraqis, it makes pacifying the country even more of an imperative.

This situation with Iranian meddling in Iraq has grown intolerable. Despite cries from some Iraqi quarters to stop the round up of Iranians, as long as Maliki supports it (and perhaps even if he doesn’t) we should continue to aggressively pursue them.

I pity David Bell. And, in a way, I envy him. To be so oblivious to the threat posed by organizations like al-Qaeda and the ever burgeoning list of imitators and wannabes involved in international terrorism takes a special sort of myopia, a blissful blindness that lays a blanket of serenity over those who are arrogant enough or delusional enough to indulge in such fantasies.

Bell’s column in today’s Los Angeles Times raises an interesting point: Is the threat of terrorism an existential one? But answering in the negative, Bell proves himself shortsighted, shallow, and in the end, dead wrong.

The provocative headline of his piece - “Was 9/11 Really that Bad?” - is not very original. Several eminent historians have already tackled the subject and with far more depth and intelligence than Bell devoted to this regurgitation of leftist cant about the War on Terror.

First, let’s set up a great big strawman, shall we?

IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies’ objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

It’s been a while since we’ve seen the old “20 million dead Soviets can’t be wrong” meme coming from the left. I actually sort of missed it. When last we left those 20 million dead Soviets, they were being used to assure us that the Russians would never attack America or Western Europe or anybody for that matter because no country suffered more as a result of war. This was about the time that Andropov was trying to convince himself that a nuclear first strike on America was necessary because Reagan was a nut. And we heard the meme repeated ad naseum all during the Soviet’s campaign to split the Europeans from the United States by threatening all sorts of nasty consequences if NATO deployed Pershing II missiles.

The Soviet Union lost 20 million people in World War II because they chose to help Adolf Hitler start the war in the first place. Stalin made a conscious decision (and an immoral secret protocol with Germany that partitioned Poland and divided Europe into “spheres of influence”) to abandon their treaty obligations to France and allow Hitler a free hand in western Europe.

Now we have 20 million dead Soviets being used to tell us that we haven’t suffered enough in the War on Terror to justify our reaction, that indeed, we don’t know what real suffering is. Bell is trying to tell us that the 20 million lost in Stalin’s war of choice should be, if not a benchmark, then certainly a guide to how we should be approaching terrorism. Evidently, the measly 3,000 Americans lost on 9/11 just doesn’t cut it among the “proportional response” crowd.

I could be flippant and ask the Professor to wait a few years until the nightmare of terrorists armed with nuclear and biological weapons becomes a reality but that’s the point of our “overreaction” isn’t it? I guarantee it will be easy for the Bell’s of the world to say, after the first nuke destroys an American city, that the terrorists are not an existential threat, that in the grand scheme of things, what’s one little city when compared to getting the rest of the world upset with us and going into places like Iraq to bust up governments who aid and abet people who want to kill as many of us as possible - something the professor readily acknowledges?

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies’ objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the “Islamo-fascist” enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler’s implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War).

But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down.

The “standards of past wars” is an idiotic yardstick to use. What possible “standard” can we point to from any war in our past that would bear any resemblance whatsoever to our situation today? We are fighting extra-state actors who flit from continent to continent, aided and abetted by nations who themselves have sworn to destroy us. What in our past has prepared us to deal with this scenario?

And to say that the terrorists don’t have the capacity to destroy us may be correct - today. But any number of proliferation experts, academics, military and intelligence officials have informed us that it is not a question of if we are going to be hit by a nuclear attack but when. And the time frame most often given is sometime in the next decade.

Would we be “overreacting” if we took the action we are taking now - including the invasion of Iraq - after a couple of our cities are destroyed? This is the essence of our strategy - pre-emption. What good does it do to take the aggressive posture we have now after a couple of hundred thousand American are incinerated? Or perhaps Bell doesn’t believe that the effort we are putting forth to combat terrorism is worth it under any circumstances?

I suspect the latter. And this is because his idea of what an “existential” threat might be is so narrow as to be useless. If 10 nuclear bombs detonated on American soil, there would still be a landmass between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and mapmakers would still probably refer to it as “America.”

But what exactly would “America” look like? Nothing you or I would recognize I assure you. In that sense, al-Qaeda and their ilk are existential threats to the very idea of America - something more precious than any territory and more valuable than any building or artifact.

Besides, says Bell, we’re fighting people who live in caves and are ignorant savages. Well, not exactly. But what’s the point of informing us that the terrorist’s current arsenal includes “guns, knives, and conventional explosives?”

Of course, the 9/11 attacks also conjured up the possibility of far deadlier attacks to come. But then, we were hardly ignorant of these threats before, as a glance at just about any thriller from the 1990s will testify. And despite the even more nightmarish fantasies of the post-9/11 era (e.g. the TV show “24’s” nuclear attack on Los Angeles), Islamist terrorists have not come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns and conventional explosives. A war it may be, but does it really deserve comparison to World War II and its 50 million dead? Not every adversary is an apocalyptic threat.

I am very happy that Bell is so sure that al-Qaeda hasn’t “come close” to deploying nuclear or biological weapons. A definition of “close” might be appreciated because all signs point to the terrorists getting their hands on these weapons in the very near future - if they haven’t already.. And of course, after they’ve deployed them, the professor will have the satisfaction of knowing that there will be precious few people who will know or care very much that he was so spectacularly wrong.

Is it “overreacting” to try and prevent terrorists from deploying these weapons in the first place? Is it “overreacting” to attempt to break up their networks, smash their infrastructure, deny them funds, and, when necessary, go after the nations that fund them, assist them, support them, and wish them well?

If ever there was an example of the chasm that has opened up between those like Bell who, for all intents and purposes wish to wait for the hammer to fall before we react and those who would do whatever is necessary to prevent it in the first place, this article is it. Bell’s arguments couldn’t be clearer. We are big enough to absorb blows like 9/11 without “overreacting.” Just because al-Qaeda hasn’t launched a WMD attack. they don’t pose an “existential threat” to the United States.

Bell and his ilk will deny that they wish to “wait until we are attacked” before responding. But their solution - treat the terrorists as vicious criminals - has been tried already. All during the 1990’s we captured precious few terrorists, broke up even fewer networks, and al-Qaeda grew into the threat that they are today. Repeating a failed policy for the sake of not “overreacting” is idiocy. You either believe there is a threat or you don’t. And if you do, then you bend every effort to destroy that threat. Bell and his ilk want to manage the threat. If given the opportunity, the professor and his ilk will manage us into disaster:

During the hopeful early years of the 20th century, journalist Norman Angell’s huge bestseller, “The Great Illusion,” argued that wars had become too expensive to fight. Then came the unspeakable horrors of World War I. And the end of the Cold War, which seemed to promise the worldwide triumph of peace and democracy in a more stable unipolar world, has been followed by the wars in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf War and the present global upheaval. In each of these conflicts, the United States has justified the use of force by labeling its foe a new Hitler, not only in evil intentions but in potential capacity.

Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.

Angell’s thesis was that war was futile because both victor and vanquished would be much worse off economically than if hostilities had not broken out. Essentially, the cost benefit rationale for war had disappeared in the fire and smoke of the industrial revolution. Ironically, what made modern war possible also basically made it obsolete. Of course, that didn’t stop the European powers from savagely killing each other twice during the first half of the century. Whether Angell was right or wrong hardly mattered in the sense that his analysis was fatally flawed because he believed that his kind of logic actually mattered in the long run.

Bell’s fatally flawed analysis begins with the premise that 9/11 wasn’t that bad and that our reaction to it ‘ “overreaction” as Bell calls it - is the result of our failure to apply Angell-like cost benefit analyses to what our policy should be. One wonders how many dead it would take before Bell thought that we were “under reacting.”

When I first read about the attack on our men in Karbala, the details seemed rather incredible. The enemy, speaking English and dressed in American uniforms, attacked a group of soldiers holding a meeting with local leaders on reconstruction issues.

Further deepening the mystery was the fact that initial reports by the military had 5 of our men killed on site with another three wounded. But somehow, the AP ferreted out the real story. The military has now confirmed that the 5 Americans were led away in handcuffs and executed a short distance away.

Bill Roggio has some information that, if true, alters the way we should be looking at the war and raises troubling questions about its possible widening:

The American Forces Information Service provides the details of the attack in Karbala. Based on the sophisticated nature of the raid, as well as the response, or cryptic non-responses, from multiple military and intelligence sources, this raid appears to have been directed and executed by the Qods Force branch of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps. My sources agreed this is far to sophisticated an operation for the Mahdi Army or Badr Corps, while al-Qaeda in Iraq would have a difficult time mounting such an operation in the Shia south. “The Karbala Government Center raid the other day was a little too professional for JAM [Jaish al-Mahdi, or the Mahdi Army],” according to a military source.

This raid required specific intelligence, in depth training for the agents to pass as American troops, resources to provide for weapons, vehicles, uniforms, identification, radios and other items needed to successfully carry out the mission. Hezbollah’s Imad Mugniyah executed a similar attack against Israeli forces on the Lebanese border, which initiated the Hezbollah-Israeli war during the summer of 2006.

The Qods Force is the foreign action arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. These are the most fanatical of the fanatical believers in the Iranian revolution and are highly motivated and trained. They’ve carried out assassinations in Europe and the Middle East of Iranian dissidents living abroad as well as assisting Hizbullah in Lebanon for many years.

Here’s the AFIS report Bill was referring to:

At about 5 p.m. that day, a convoy consisting of at least five sport utility vehicles entered the Karbala compound and about 12 armed militants attacked the American troops with rifle fire and hand grenades, officials said.

One soldier was killed and three others wounded by a hand grenade thrown into the center’s main office. Other explosions within the compound destroyed three Humvees.

The attackers withdrew with four captured U.S. soldiers and drove out of the Karbala province into the neighboring Babil province. Iraqi police began trailing the assailants after they drew suspicion at a checkpoint.

Three soldiers were found dead and one fatally wounded, along with five abandoned vehicles, near the town of Mahawil. Two were found handcuffed together in the back of one of the vehicles. The other two were found nearby on the ground. One soldier was found alive but died en route to a nearby hospital. All suffered from gunshot wounds.

Also recovered at the site were U.S. Army-type combat uniforms, boots, radios and a non-U.S. made rifle, officials said.

Bill believes the attackers were making a bee line for the Iranian border, hoping to hold our men as hostages to be exchanged for the Qods Force members we’re holding after our raid at Ibril. If so, the execution style murders were carried out because the Iranians feared capture (not that it makes any difference in the end).

With all the trouble that Ahmadinejad appears to be in with the elites in Iran, this botched operation probably doesn’t help him. If the Iranian President has in fact committed the Qods Force to action against Americans in any substantial way, this would represent a escalation - one that the President has matched with his order to kill or capture Iranian agents in Iraq.

Michelle Malkin’s intel source confirms that “it has all the signs of Iranian Special Forces.” Malkin also reports that 4 suspects have been arrested in the attack. No word on their nationality.

This situation bears watching.

For all of my new found friends on the left (and old friends on the right) who have been cheering me on as I have skewered the Administration over their prosecution of the war, this post may come as a bit of a disappointment.

While I believe the increase in troop strength won’t by itself lead to a satisfactory conclusion to the war, I feel compelled to support the President and General Petraeus who have both indicated that the troop increase is necessary to get a handle on the security situation in Baghdad and Anbar province.

Yes, a less than enthusiastic endorsement but a realistic one, I think. I have said many times that we are well beyond the point where military action alone can save Iraq. Only the Iraqi government can carry out the political moves necessary to take the heat out of the insurgency, the militias, and the sectarian violence that is killing more than 150 people a day and creating a growing refugee problem as Sunnis flee the mixed neighborhoods of Baghdad to avoid the slaughter.

Having said that, the surge appears to be well thought out and, if implemented with the kind of vigor our troops have shown so far in running al-Sadr’s militia to ground, it is more than possible that there can be a large decrease in the violence - breathing room for al-Maliki to make the overtures necessary to broaden the support of his government among Sunnis while restraining the Shias from taking their revenge for Saddam’s atrocities.

But whether you think the surge will work or not (and yes, I want it to work very badly), you should ask yourself a question: Is it up to the Senate to micromanage the war by second guessing both the Commander in Chief and the Commanding general in theater?

The Biden resolution states “It is not in the national interest” for the President to send more troops to Iraq. Further, as Chuck Shumer helpfully points out, this is only the beginning:

Sen. Charles Schumer D-N.Y., said Thursday that the resolution the committee approved is not the last that will be heard from Congress.

“A resolution that that says we’re against this escalation, that’s easy. The next step will be how do you put further pressure on the administration against the escalation, but still supporting the troops who are there,” he said on NBC’s “Today” program.

“That’s what we’re figuring out right now,” Schumer added. “But this will not be the end. There will be other resolutions with more teeth in it afterwards and my bet — they’ll get a majority of support and significant Republican support.”

Indeed, this is the dilemma for Democrats and those Republicans who wish to undercut the Commander in Chief during a time of war: how do you hide the fact from the voters that you are voting to cut our troops under fire off at the knees?

A very delicate political problem that the Democrats will find some way to solve. In the meantime, the larger question remains of whether the Senate should be setting war policy at all.

Yes they can cut off funding if they wish, although they cannot propose such a measure. All money bills must originate in the House (there are ways around that constitutional requirement but by tradition, the Senate usually allows the House to lead). And they can hold hearings and jawbone to their hearts content. But can they micro-manage issues like troop levels? Why not war doctrine? Why not tactics and strategy?

The answer is that these Senators are not interested in supporting the troops, or helping the Iraqis, or tamping down the violence, or anything except looking out for their own political hides:

If they were serious and had the courage of their convictions, they’d attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq effort. But that would mean they would have to take responsibility for what happens next. By passing “non-binding resolutions,” they can assail Mr. Bush and put all of the burden of success or failure on his shoulders.

This is not to say that the resolution won’t have harmful consequences, at home and abroad. At home, it further undermines public support for the Iraq effort. Virginia Republican John Warner even cites a lack of public support to justify his separate non-binding resolution of criticism for Mr. Bush’s troop “surge.” But public pessimism is in part a response to the rhetoric of failure from political leaders like Mr. Warner. The same Senators then wrap their own retreat in the defeatism they helped to promote.

I’m not so sure about that last part. The American people are smart enough to know that things are not going at all well in Iraq. They don’t have to hear it from Senators or Congressmen or even political pundits. The one dimensional reporting we are getting from Iraq about body counts and the latest massacre is sufficient enough to sour them on the war effort. And while media coverage of the war is horribly incomplete, I doubt whether it would make any difference if the “good news” that happens in that bloody land were reported as well. Vice President Cheney’s rantings aside, it is not defeatism in the media or the Congress or in the blogosphere that is hurting our efforts in Iraq. It was and continues to be Administration policies that have proven themselves a failure.

Acknowledging that fact is the first step to fixing the situation. The second step is to lower our sights in what we can accomplish in Iraq militarily. And the final step will be in assisting the Iraqi government in coming to terms with the Sunnis and the Kurds and facilitating a truly national, non sectarian government where all Iraqis can live together in peace.

None of this will be accomplished by the Senate. And this is why I’m joining with Hugh Hewitt and other bloggers in signing a petition pledging not to support Republican Senators who vote with the Democrats on the Biden resolution. I would add that I will not support any Senator who votes for any resolution that undercuts the Commander in Chief or the Commanding General in theater in their plans to improve the security situation in Iraq. This includes a bunch of alternative resolutions eagerly being drawn up by Republican Senators who don’t want to be left behind when the “Stick it to the President” train leaves the station.

Hugh is also urging people to call Senator McConnell’s office ((202-224-2541) and urge him to organize a filibuster of the resolution.

Judging by the favorable reaction to his State of the Union speech, the American people, although highly skeptical, appear to be inclined to give the President one more chance to succeed in Iraq. The least we can do as Americans is to give our support to the Commander in Chief.

The President weeps at yesterday’s Medal of Honor Ceremony for Corporal Jason Dunham.

I must start by stating the obvious. I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist, or liberal know it all who tries to play at psychoanalyzing political opponents by ascribing laughable motivations or evil intent to people whose only psychological malady is that they fail to see the brilliance and simple goodness of liberals and left wing dogma. Armchair Freuds and Jungs abound on the left and it can get rather tiresome being told that you suffer from some kind of mental disease simply because you disagree with someone politically.

But you don’t have to be a trained mental health professional to recognize the fact that the President of the United States is under a terrible burden and that at this moment in history, when all the ancient furies have been loosed to torment him, George W. Bush is feeling the loneliness of his office more keenly than at any time in his presidency.

You saw it in his posture and the way he delivered his televised speech on Wednesday night. His cadence was stiff and unnatural. Rather than flowing from one point to another, the speech seemed choppy and out of kilter. His peroration - usually a chance for any President to hit the ball out of the park - fell flat rather than soar and inspire.

We usually chalk this kind of performance up to the fact that Bush is a poor communicator. But, as Hindraker points out, these set piece Oval Office speeches have seen Bush excel in the past:

In the past, I’ve often said that President Bush has been more effective in televised speeches than he has been given credit for. Not tonight. I thought he came across as stiff, nervous, and anxious to get it over with. The importance of the issue seemed to overwhelm the President’s ability to communicate. I suspect that only a few listeners absorbed more than a general impression of what the new strategy is all about.

Hindraker isn’t the only one who noticed that Bush was way off his game that night. Howard Fineman of Newsweek, who has covered Bush since 1993, said basically the same thing:

George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup. I first interviewed the guy in 1987 and began covering his political rise in 1993, and I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared. Not surprising since what he was doing in the White House library was announcing the escalation of an unpopular war.

I’m not sure about the President looking “scared,” although I would agree he didn’t look very sure of himself. In short, his speech did not inspire confidence among his supporters and, judging by the reaction in Congress on both sides of the aisle, it appeared to embolden his political foes. The Democrats are seriously considering legislation that would deny the Commander in Chief funds that he feels is necessary to protect the country. You can argue that he is wrong, misguided, or even stupid. You can even argue (and lefties are, of course, doing so) that he is lying through his teeth and that Haliburton isn’t through squeezing all the money out of our Iraq adventure yet - hence the surge in troops.

But what you cannot argue is that Bush is Constitutionally empowered as a result of being elected by a free and fair vote of the people President and Commander in Chief to act as he sees fit to protect the troops under his command and the nation he is responsible for. The coming confrontation with Democrats over funding for the Iraq War will strain our Constitutional government to the limit as age old questions about Presidential prerogatives versus Congressional power of the purse clash and battle lines are drawn that could determine the future security of the country and the world.

Is it any wonder that the President looks a little haggard? Weighed down with the fact that his policies in Iraq are failing, his political position eroding, the enemies of America becoming more aggressive, and many of his old friends deserting him on Iraq, the crushing responsibilities of his office appear to be taking a toll. Contrast this picture below from 2000 with the one above taken yesterday:

Certainly 6 years as President would take a toll on any man - except perhaps Ronald Reagan whose innate optimism and sunny disposition overcame almost all the vagaries and pitfalls of the office that normally turn Presidents into old men before their time.

But what becomes immediately apparent in comparing the two photos is the striking collapse or, more accurately, deflation of the President’s face. The flesh hangs loosely now. He has become a little jowly. And the worry lines have become pronounced on his forehead. He looks tired and frankly, beaten down.

For those who wish nothing but ill for this man, I say shame on you for you know not what you do. George Bush, at the moment is it. History has tapped him on the shoulder and until January 20, 2009 at the stroke of noon, he is the only President we have. If you care one whit about this country, you would hope that whatever happens, the President is able to bear the enormous burden that we have placed upon his shoulders. We may disagree with him on any number of issues. We may believe him to have blundered horribly in Iraq and the Middle East. But to gloat about the pain he is suffering and the loneliness he is experiencing or worse, hope that it all becomes too much for him demonstrates a monumental lack of empathy for a fellow human being and a breathtaking disregard for the well being of the country.

Presidents deal with the enormous burden the office places on them in different ways but they all have felt it at one time or another. Harry Truman used to relate an anecdote from his first official cabinet meeting following FDR’s funeral. The discussion went around the table about war policy toward Japan and then, a silence settled over the room. With a start, Truman realized that all eyes were on him as the cabinet was waiting expectantly for a decision. He said at that moment, he first felt the horrible loneliness of the office and wished devoutly he was back in Missouri.

Lincoln probably suffered from clinical depression for most of his adult life which made his time in the White House during the Civil War a living hell. The country agonized along with him and when he died, it was not uncommon to hear eulogies that compared his suffering and death with that of Jesus. The analogy was taken a step further as many also compared him to the redeemer - a man who died for the sin of slavery and hence, redeemed the country in the eyes of God.

In an article a few weeks ago, Tony Blankley summed up Bush’s slide following the elections in November:

The American presidency has been called “A Glorious Burden” by the Smithsonian Museum, and the loneliest job in the world by historians. As we approach Christmas 2006 Anno Domini, President Bush is surely fully seized of the loneliness and burden of his office.

For rarely has a president stood more alone at a moment of high crisis than does our president now as he makes his crucial policy decisions on the Iraq War. His political opponents stand triumphant, yet barren of useful guidance. Many — if not most — of his fellow party men and women in Washington are rapidly joining his opponents in a desperate effort to save their political skins in 2008. Commentators who urged the president on in 2002-03, having fallen out of love with their ideas, are quick to quibble with and defame the president.

Blankley is surely being disingenuous when he writes that opponents of the war are “barren of useful guidance.” Surrender and retreat is a perfectly viable option to push if you believe the war is already lost and nothing is to be gained by leaving our soldiers in Iraq one moment longer.

Bush does not believe we’ve already lost but it is an open question as to what kind of “victory” he envisions his augmented force can bring him. If he can accomplish what he outlined in his speech on Wednesday night - a large reduction in sectarian violence and the establishment of some kind of viable Iraqi state, then he will have at least avoided catastrophe. The problem is that both those goals cannot be achieved solely by the American military but are heavily dependent on the political actions of the Iraqi government. And given their track record, it is very difficult to be optimistic about a positive outcome.

George Bush is not a stupid man nor is he oblivious to what is going on around him - despite the ignorant commentary from the left about the mental acuity of their political opponents that has dogged Bush and every Republican President since Eisenhower. And watching that ceremony yesterday in which the Medal of Honor was awarded to Corporal Jason Dunham for the heroic act of falling on a live grenade to save two of his comrades, I was struck, as I often am with Bush, about how deeply he empathizes with those who have lost loved ones in the war. The dozens of private sessions he has held with widows, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers of the dead - out of sight of the cameras - are rarely reported on and even more rarely is he given credit for them. By all reports from family members, they are extremely wrenching emotionally as some parents yell at him and berate him for killing their child while others stand aloof, too upset with Bush to even acknowledge his presence.

I don’t care what you think of the man, but going through with those sessions knowing that some of the survivors are likely to accuse you of what amounts to murder takes guts. And, of course, there are many who report that the President’s words and actions comforted them during these private meetings.

The point is simple; whether because of his deep religious beliefs or simply the way he is, Bush’s enormous stores of empathy denote a man who is more likely to become emotionally crippled when the whole ball of wax begins to collapse. I don’t think Bush’s public tears are necessarily indicative of anything except perhaps exhaustion. But we have two long, hard years to go before the President leaves office. And judging by the way he looked during his speech Wednesday night and the way he looked yesterday at the medal ceremony, I am worried that events may simply overwhelm the President if a crisis occurs.

I feel for the man. I disagree with him but he is still my President, the elected leader of the United States. I sincerely hope that his faith in the Almighty and the love of his family can sustain him during the coming months.

In a move that is sure to cause a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth around the world - illegal though it was but OH MY GOD SO SATISFYING! - American forces raided the Iranian consulate in northern Iraq just hours after the President’s speech:

U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq late Wednesday night and detained several people, Iran’s main news agency reported today, prompting protests from Tehran just hours after President Bush pledged to crack down on the Islamic Republic’s role in Iraqi violence.

Iran released news of the raid through its Islamic Republic News Agency in a dispatch that was broadly critical of Bush’s plan to deploy about 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

The IRNA report said that U.S. forces entered the Iranian consulate in Irbil, in Iraq’s Kurdish-dominated north, and seized computers, documents and other items. The report said five staff members were taken into custody.

Yes, I realize it is childish and churlish of me to feel this way about giving the Iranians a little payback for 1979. But there are times when indulging your natural inclinations is so right, so proper, that suppressing the higher brain functions that tell you to behave like an adult is the thing to do.

Besides, aren’t you dying to find out what’s on those computer hard drives and what was in those filing cabinets they carted away?

Although U.S. officials have not confirmed that an Iranian diplomatic building was involved in today’s raid, a man who lives next to the consulate, Sardar Hassan Mohammed, 34, said he saw what he believed to be U.S. forces surrounding the building with their vehicles before entering it. Mohammed said at least five people were taken.

An official with the Kurdish Democratic Party, who declined to give his name, said the U.S. troops confiscated belongings inside the consulate in addition to arresting people inside.

Without addressing the recent incident, top U.S. officials in Washington were pointed in remarks today about how they intend to follow up on Bush’s pledge to curb Syrian and Iranian influence in Iraq.

There are times when revelling in historical irony and glorying in a cold dish of revenge can’t be helped. The nature of the 1979 humiliation perpetrated by the Iranians was so profoundly disturbing to those of us who lived through it that this clearly illegal violation of the “sacred soil” of Iran just doesn’t matter very much - even in an intellectual context. We know it is wrong and yet the satisfaction is so complete that world opinion, international law, even the consequences of the raid to our diplomats just don’t balance the ledger against it.

And those consequences will be real. It is almost a certainty that the world just got a little more dangerous for our diplomats all over the world - which should sober all of us up right quick. And, of course, the precedent shattering nature of the raid could place our embassies and consulates in similar danger.

But please note the rather low key response (so far) from the Iranians. They can hardly make a big stink about this violation after what they pulled in 1979. And irony of ironies, we are using the exact same excuse in raiding their embassy 27 years later - that it contained a “nest of spies:”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the United States is systematically trying to identify networks of people who bring weapons and explosives into the country — a central allegation against Iran — and will move to shut them down.

Improvised explosives have been a key source of U.S. casualties and deaths since the war began.

“We will do what is necessary for force protection,” Rice said at a press conference. “Networks are identified. They are identified from intelligence and they are acted upon . . . whatever the nationality.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Gen. Peter Pace, referring to the earlier arrest of Iranians, said that Tehran’s involvement in Iraq “is destructive. . . . They are complicit . . . and we will do what is necessary.”

The Iranians won’t have to make a big to do about this clear violation of international norms - their allies on the left in this country will be more than happy to oblige, I’m sure. Perhaps if Jimmy Carter were to come out and dance a little jig…

Not likely.

UPDATE

Richard Fernandez and I are on exactly the same wavelength: “A Downpayment on 1979.”

Jules Crittenden says that this indicates that the gloves are off:

The Washington Post reports U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate in Iraq and seized a number of Iranians suspected of aiding the insurgency. No doubt the Iranians will squawk about the violation of diplomatic immunity, incursion on sovereign Iranian territory, international law, blah blah blah. I encourage them then to raid our embassy and consulates in Iran. …oh yeah, we don’t have any. Remember why? This is an early indicator that the gloves are in fact off, which is the key component to success in this change of strategy.

Greg Tinti from Political Pit Bull has the predictable reaction from Lambchop:

The dumbest reaction I’ve seen to this on the left is from Glenn Greenwald, whom without apparently understanding the irony of his question, asks, “Isn’t it a definitive act of war for one country to storm the consulate of another, threaten to kill them if they do not surrender, and then detain six consulate officers?”

I don’t know about you, but it seems that Greenwald’s rather quick to side with Iran on this one. It is indisputable that Iran has been actively involved in supporting the insurgency in Iraq–especially by providing insurgents with IEDs and weaponry that have contributed directly to US casualties. Don’t those actions by Iran count as a definitive act of war? Doesn’t the US have a right to fight back against Iranian interference? In Greenwald’s mind apparently, the answer to those questions seems to be no.

Will Bunch also smells a war brewing with Iran.

As I’ve said many times, there is a huge downside to military action against Iran. Any possible benefits would be far outweighed by the almost certain attacks against our troops in Iraq as well as probable action taken against tankers in the Straits of Hormuz - a choke point for 20% of the west’s oil. We wouldn’t be able to get all the anti-ship missiles Iran posesses nor would we be able to destroy the Islamic Republic’s ability to create absolute havoc in Iraq; with attacks on our troops using their intermediate range missiles and the probable rising of the Shias who would take great offense at our hitting their co-religionists.

But interdiction and an intelligent use of our military to stifle the flow of supplies to the insurgents (who would never take any help from those dirty Shias in Iran now, would they?) while not violating Iranian air space or raiding their territory (beyond a consulate or two) may be almost as effective as a bombing campaign and have the extra added attraction of putting the onus of attack on the Iranians if they chose to make an issue of their meddling in Iraqi affairs.

It’s been a few hours since the President’s speech - just long enough for some of the media and smart bloggers I respect on both the left and the right to weigh in with their reactions.

To say that this is just more of the same, a hyped up “stay the course” plan with nothing new in it is one of those ideas that is accurate but incomplete. And the differences between what we’ve done before and what is proposed now are quite telling indeed.

Bush appears to me to be prepared for failure in Iraq. What he has done in promulgating this plan is to place the onus for success or catastrophe on the shaky shoulders of the Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He has, in effect, granted Maliki’s wish that Iraqi troops in Baghdad will be under his control:

The plan sketched out by Mr. Bush went at least part way to meeting these Shiite concerns by ceding greater operational authority over the war in Baghdad to the government. The plan envisages an Iraqi commander with overall control of the new security crackdown in Baghdad, and Iraqi officers working under him who would be in charge of military operations in nine newly demarcated districts in the capital.

The commanders would report to a new office of commander in chief directly under the authority of Mr. Maliki. The arrangement appeared to have the advantage, for Mr. Maliki, of giving him a means to circumvent the Ministry of Defense, which operates under close American supervision. “The U.S. agrees that the government must take command,” Mr. Abadi said.

And at the same time Maliki is being given command of his own troops, he has thrown down the gauntlet to his biggest political supporter Muqtada al-Sadr:

Iraq’s prime minister has told Shiite militiamen to surrender their weapons or face an all-out assault, part of a commitment U.S. President George W. Bush outlined to bring violence under control with a more aggressive Iraqi Army and 21,500 additional American troops.

Senior Iraqi officials said Wednesday that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, under pressure from the U.S., has agreed to crack down on the fighters even though they are loyal to his most powerful political ally, the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Previously, al-Maliki had resisted the move…

Before Bush spoke, a senior Shiite legislator and close al-Maliki adviser said the prime minister had warned that no militias would be spared in the crackdown.

“The government has told the Sadrists: ‘If we want to build a state we have no other choice but to attack armed groups,’” said the legislator, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the prime minister.

And the President made it clear that he would brook no more smoke and mirrors from Maliki who has made a habit these last months of promising tough action against the militias and then either not doing anything or worse, complaining publicly and bitterly when American forces have confronted the Sadrists:

Bush warned that the U.S. expected al-Maliki to keep those promises.

“America’s commitment is not open-ended,” Bush said. “If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.”

The Iraqi government welcomed the new strategy and promised it was committed to succeeding in quelling the violence.

“The failure in Iraq will not only affect this country only, but the rest of the region and the world, including the United States,” said Sadiq al-Rikabi, an adviser to al-Maliki.

“The current situation is not acceptable — not only for the American people but also for the Iraqis and their government. As Iraqis and as an elected government we welcome the American commitment for success,” he added. “The Iraqi government also is committed to succeed.”

The question that has been uppermost in my mind is why should we expect Maliki to act any differently now? Time and time again he has promised action on a host of political reforms, anti-corruption schemes, reconciliation with the Sunnis, and even confrontation with al-Sadr. Not once has he or his government followed through with anything approaching the vigor necessary to improve the security situation in Iraq.

Just last month, a pitiful effort to begin the healing process took place in the Green Zone. Like a party given by the most unpopular kid at school, the invitations went out, the table was set, the band was hired - but in the end, nobody showed up:

None of the extremist Shiite or Sunni factions responsible for most of the violence attended the closed-door meeting, and the government leaders who delivered speeches offered no major new concessions likely to lure insurgents back into the political mainstream.

Only a handful of the 20 or so former Baathists and ousted generals expected to attend showed up, and none of the exiled Baathists thought to hold sway over some insurgent groups attended, even though the government offered to pay their way and provide security.

Ultimately, the violence will stop and peace will reign when one of two things happens: Either the 4 million Sunnis left in Iraq will be murdered or flee for their lives leaving Iraq free of them or, the Shia majority will grant protections for minorities, participate in power a sharing arrangement, and make a supreme effort at reconciliation for all Iraqis.

We can send 10 times 20,000 troops to Iraq and not change the basic political calculus that is driving the insurgency; Shia hegemony. The Sunnis fear Shia retribution (for good reason) and are fighting to re-establish their dominance. Since they are outnumbered 4 to 1, this is extremely unlikely. But given that they feel the alternative is death anyway, many thousands are willing to take up arms and fight their tormentors.

And, in fact, the Sunnis have every reason to fear the Shias:

The Shiite leaders’ frustrations have grown in recent months as American commanders have retained their tight grip in Baghdad. While the Americans have argued for a strategy that places equal emphasis on going after Shiite and Sunni extremists, the Shiite leaders have insisted that the killing is rooted in the Sunni attempt to regain power through violence and that Shiite militias and revenge killings are an inevitable response.

American officials have warned that with lessening American oversight, Shiite leaders might shift to a sectarian strategy that punished Sunni insurgents but spared Shiite militias. The execution 11 days ago of Saddam Hussein, carried out in haste by the Maliki government over American urgings that it be delayed until the legal paperwork was completed, only reinforced such fears.

How can we expect Maliki to buck the entire Shia establishment on the militia question - especially since he has proven in the past to be a spineless jellyfish when it comes to going after al-Sadr? In fact, is he serious when he says that he wants the Sadrists to lay down their arms or is this just more pablum to placate the Americans?

The arrangements appeared to suggest that Mr. Maliki would have the power to halt any push into Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold that American commanders have been saying for months will have to be swept of extremist militia elements if there is to be any lasting turn toward stability in Baghdad. But along with more authority for Mr. Maliki, the American plan appeared to have countervailing safeguards to prevent sectarian agendas from gaining the upper hand. Bush administration officials said that Americans would be present in the commander in chief’s office and that an American Army battalion — 400 to 600 soldiers — would be stationed in each of the nine Baghdad military districts.

What all this boils down to - the benchmarks, the increase in troops, the granting of more autonomy to the Iraqi government to control their military, and the battle against the sectarian killers - is that Bush and America have now placed the power to make or break our effort in Iraq into the hands of a man who has not performed in the past and who has not proved himself strong enough, smart enough, or politically savvy enough to tackle the problems in Iraqi society head on and with the energy to do what is necessary for his government to succeed. He has limped along these last months, rousing himself only to criticize our troops when we violate al-Sadr’s turf or when an incident involving civilians caught in the crossfire makes headlines.

He has promised much and delivered squat. Should we then continue to work behind the scenes to bring another coalition to power - one that is broader based and includes far more secular elements than the current government not to mention freezing al-Sadr out of the ministries?

I think it is inevitable that we will do so. Once it becomes clear over the next 60 days or so that Maliki is not getting the job done and pressure begins to mount once again for withdrawal, look for this last arrow in Bush’s quiver to be loosed and a new Prime Minister come to power.

What difference it will make is arguable. But anyone will probably be an improvement over the weakling who currently occupies the Prime Minister’s office.