Right Wing Nut House

This is the best news coming out of Iraq in months.

Realizing that current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is little more than an empty suit whose efforts to tamp down the sectarian violence tearing at the vitals of the country have failed miserably, the Bush Administration is trying to engineer a bloodless coup against the incompetent Prime Minister by shuffling the coalition of parties who are currently in the majority:

Major partners in Iraq’s governing coalition are in behind-the-scenes talks to oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki amid discontent over his failure to quell raging violence, according to lawmakers involved.

The talks are aimed at forming a new parliamentary bloc that would seek to replace the current government and that would likely exclude supporters of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is a vehement opponent of the U.S. military presence.

The new alliance would be led by senior Shiite politician Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who met with President Bush last week. Al-Hakim, however, was not expected to be the next prime minister because he prefers the role of powerbroker, staying above the grinding day-to-day running of the country.

A key figure in the proposed alliance, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni Arab, left for Washington on Sunday for a meeting with Bush at least three weeks ahead of schedule.

“The failure of the government has forced us into this in the hope that it can provide a solution,” said Omar Abdul-Sattar, a lawmaker from al-Hashemi’s Iraqi Islamic Party. “The new alliance will form the new government.”

Of course, there’s no guarantee that whoever they replace Maliki with will be any more competent. But the exciting part of this move is they are seeking to marginalize Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army by keeping him out of the government:

News of the bid to oust al-Maliki, in office since May, came amid growing dissent over his government’s performance among his Sunni and Shiite partners and the damaging fallout from a leaked White House memo questioning the prime minister’s abilities.

Washington also has been unhappy with al-Maliki’s reluctance to comply with its repeated demands to disband Shiite militias blamed for much of Iraq’s sectarian bloodletting.

Bush publicly expressed his confidence in al-Maliki after talks in Jordan on Nov. 30. But the president told White House reporters four days later that he was not satisfied with the pace of efforts to stop Iraq’s violence.

It was not immediately clear how much progress had been made in the effort to cobble together a new parliamentary alliance. But lawmakers loyal to al-Sadr who support al-Maliki were almost certainly not going to be a part of it. They had no word on al-Maliki’s Dawa party.

They said al-Maliki was livid at the attempt to unseat him.

This puts the leaking of the memo in a little different context, no? It’s no wonder that Maliki bristled at what was in Hadley’s report - he must have seen the writing on the wall. And it could even be that Bush gave him the bad news personally - which would explain his snubbing the President at dinner the night before their meeting.

The Dawa party is an important member of the ruling coalition, however, and it won’t be easy escorting Maliki to the door. But the new coalition will probably be able to cobble together support from enough members of that party to keep them in government.

The brilliance of this move however, is in what it does to our good friend Mookie al-Sadr.

If al-Sadr balks and uses his militia to start attacking American forces, he is going to wish he hadn’t. Twice now the United States military has handed the Mahdi army humiliating and devastating defeats. Twice, the Grand Ayatollah Sistani has interceded with his American friends to pull Sadr’s chestnuts out of the fire.

Since Sistani appears to have re-engaged politically by backing this move against al-Maliki, it could mean that he wishes to put the upstart Sadr in his place - or 6 feet under. Clearly the US now has Sadr in a box. If he fights, he loses. And if he acquiesces, he’s out of power and loses.

A win/win situation is a good thing for the US in Iraq. And this is the kind of thinking that was totally lacking from the ISG. This move is creative with definite thinking outside the box. It goes to show that there are in fact other options available to the US - options with a chance of turning the situation around relatively quickly.

However, having praised this move it should also be viewed with some trepidation. This move will essentially put the Badr Brigade in a very powerful position. Al-Hakim is the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) - a pro Iranian group with close ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. The Badr Brigade is the armed wing of the party. Most of them were trained in Iran. This will open the question of how close the Iraqi government will be to Iran. Al-Sadr never trusted the Iranians, which displeased Ahmadinejad. But I think it’s safe to say that putting the SCIRI and the Badr’s in charge, there is a very real chance that the Shias will begin agitating for more autonomy in the south as well as escalate the violence already raging betwen Sadrites and the Badr Brigades.

Al-Hakim will not exactly be our new best buddy either. He has made it clear that he wants us out sooner rather than later. And Hakim has a reputation of using the Interior Ministry to settle party and militia business. Death squads and secret detention centers where Sunnis are routinely tortured and killed are a part of the Brigade’s profile. In short, we may be trading one gigantic headache for another.

But this move, if it pans out, is certainly welcome news. At the very least, it shows that the Administration is still engaged, still trying to come up with a solution that will allow us to leave. And it may just be the start of a turnaround in Baghdad that could go a long way toward establishing the rule of law in Iraq.

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.

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.

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.

As I was doing my radio show yesterday, I read from an article on the trouble that President Musharaf of Pakistan was causing NATO troops by not making much of an effort to stem the flow of Taliban fighters into Afghanistan. In fact, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri recommended that NATO go ahead and surrender now by making a deal with the Taliban on establishing a coalition government in Kabul and leaving. He also sagely recommended against sending any more troops to bolster the 33,000 troops already serving in that theater.

Leaving aside Musharaf’s perfidious Foreign Minister, the fact is that NATO troops have generally performed brilliantly in Afghanistan. And while the US has far and away the most troops serving in the NATO contingent, I was somewhat surprised to learn that of late, the US has not been doing most of the fighting. In fact, it has been our neighbors to the north who have demonstrated once again that when duty and honor call, the Canadian soldier has always stepped forward, front and center, to be counted as a true friend and ally of the United States.

Despite viewing our northerly neighbors with either a bored indifference or a condescending big brother-little brother attitude, the Canucks seem able to shrug off our beastly treatment of them and when crunch time comes, deliver. This says a lot about the character of Canadians who, after all, are a proud, fiercely independent people, resentful at times of an American culture that threatens to overwhelm them and American tourists who tend to view Canada as a gigantic 51st state. In fact, it is a wonder that Canadians are as welcoming of Americans as they are when we visit. That also says a lot about the Canadian character.

For despite all the jokes about the Canadians taciturnity, I have found them to be a warm, open people, fiercely protective of the great expanse of natural treasures found in their beautiful lakes, rivers, forests, and mountains as well as being practical stewards of the land. It is a balance that we here in the United States should aspire to although, given the current political climate, is probably not in the cards.

As for the Canadian armed forces, I was amazed to learn, for instance, that Canada sent nearly 620,000 men to fight in World War I. At the 2nd Battle of Ypres, the Canadian 1st Division was sent in to hold a bulge in the line directly opposite a German division dug in on a low hill. Following a short but fierce artillery bombardment, the Canadian troops - holding the center of the salient - saw a green mist waft toward them. It was the very first use of poison gas in World War I, a deadly cloud of chlorine gas which was designed to sink to the lowest point on the battlefield; in this case, the trenches of the Canadian 1st Division.

Not equipped with gas masks, the Canucks nevertheless stood their ground. Coughing and spitting, the Canadians beat back the German infantry charge and then launched a counterattack of their own. Of course, such attacks and counterattacks were ultimately self defeating. The area around the small Belgium town of Ypres - “Flanders Fields” - is considered one of the most heavily fertilized places on the planet due to the nearly half million dead from both sides, most of whom disappeared into the mud never to be found and buried.

No one has questioned the toughness of Canadian troops since.

In Afghanistan, the Canadians have distinguished themselves both as warriors and in reconstruction efforts. The Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (KPRT) has a hundred projects either in development or completed. The Canadian government has earmarked over $600 million for reconstruction over the last 5 years, making them the 4th largest contributor to the effort. Needless to say, in order to defeat the Taliban, it will take both the efforts of NATO combat forces and the reconstruction teams.

In combat operations, only the United States has suffered the loss of more men. In the last year alone, 36 Canadians have died (Canada has suffered a total of 44 dead since 2001). This is due to the fact that the Canadians have taken the lead combat role in one of the hotbeds of Taliban activity; Kandahar Province. Specifically, the southern part of the province where the Taliban regularly crosses the border in strength from their bases in Pakistan. Prime Minister Harper has increased troops strength to nearly 2,500 and the government has extended Canadian participation in Afghanistan for another two years.

In July of this year, the Canadians spearheaded an attack on the Taliban stronghold of Panjwaii. Operation Mountain Thrust involve nearly 2,000 Canadians and several hundred of their Afghan allies. It was designed to destroy concentrations of Taliban fighters who had been gathering strength in the area. The Canucks waded in and, after several days of fierce fighting, sent the Taliban flying, scattering their forces.

With the Taliban regrouping in the area in the early fall, the Canadians once again attacked Panjwaii, this time with the help of some Dutch and Americans as well as a crack regiment from the Afghan army. Operation Medusa, commanded by Canadian General David Fraser was a bigger, bloodier action than the July operation with twice as many Taliban having infiltrated across the border. This apparently didn’t faze the Canucks a bit. Aggressively attacking the well dug in Taliban, the Canadians rooted them out, killing more than 200 and once again scattering their forces to the four winds. This was a more costly enterprise with 4 Canadians sacrificing their lives and 50 others wounded (a friendly fire incident involving an American A-10 killed one and wounded 30).

The reason that the Canadians had to return to the scene of their July victory in Panjwaii was because of a lack of NATO forces who could enter a combat zone and risk casualties. There was no way to hold the area and prevent the re-infiltration of the Taliban without the substantial presence of NATO forces, something that simply wasn’t possible. That’s because most NATO nations have put severe restrictions on their troops going into harms way. Called “caveats,” these restrictions have made the Canadian army’s life difficult in Kandahar since operations there began.

This, however, may be changing. NATO ministers meeting in Riga have agreed to lift some of these caveats which should free another 1-2,000 NATO troops for combat duties in the south.

A statement from NATO indicated that the leaders had agreed to remove some of the “caveats” that countries had placed on the use of their troops, though exactly how much will change remained uncertain.

Though Germany, France and some others have maintained restrictions that will largely keep their troops in the relatively calm north, the Netherlands and Romania removed limits on how their troops can be used. Some other countries offered more troops and equipment for the effort, officials said.

During a news conference, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that about 26,000 of the troops in Afghanistan were now “more usable” in combat and noncombat operations and that all member countries had agreed their troops could be called on in a crisis by British Lt. Gen. David Richards, NATO’s Afghanistan commander.

Lately, the Canadians have been involved in the most dangerous reconstruction project in Afghanistan; the building of a road from the Panjwaii district to Kandahar City. Numerous IED’s and landmines not to mention ambushes by Taliban and tribal irregulars have claimed 14 more Canadian lives. The Taliban has begun to target Canadian soldiers believing that they can knock Canada out of the war by turning the Canadian public against the mission.

There is little doubt that the Canadian people are, at best, ambivalent about Canada’s combat role in Afghanistan. Polls show a bare majority wish the government to bring the troops home now. A large and growing peace movement - fueled by a desire not to sully Canada with the perceived sins of Abu Ghraib and Bagram - has recently become more active. But the government of Stephen Harper has remained firm - so far. NDP leader Jack Layton has called on Harper to open “peace negotiations” with the Taliban and to pull Canadian troops back out of harms way. And many in Canada are questioning why their little country - which has suffered 25% of NATO deaths - should give so much while France and Germany give so little:

NATO’s Dutch Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, has taken aim at the big countries whose troops are kept from combat by political restrictions.

“We need to better configure our forces in Afghanistan,” he wrote in a German newspaper last week. “That also means removing the limitations individual nations have placed on their troops.”

Pleas from top NATO commanders for more troops or the loosening of tight leashes that keeps most European soldiers from the fighting have fallen largely on deaf ears.

“Only a handful of NATO members are prepared to go to the south and east and to go robustly — mainly the U.S., U.K., Canada, the Netherlands, Romania, Australia and Denmark,” the International Crisis Group concludes in a blunt report published this month.

“Hard questions need to be asked of those such as Germany, Spain, France, Turkey and Italy who are not, and who sometimes appear to put force protection, not mission needs, at the fore.”

A senior Canadian officer is more blunt. “How many battalions does it take to protect Kabul airport?” said Colonel Fred Lewis, the deputy contingent commander.

The French and Germans were not among the countries that lifted their caveats to allow their troops to engage the Taliban (the French have 200 Special Forces operating in the north).

But it doesn’t seem to faze the Canucks. They continue to soldier on, taking the hard jobs that others eschew. It is safe to say that without the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan, the mission there would be in greater danger of failing, given that the US and British troops are already stretched to the limit. Their willingness to take on more than their fair share of the burden of this war should be recognized and applauded by every single American.

So here’s to our neighbors to the north. And the next time you’re knocking back a few, buy yourself a Molson or Labatt and toast the boys who wear the Maple Leaf patch so proudly on their shoulders.

And here’s hoping more Americans begin to realize what a tremendously important job Canadian boys and girls are doing to help Afghanistan resist tyranny and find a way to peace and freedom.

The Bush Administration in the past has rightly decried the leaking of classified information from intelligence sources whose motives may or may not have been largely partisan in nature. But the deliberate leak yesterday of a classified analysis of Iraqi’s embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley should be seen in the context of statecraft and not necessarily the typical Washington bureaucratic game of “gotchya” - a difference that may be lost on some but is telling nonetheless.

The audience targeted with this leak is extremely small. In fact, it is an audience of one - the Iraqi Prime Minister. The President will meet with Maliki on Wednesday in Jordan and the timing of this leak will not be lost on the PM nor will the words of Hadley, who makes up for a lack of elegance in language with a series of triphammer verbal blows that questions Maliki’s fitness for the job:

The memo presents an unvarnished portrait of Mr. Maliki and notes that he relies for some of his political support on leaders of more extreme Shiite groups. The five-page document, classified secret, is based in part on a one-on-one meeting between Mr. Hadley and Mr. Maliki on Oct. 30.

“His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change,” the memo said of the Iraqi leader. “But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.”

It has been apparent since June that the situation on the ground was getting beyond Maliki’s control. That’s why in August, CENTCOM proposed the current redeployment of tens of thousands of US troops to Baghdad, a strategy that has not worked, is not working and will not work until Maliki gives the go ahead for the United States army to crush Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Militia and until Maliki’s promises about sending more Iraqi troops to assist the Americans in holding areas cleaned and swept by our forces are realized.

As for al-Sadr, the radical cleric has carved out an independent role for himself and it is becoming clear that he has little interest in cooperating with Maliki in tamping down the violence. Nor does he have any interest in having Shias share power with Sunnis and Kurds - something he has made no secret of from the beginning:

In describing the Oct. 30 meeting between Mr. Hadley and Mr. Maliki, it says: “Maliki reiterated a vision of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish partnership, and in my one-on-one meeting with him, he impressed me as a leader who wanted to be strong but was having difficulty figuring out how to do so.” It said the Iraqi leader’s assurances seemed to have been contradicted by developments on the ground, including the Iraqi government’s approach to the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia known in Arabic as Jaish al-Mahdi and headed by Moktada al-Sadr.

“Reports of nondelivery of services to Sunni areas, intervention by the prime minister’s office to stop military action against Shia targets and to encourage them against Sunni ones, removal of Iraq’s most effective commanders on a sectarian basis and efforts to ensure Shia majorities in all ministries — when combined with the escalation of Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) killings — all suggest a campaign to consolidate Shia power in Baghdad.”

Needless to say, these actions are 180 degrees in opposition to what the Iraqi government needs to be doing to assure the Sunnis that they will have a place at the table in any Iraqi power sharing arrangement. In effect, Maliki’s actions are fueling the insurgency while he asks more and more of his American allies in helping to snuff it out.

And the aforementioned failure of Maliki to deliver Iraqi troops to the capitol to assist the Americans is just one indication of how tenuous Maliki’s hold on power actually is:

The memo refers to “the current four-brigade gap in Baghdad,” a seeming acknowledgment that there is a substantial shortfall of troops in the Iraqi capital compared with the level needed to provide security there, in part because the Iraqi government has not dispatched all the forces it has promised. An American brigade generally numbers about 3,500 troops, though Iraqi units can be smaller. While Democrats have advocated beginning troop withdrawals as a means of putting pressure on Mr. Maliki, the memo suggests that such tactics may backfire by stirring up opposition against a politically vulnerable leader.

“Pushing Maliki to take these steps without augmenting his capabilities could force him to failure — if the Parliament removes him from office with a majority vote or if action against the Mahdi militia (JAM) causes elements of the Iraqi Security Forces to fracture and leads to major Shia disturbances in southern Iraq,” the memo says.

Not mentioned in the memo is one of the big reasons for that “four-brigade gap:” Iraqi troops refusing to serve in Baghdad by either mutinying against their commanders or going AWOL.

If the Prime Minister cannot even control his own armed forces, how much power does he really have? Couple this weakness with his accommodation of both the Mahdi Militia and the even larger Badr Brigades and it may be time to start asking why we should prop someone up who doesn’t have a leg to stand on in the first place?

Good intentions don’t mean squat. We have heard this empty suit of a Prime Minister talk for more than a year about what needs to be done to curb the insurgency, bring the militias to heel, clean up the rampant corruption in the ministries (where taxpayer monies are being shoveled down a black hole), affect a political settlement that includes a sharing of oil revenues with all parties, and bring the Saddamites who terrorized the Iraqi people for more than a quarter of a century to justice.

He has accomplished none of it. He has barely started most of it. He has, in fact, been an obstacle to achieving many of those goals. He has tried to play both ends against the middle with al-Sadr on one side and the Americans on the other and has satisfied neither and disgusted both. His efforts to reform the Interior Ministry to ferret out the independent death squads and militia members who have infiltrated the Iraqi Police Force have been for naught. And his efforts to unite the country politically have consisted largely of grandiose rhetoric with little in the way of concrete proposals that could be the basis for negotiations with the Sunnis and Kurds.

He gives off no sense of urgency, no realization that the patience of the American people is nearly at an end and that he and his government are in mortal danger of not only becoming irrelevant but also extinct. He continues to try and muddle through. And in the meantime, Iraq bleeds.

But he’s all we’ve got at the moment. So the President will trundle off to Jordan and see if he can impress upon the Iraqi Prime Minister the absolute necessity for him to start acting. The time for pleasantries about uniting Iraq in brotherhood are over. It’s time for the Prime Minister to get on his hind legs and fight: Fight the insurgents. Fight the militias. Fight the crime, the corruption, the sense of utter futility that has infected the population and has caused so many to lose hope.

I am not hopeful that any of Hadley’s prescriptions will help the patient because what he really needs is a spinal transplant. But somebody has to get through to this man or Iraq will continue to devolve until it is a place fit only for gravediggers and gravemakers.

Let us for a moment indulge the wildest fantasies of those on the left who want every soldier, sailor, and airman out of Iraq as quickly as transport could be rounded up to bring them home.

Let us further indulge the fantasy by patting our lefty friends on the back and congratulating them on coming up with a war winning strategy.

How’s that? No responsible nation would leave Iraq in the state that it is in now, would they? The consequences would be catastrophic - especially for Iraq’s neighbors.

Wait a minute…hold the phone. Aren’t Iraq’s neighbors Iran and Syria? Of course, Saudi Arabia is also a neighbor as is Turkey. But this is war. Sometimes allies or innocent bystanders have to suffer for the victory to come.

Besides, perhaps giving the Saudis a little taste of what their myopic and dangerous policies toward al-Qaeda has wrought wouldn’t be such a bad thing after all…

To indulge this fantasy, we would have to look at some of the fallout that would be the result of our immediate and precipitous pullout from Iraq.

Certainly the government would collapse and the men with guns would rule. It would be Somalia times ten. Sectarian violence would spiral completely out of control and militias would battle for turf. Millions might flee the country.

Where would they go? Here’s where the pain would be inflicted on Iran and Syria.

Shias would stream toward their co-religionists in Iran as would the Sunnis toward Syria - unless one or both countries were forced to intervene. As it stands now, the Syrians and Iranians will probably help us just enough to stabilize the security situation so that we would leave Iraq. But suppose we left the stabilization and security problems with them?

It would be Iran and Syria not only in a quagmire of their own making but also forced to deal with hundreds of thousands of refugees - unwanted visitors that the Saudis are already preparing for by building a massive wall that will separate the Kingdom from Iraq. And the Saudis wouldn’t remain untouched as they would be forced to watch the Sunni slaughter in Iraq. Such a horrific bloodletting would not sit well with their own population and could force the Kingdom to intervene themselves.

This would all be grossly irresponsible of the United States, of course. But do the Iranians know that? Are the Syrians sure that we’d never do it? Such a scenario hanging over the heads of diplomats during our coming talks with the terror states might make them a little more prone to cooperate.

It will never happen this way - but Iran and Syria would royally deserve to have to pick up the pieces in Iraq after they have done everything possible to destroy civil order and keep the country embroiled in violence.

As a former professional actor, I can always appreciate a good performance when I see it. But the production put on by the six Imams who were dragged off the tarmac at the Minneapolis-St. Paul in handcuffs after, what they claim, was simply praying on board a parked airplane may just take the prize for Best Original Performance by a Put-Upon Minority.

In truth, I was halfway through a piece I called “Making America Look Ridiculous” that incorporated the original reporting of the story which made it appear that stupid, ignorant Americans over-reacted to a bunch of quiet, peaceful Muslims saying their prayers in public.

As it turns out, that isn’t even close to being the real story. In fact, it is more than likely that the entire episode was planned to force the authorities into removing the men from the plane for the sole and exclusive purpose of crying “discrimination” and “profiling” to the media. Even more amazing is that the aftermath of the incident may also have been planned for maximum public relations effect in order to capitalize on this egregious example of Muslim persecution:

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.

Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted “Allah” when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.

“I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud,” the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks — two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

“That would alarm me,” said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. “They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane.”

A pilot from another airline said: “That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry.”

But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline’s ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

AJ Strata smelled this stratagem out more than a week ago. The fact is, there are so many discrepancies between what the Imams (and CAIR) are saying what happened on the plane and what passengers, ground personnel, security people, and gate employees are saying that one wonders how the Imams and CAIR thought they could get away with lying through their teeth so brazenly.

According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she “found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting.” Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.

The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.

A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.

“That’s like shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. You just can’t do that anymore,” said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.

“They should have been denied boarding and been investigated,” Mr. MacLean said. “It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit.”

So either a couple of dozen people who weren’t able to meet in order to get their stories straight on the incident or the six Imams and CAIR are lying.

But why? This quote says it all:

But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline’s ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.

“It’s a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim,” Mr. Bray said.

The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.

Mr. Bray’s colorful characterization aside, he has a point. But not in this context. The fact that so many agree that the imams were being deliberately provocative in order to be booted off the plane could only mean that the “protest” at the ticket counter was a planned event as well, designed to milk the incident with the media for all it was worth.

If the imams were simply praying as they claim, then the actions of the authorities would indeed have to be considered outrageous and ignorant. But this cheap bit of vaudeville by CAIR and their supporters to try and attach “victimhood” status to their religion in order to get Congress to take the dangerous and unnecessary step of banning the “profiling” of Muslims approaches the absurd. TSA authorities already bend over backwards to give everyone from old, grey grannies to middle aged whites like me the same kind of attention given to Muslim men. The fact that CAIR’s co-religionists are much more likely to blow a plane out of the sky than little old me seems to be lost on our Muslim brethren. Is CAIR actually saying that a middle aged white man is as likely to hijack a plane as a male Muslim who acts suspiciously like the 9/11 hijackers?

Ethnic minorities whose motherland is fighting Americans do not fare well in this country during a time of war. Just ask the Japanese. Or the Germans for that matter. To ask people to suspend their vigilance in the name of “fairness” is suicidal. No one has suggested rounding up Muslims and penning them in concentration camps. So it would seem a logical course of action (and simple, common sense) to pay closer attention to those whose ethnicity is the same as those who are trying their hardest to kill us.

Does this mean that other ethnic groups - including white middle aged males - aren’t a danger? Of course not. If you want to shut down the air transportation system in this country, you would view everyone with the same amount of scrutiny as we do Muslim males. That simply isn’t going to happen.

I suspect that if we ever do get to the point where Muslim males are not singled out for scrutiny when boarding an aircraft, civil aviation will die. The American people could care less about the sensibilities of Muslims as it relates to keeping hijackers off of airplanes that they want to fly on. They don’t care to commit suicide in the name of some nebulous kind of political correctness that flies in the face of logic and common sense. And as long as Muslims continue to threaten us, the profiling of Muslim males will continue - and the American people will thank the government for doing it.

Either we are at war with those who use Islam as an excuse to murder us or we are not at war and CAIR is correct. You cannot have it both ways and have a viable air transport industry and an American public willing to fly.

The professional victimologists at CAIR think that they can put on this idiotic production and rally the American people to their cause. They have, as usual, miscalculated badly. And if this Muslim “civil rights” organization spent 1/10 the time it spends on weeping about “Islamaphobia” as it could on denouncing without reservation or qualification the madmen who seek to destroy us, people would probably listen more closely to what they had to say.

UPDATE

Jay at STACLU reports that CAIR is filing a complaint “with the relevant authorities” over the treatment of the imams:

Three of them stood and said their normal evening prayers together on the plane, as 1.7 billion Muslims around the world do every day, Shahin said. He attributed any concerns by passengers or crew to ignorance about Islam.

“I never felt bad in my life like that,” he said. “I never. Six imams. Six leaders in this country. Six scholars in handcuffs. It’s terrible.”

Six actors in search of a play.

Talk about useless gits…

Both right and left are engaged in what is quite possibly the silliest, the stupidest, the most ridiculous debate on the war to date.

And that’s saying a lot.

Is Iraq now “officially” at war with itself? Is there “civil war” in the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere?

According to the left, Iraq has been “sliding into civil war” or there has been a “de facto” civil war” in Iraq at least 7 different times since Saddam’s statue fell. Of course, they were laughably wrong. Just as their warnings about imminent disaster in Iraq over the last three years were wrong as well. Their reading of what was actually happening in that country was so consistently off target that any accuracy that can be ascribed to their analysis to today’s Iraq might be placed in the realm of blind luck. Keep repeating the same Cassandra-like warnings of disaster over and over and over and eventually when the explosion happens, you can pretend that you weren’t so unalterably wrong for three years running.

For my fellow conservatives, I’ve also just about had enough of this nonsense. Whether the nomenclature “civil war” should be used to describe what is happening in Iraq is not the issue. The issue is dead people. Lots of them. Not just in Baghdad but all over the country. They are dying because they are Shias or because they are Sunnis and for no other reason. They are being dragged off the streets and tortured and shot or being blown up in massive car bomb attacks. People are terrified. Militias from one side are ordering people from the other side to leave or be killed. There is chaos. The rule of law and civilized society no longer exist. Whatever tenuous bonds existed between the people and their government has been ripped to shreds and it is a mystery at this point whether or not those bonds can be re-established no matter how many militia men we kill or how many insurgents are eliminated.

Call it whatever you want. “Civil War” is a handy enough descriptive but I’m not picky. Just don’t call it “progress” and don’t try and convince yourself that things aren’t as bad as what’s being reported. Things are that bad. And no amount of fauxtography, stringers who pass along disinformation, biased reporting, or outright lies will change the reality that Iraq has slipped beyond anyone’s control and only a massive effort - probably costing thousands of more in civilian casualties - will be able to bring the violence down to a level that will allow us to leave.

These dead people are not the inventions of a biased press. They are not the imaginings of idiot lefties who are so desperate to see America humiliated in Iraq that they are willing to abandon the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis - just like they were perfectly willing to abandon many, many more South Vietnamese - to whatever fate awaits them after we leave. Our enemies are winning in Iraq partly because of this refusal by both sides to see the reality of what was happening and formulate tactics and policies to confront the problems. Instead, we got a partisan food fight for three years while our enemies - roundly and soundly defeated on the battlefield day after day - directed their efforts to maximize their propaganda in order to sap the will of the American people to stick it out for the long haul.

Now we have American paralysis in Iraq as the Administration scrambles to change gears from managing the conflict to exiting the country. This paralysis has emboldened all sides and the results are there for all to see; death, chaos, and a government teetering on the edge of absolute irrelevancy.

We are about to go hat in hand to Iran and Syria, begging them to allow us to leave with some dignity intact rather than giving the American people a replay of the last helicopter leaving our embassy in Saigon. The price we pay for the help of these two terrorist enabling and supporting states will be steep - bet on it. It may involve further betrayals - not just of the people of Iraq who placed their trust in the United States not to abandon them to the forces of chaos and darkness but also friends elsewhere in the region like Lebanon and perhaps even Israel. Bargaining with despots and fanatics will always be a crapshoot. And there will be absolutely no guarantee that they will live up to any bargain we strike with them.

So stop this silly assed argument about whether Iraq is in a state of “civil war” or not. There’s enough stupidity on either side of this debate to fill the monthly quota of blogosphere angst over absolutely irrelevant issues. Best now to concentrate on what we can do to salvage something out of the Iraq mess rather than lefty “I told ya so’s” about something they’ve been wrong about 7 times over the last three years or righties seeing Iraq through rose colored glasses regarding the reality of the butchery that’s taking place.

Maybe y’all could start writing about something really important…like Brittany’s divorce or Michael Richard’s hypocrisy. At least then you wouldn’t have to pretend that you’re arguing about something important.