Right Wing Nut House

It was 1940 and the Germans had the drop on the British. The Nazis had just pushed the British literally into the sea at Dunkirk and despite a heroic evacuation of nearly 350,000 men, almost all of the British Expeditionary Force’s armor and artillery had to be left behind.

England was hurt badly but not defenseless. Her navy still commanded the Channel and the North Sea thus blocking any realistic effort by Germany to invade the Island. And of course, the Royal Air Force was poised to do battle with the Luftwaffe whenever Hitler decided the time was ripe to strike.

But the Nazi dictator was hesitating. After conquering most of Europe, his armies stood a scant 22 miles across the Channel from the White Cliffs of Dover. But Hitler and the German General Staff had barely even thought of how to go about invading and occupying the British Isles. Operation Sea Lion, the German war plan for the attack on Great Britain was just that - a plan. And not a very good one at that.

So Hitler decided on trying a gambit that had worked like a charm on other occasions; a major speech in which he would offer England “peace” in return for a free hand on the continent. Hitler, so in love with the sound of his own voice and so confident in his ability to sway people failed to realize that times had changed.

In describing the scene at the Reichstag where Hitler delivered his “Peace Speech,” noted Nazi chronicler William L. Shirer commented that he thought that the address was one of Hitler’s finest - and certainly his most brazenly dishonest. He didn’t want war with the English. The Germans and English were historic friends. It was that demon Churchill and the Jews that started the war. He outlined a future where Germany and Great Britain would be partners in peace, united in racial brotherhood and comity.

The response from the British was lightening fast. Within a half an hour after the conclusion of Hitler’s speech, the BBC was on the air rejecting all of the dictator’s proposals out of hand. Britain would never make peace with Germany as long as Europe was enslaved by Hitler. The BBC’s towering denunciation of the speech sounded like an official response from Churchill’s government. But it wasn’t. On its own, the BBC had taken to the air and given the only response a free people could give. As Churchill said later, no one from government had contacted the BBC nor encouraged it in any way. The response was entirely the idea of the BBC staff.

In this instance, the BBC crossed the invisible line between reporting the news and making the news. No doubt they felt they had good reason to do so. They weren’t taken in for one second by Hitler’s propaganda. This despite the fact that all during the 1930’s when Hitler was building his war machine and carrying out his bloodless conquests, the BBC (along with most other major newspapers like the New York Times and Chicago Tribune) took whatever Hitler had to say at face value and swallowed his disinformation whole. This despite warnings from disgusted correspondents in Berlin like Norman Ebbut of the London Times whose editor Geoffrey Dawson famously wrote to a correspondent that he did his “utmost, night after night, to keep out of the paper anything that might hurt their (German) sensibilities.” This meant that most of Ebbut’s brilliant reporting on the depravity of the Nazi regime went unread.

Contrast the experience of the BBC with today’s reporting from Iraq. Both the BBC then and the media today know that there are agents of disinformation seeking to spin the news by giving slanted even erroneous reports. The question we should be asking the media - like the question directed by Churchill at the BBC and the London Times prior to the World War II - is how hard are you trying to get the story right?

Once it became clear that Hitler was a threat to the existence of the nation, the BBC and other British news outlets started to view what the Nazis were saying with a much more critical eye. But couldn’t they have figured this out sooner? Why did they swallow enemy propaganda so willingly?

We asked similar questions during the Israeli-Hizbullah war when it became readily apparent that the AP (and thus hundreds of media outlets around the world) were using photos and stories from outright Hizbullah sympathizers whose job could only have been to give enemy propaganda to western reporters. And in Iraq, many critics have pointed to the almost total reliance by the mainstream press on Iraqi “stringers” for news of what’s happening around the country.

First of all, I am constrained to point out that reporting from Iraq is a nightmare. Going outside of the “green zone” is an invitation to being kidnapped or killed if you’re a western reporter. It is not a question of courage. It’s a question of common sense. Reporters are not combatants and are not armed. The use of stringers in order to assist in the news gathering process is an absolute necessity. Without them, reporters would be limited to writing from CENTCOM news releases and Iraqi government press handouts. And while some may consider that sufficient, I don’t think very many of us truly want the press that much in the pocket of the government.

Having said all of this, I have a few pointed questions that I’d like to ask the New York Times, the Washington Post, the news nets and others who use stringers in gathering the news.

Who are they? What are their backgrounds? Are they journalists? If so, what kind of experience have they had? Have then been vetted to make sure they aren’t out and out insurgent sympathizers? Or militia mouthpieces?

Do they have axes to grind against America? How does the reporter in Iraq or the editor back home establish their objectivity or accuracy? Does the reporter on site even try and confirm information from the stringers? If so, how many sources are used to confirm their stories? How do you gauge the reliability of those confirming sources?

This is the nuts and bolts of journalism. Raw information is not news. It has to be poked and prodded, examined and re-examined in a process that is supposed to reduce that information to its most basic and understandable parts and then massaged by the reporter and polished by the editor to appear as “news” in the newspaper or on the TV broadcast.

Reporters here at home have established rules regarding sources and story confirmations that are carefully followed (for the most part) and a level of trust that what we are reading is reasonably accurate has been established. Bloggers are very good at pointing out where this system fails and, depending on the news outlet, the failure is either swept under the rug or actually addressed. The news business is far from infallible and everything from out right bias to downright laziness can infect the news.

But there seem to be different rules for war reporting from the Middle East. It appears to this observer that there is too much trust between the parties involved in news gathering and not enough hard, slogging, verification of information that is reported on a day to day basis. I have no doubt that reporters trust the information they get from their stringers (and other sources as well). And the editors here at home feel they have to trust and support their reporters in the war zone who, after all, are still taking a tremendous personal risk despite them being largely confined to living and working in the green zone.

But it doesn’t appear to be good enough. Curt at Flopping Aces, a longtime supporter and linker to this site, has done an extraordinary job of ferreting out a piece of disinformation passed along by a source who evidently is not who he says he is and has also proven to be unreliable in the past. Read the entire post as Curt digs deeper and deeper into how this one Iraqi “police captain” (who CENTCOM reports is not on any police roster) passed along a bogus story about Sunni civilians set on fire this past weekend that created a huge sensation internationally but is almost certainly no true.

While it is unclear whether the AP reporter who “broke” this story interviewed the fake policeman personally or whether he received the information from someone else, the fact that editors around the world (it was front page news in my local suburban daily) ran the story without question is enormously troubling. All Curt possessed to discover this information about the fake police captain was a computer and a modem. He didn’t need any special expertise to ferret out this information. Are you trying to tell me the editors of mutli-million dollar enterprises don’t have the time or the energy to do exactly what Curt did regarding this story?

I totally reject that notion. This is pure laziness on the part of the media. There is no excuse, no other explanation possible. They didn’t bother because either their pre-conceived notions of the violence in Iraq came into play or they felt it wasn’t necessary because the AP had supposedly vetted the story. If the former, that kind of bias has no place in a newsroom. And if it was the latter, it shows that the editors of those newspapers care little about what appears on the pages of their publications.

And what do we make of Patterico’s brilliant work regarding the stringer’s story told to the Los Angeles Times Iraq reporter about an American “bombing” in Ramadi; a bombing that never occurred. The stringer’s report of civilian deaths is also apparently a hoax (or disinformation). The fact that all we are getting is silence from the LA Times is par for the course but it does make one curious about the answers to all those questions I asked above. Read Patterico’s analysis and then start contemplating what else we might be hearing and reading about that has no basis in fact.

This is not to minimize what is happening in Iraq. And I don’t agree with those who believe that the efforts of Curt and Patterico reveal that things aren’t really that bad in that bloody land. Independent sources far and wide - including our own military and military sympathizers - paint a portrait of a country spinning out of control and headed for tragedy. But it is clear from these two deliberately planted stories that the insurgents in Iraq wish to keep the pressure on the White House and the American people in order that they not change their minds about withdrawal.

Beyond that, the questions these stories raise for the media are very troubling. It is not a matter of accusing them of bias. It is a basic question of trust between the reader and journalist without which the news becomes meaningless drivel. And if the media are not going to reveal answers to some of those questions I asked above, I would sincerely hope that they start asking them internally.

One way that a different perspective on the news from Iraq could gain currency is if the American media bothered to embed themselves with our armed forces. At last report, there were only 9 authorized embeds by the American media. This is shameful. We have 130,000 men and women in harms way and the American media can’t find eager reporters willing to face the danger in order to tell their stories? As we wind down our involvement in this tragedy, let’s hope that more reporters are willing to see what it is our forces are doing so that the American people have a complete picture of the conflict.

Reporters and editors are human. But somehow, I can’t escape the feeling that they are not carrying out their responsibilities to tell the story of this war to the best of their abilities. They are letting us down. And for that, they should be ashamed of themselves.

I wasn’t going to vote for him for President anyway, But Chuck Hagel has just proved why he is unfit to be the Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces:

There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. These terms do not reflect the reality of what is going to happen there. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis — not the Americans.

Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism. There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger made this point last weekend.

First of all, I hardly think we should be taking lessons in what constitutes victory or defeat from Henry “Peace with Honor” Kissinger. Iraq will go down in the books as a loss - changing that brilliant line in Bill Murray’s biting satirical film Stripes - “Hey! We’re the Ewnited States army! We’re 5 and 1!”

The press will be referring to Iraq as a defeat. The left will be referring to Iraq as a defeat. It will go down in history textbooks as a defeat. For every generation of American schoolchildren in the future, Iraq will be taught as a defeat, a loss, a drubbing, a licking, a whipping, a nonsuccess.

And most especially, our enemies will definitely be celebrating Iraq as a defeat not just for America but, being stupid ignorant jihadis who celebrate their own slaughter and call it a triumph, also see our coming exit from Iraq as a defeat of American arms.

The North Vietnamese weren’t that stupid. To this day, they celebrate their victory over the American people and government, recognizing they outlasted our capacity as a nation to maintain our commitment to the South, not that they defeated the American military on the field of battle.

Chuck Hagel is a ninny. No? Well what else do you call someone who celebrates the increased influence of Iran and Syria in the Middle East?

It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq. America’s options on this point have always been limited. There will be a new center of gravity in the Middle East that will include Iraq. That process began over the past few days with the Syrians and Iraqis restoring diplomatic relations after 20 years of having no formal communication. The next installment would be this weekend’s unprecedented meeting in Iran of the presidents of Iran, Syria and Iraq, if it takes place.

What does this tell us? It tells us that regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest — without the United States. This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years. The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before, and until we are able to lead a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, mindless destruction and slaughter will continue in Lebanon, Israel and across the Middle East.

Hagel is celebrating the fact that Iran will now be able to meddle in Iraqi affairs without the big, bad old United States to stop it. This “encouraging set of actions” involve two nations who train terrorists, sponsor terrorism. and, by expanding their influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere, will be able to project that terrorism (Who knows? Maybe they’ll make it all the way to Omaha, Chucky) to the far corners of the globe.

The fact that Hagel believes that the fact that Iran and Syria will be free to “fill regional vacuums” (wonder what the Saudis think about THAT) and that this is somehow a positive development makes one question not only Senator Cornpone’s judgement but perhaps his sanity as well. Both nations will now feel empowered and emboldened.

This is especially true of the fanatic Ahmadinejad who sees American defeat in Iraq as the fulfillment of prophecy. Great, Chucky. That’s all we need. A meglomaniacal religious nut, soon to have the ultimate defense against cartoons that mock the prophet, who thinks that history is unfolding according to plan and that very soon, we can expect a visit from his buddy the 12th Imam and then, the fire this time.

Finally, Hagel goes Jim Baker and the Democrats one better regarding bi-partisanship:

It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission gives the president a new opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder — one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead.

To squander this moment would be to squander future possibilities for the Middle East and the world. That is what is at stake over the next few months.

No word yet on the price to be paid by the Lebanese or other American friends in the region for this “bi-partisanship.” Certainly Hizbullah will support our coming rapprochement with Syria and Iran, seeing quite rightly that it will involve a lessening of American interest in what happens in Lebanon. And a weakening of America’s position in the Middle East is certainly being looked upon in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States with not a little trepidation.

But hey! All in the name of “bi-partisanship” right Chucky?

When the last American troops are leaving Iraq, it will be a photo op that will prove itself absolutely irresistible to the press. There will be comparisons with that last helicopter taking off from the roof of the American embassy in Saigon. AL-Jazeera will carry the images live across the Middle East and there will be much dancing and celebrating from the refugee camps on the West Bank to the bazaars of Karachi. Al-Jazeera will carry those images too.

What do you think Senator Hagel’s response to those images might be? What will he say then about “no defeat” in Iraq? Will he wonder what these people are celebrating for? Will he have a clue?

Hagel’s myopia matches that of the new Soviet government in 1917 who were negotiating with the Germans an end to Russian involvement in World War I. The Germans were being extraordinarily harsh in their terms and the new Soviet government was balking.

Finally, the government hit upon a brilliant idea. Why not simply declare that the war was over and the German had won? Enormously satisfied with their own cleverness, Russian troops began to abandon their positions and start the long trek home.

The Germans didn’t quite know what to make of this. They were amazed. They decided to take the most direct approach possible and launched a massive attack against the retreating Russians. Only after slaughtering tens of thousands of more soldiers and gaining a hundred miles of territory did the Soviet government wake up and go back to the bargaining table where the Germans became, if anything, more demanding.

Hagel’s thinking may not be quite as muddled as Lenin’s. But it certainly reveals a man either lying to himself or so overcome with his own cleverness that it has blinded him to the simple realities of what is going to happen when we leave Iraq. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, let’s just consider him self-deluded.

After all, he’s running for President…

Abe Lincoln used to tell the story about two country boys who were walking in the woods when they came upon a wild hog. Taking an instant dislike to the interlopers, the hog set off after the two kids who ran like hell through the forest, the hog gaining on them, when one boy shimmied up a pine tree to avoid the beast’s lethal tusks. The other lad wasn’t as lucky but managed to grab hold of the hog’s tail and went round and round the pine tree, his friend watching helplessly from above. Finally, the young boy on the ground looked up and called out to his friend, “come on down Bill, and help me leave go of this hog!”

Lincoln told several variations of this anecdote, including the exit line coming from the treed youngster who dryly observed that it was hard to tell from his vantage point who was chasing who. Needless to say, either story serves as a perfect metaphor for any discussion regarding Syria and what the United States can do, must do, or desires to do about engaging that country in efforts to bring some semblance of stability to Iraq, Lebanon, and by extension, the rest of the Middle East.

There is just no easy response to the question of Syria and whether or not to engage her in negotiations. There is little doubt that President Assad could help us in Iraq but at what price? And how much help could he really be?

The most recent bloodletting in the streets of Baghdad calls into question whether negotiations with regional troublemakers Iran and Syria will have the desired effect on the security situation in Iraq. The insurgency and the accompanying sectarian violence is not being directed or controlled from Damascus or Tehran. Those two nations have simply decided to throw gasoline and phosphorus on an already raging fire. Take away the accelerants and you still have the fire - out of control with plenty of kindling and firewood left to feed the conflagration for years to come.

For our part, we’ve got a hold of the tail of the hog and no one is inclined to come down and help us leave go of it, even if anyone had a clue where to begin. Too violent for United Nations peacekeepers and with no NATO member or Arab country willing to see its soldiers die for what they consider an American blunder, the Iraq problem is incredibly resistant to the kind of glib solutions offered by the internationalists and collective security advocates who have made it their business since the war began to admonish the United States for its unilateralist approach.

Which brings us to the “realists” and their apparent eagerness to engage Iran and Syria in dialogue over Iraqi security. I have no doubt that both countries would be open to such negotiations - if for no other reason than all the goodies they may be able to extract from American negotiators who will come hat in hand, begging for help. But as I wrote here, there is another reason the Iranians and Syrians may be willing to cooperate in trying to tamp down the violence in Iraq; neither wishes a failed state on their borders that would be a magnet for Shia terrorists (Syria’s worry) or a boost for Kurdish independence (Iran’s fear).

This is the meat of the realist’s argument; that any government which holds power when we leave Iraq - a process coming sooner rather than later - must be able to contain the raging violence that threatens the stability of the entire region. It is self evident, the realists say, that such a result would be in all three country’s interest. And lest we forget, the majority Shia in Iraq seem disinclined to stop the slaughter of the Sunnis, a fact of this war that seems to have taken on a life all its own with death squads on both sides that answer to no authority save their own warped and twisted desire for revenge. This is a situation that could turn into a genuine tragedy of historic proportions if the United States were to leave precipitously with potentially millions dead unless some kind of political settlement could be brokered that would both satisfy the majority and protect the minority.

How much good could Syria really do in such a chaotic situation and more importantly, what would they want in return for their cooperation? Having met with James Baker (who is rapidly emerging as a leader of the “realists” among Administration advisors), Syria seems “encouraged” by the results of the contact. What could Baker have said that would have piqued the interest of Damascus? Michael Young:

If political “realism” is about interests, then realists must prove that a country that has ignored successive UN resolutions demanding Syrian non-interference in Lebanon could somehow be a force for stability in Iraq, to which it has funnelled hundreds of foreign fighters. Engaging Mr Assad over Iraq will mean the gradual return of Syrian hegemony over Lebanon, since neither the US nor the UK will be in a position to deny Syria in Lebanon while asking favours in Iraq.

If one has no qualms about abandoning a rare democratic success in the Middle East, as Lebanon has been, then by all means talk to the gentlemen in Damascus. But first someone should remind Mr Blair of a name oddly absent from his recent rhetoric of engagement: Rafiq Hariri. To which we can now add another: Pierre Gemayel.

Turning a blind eye to Assad as he crushes freedom in Lebanon as a price for his efforts to stabilize Iraq seems an extraordinarily bad bargain from the US standpoint. First of all, no one will be able to quantify just what Syria might be able to accomplish with its efforts in Iraq (the same goes double for Iran). Secondly, besides it being unbelievably cynical and immoral to allow the Lebanese people to fall under the tender mercies of Assad’s secret police again, such a betrayal would reverberate throughout the Middle East with the forces of reform that are taking the first small steps toward democratic government in places like Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar and some of the other Gulf States. Even Saudi Arabia has taken some baby steps toward more representative government. A betrayal of the Lebanese democrats who we encouraged to put their lives on the line to try and bring democracy to that country would be a slap in the face to reformers all over the Middle East who face similar dangers daily. It would send exactly the wrong message at the wrong time.

If not Lebanon, what then does Assad desire? What Syria has wanted since its 1967 war with Israel; the Golan Heights. Assad would want us to put “pressure” on Israel to negotiate its return.

The idea that American could “pressure” Israel into committing suicide by allowing the Syrians access to that strategic bit of land is ludicrous. Syrian artillery emplacements from 1948-67 regularly bombarded Israeli civilians living in the Huleh Valley, killing dozens and forcing residents to sleep in bomb shelters. It is doubtful whether the Israelis would even consider it, despite the importuning of their desperate American ally.

Blocked by conscience (we hope) from giving away Lebanon and by strategic necessity into pressuring the Israelis to give back the Heights, when one looks closely at our bargaining position with Assad, it appears that there is precious little good we can do for him. And given the state of violence in Iraq, I daresay that there is equally little he can realistically do for us.

We can’t sell him military equipment given that he is still technically at war with Israel. We could offer economic aid but the Syrian economy is such a basket case that in order to truly do some good, it would have to take the form of massive assistance, forgiveness of debt, and cooperation gained from the Europeans to pitch in and help - the prospects for all of which occurring dim to non-existent.

In short, what Assad wants, we cannot give him. And what we want, he cannot deliver.

Does this mean that we shouldn’t open a dialogue with Syria? Emphatically no. The fact is, engaging Syria in talks, however futile they might be in dramatically changing the situation in Iraq, may lead to lifting the veil of isolation around Syria and driving a wedge between the axis of Damascus and Tehran. These two strange bedfellows have found common cause in Lebanon and in bleeding America in Iraq. Outside of that, the two nations are as dissimilar as could be expected when one considers that Syria is ruled by a small clique of secular Alawites and Tehran, a Shia theocracy. If their areas of commonality in Lebanon and Iraq can be taken away, there is a chance that Assad (with the help of some of America’s friends in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia) can be weaned away from the influence of the mullahs and brought back into the community of nations.

A long shot, that. But there’s no chance of it happening unless we start to engage the Syrians in some kind of dialogue on regional issues like Iraq and Lebanon. It is clearly in our interest to do so and I expect that Bush will reluctantly agree.

What that means for the Iraqi people is unknown. But at this point, even grasping at straws is better than the kind of deep seated fatalism infecting the country and where there is no end in sight to the bloody, unspeakable violence that has become an every day fact of life for many in that tragic land.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Americans have been in a foul mood recently.

One would think that taking satisfaction from giving the Republicans the heave ho and depositing them in the minority would lift the spirits of our citizenry and buoy their confidence so that we could face the future with that good old fashioned American optimism that has carried the nation through difficult times in the past.

Alas, such is not the case. America awoke the day after the election and realized that kicking the GOP out of power was only part of the problem. The other half of the electoral bargain - passing the baton to the Democrats - has so far, proven to be something of a disappointment. Rarely has a party come to power as the Democrats have with such a paucity of ideas on how to cure what ails us. You can hardly blame them. Their electoral strategy involved keeping their mouths shut while the Republicans self-destructed and events in Iraq played out to their advantage. Not a brilliant battle plan but it worked to perfection - with the help of Mark Foley and the media-savvy insurgents and terrorists who have made Baghdad and its environs a hell on earth.

Unfortunately, now that they are poised to run the legislative branch of government, the lack of specificity about what they intend to do about Iraq, about Iranian nukes, about a slowly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan is coming back to haunt them. This has further soured the mood of our fellow citizens and we approach the holiday season with some trepidation and many questions unanswered.

Events the world over seem to be spinning out of our control as conflicts and crisis in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Darfur, Somalia, and several other hot spots have proved themselves resistant to any solutions we have been able to offer. Whether our efforts have been unilateral, acting in concert with our allies, or even undertaken via the questionable auspices of the United Nations, it seems that the enemies of freedom have it all going their way.

Not so fast, my dejected countrymen. In a surprising number of conflicts and crisis where it appears the enemy has a singular advantage, the fact is that any “victory” they might achieve at our expense will almost certainly come with enormous problems for them as well. And given that their legitimacy is not based on popular sovereignty but rather comes from the barrel of a gun, this makes any domestic problems that may crop up as a result of an American “defeat” a threat to their very existence.

Take the Iranians, for example. As long as we’re in Iraq, the mullahs will continue to do their best to destabilize the government by supporting insurgents and the various Shia militias that are gleefully slaughtering their fellow countrymen who happen to belong to the Sunni branch of Islam. But something has happened in the last few months that even the Iranians didn’t count on. The militias appear to have splintered, many members breaking away from any kind of central command structure and are now operating as independent death squads. Even Muqtada al-Sadr, head of the extremist Mahdi Militia has admitted he no longer controls large numbers of armed men who are roaming the streets of Baghdad looking for victims.

Losing control of their proxies is not the worst of it for the Iranians. The Democratic electoral victory has them even more nervous. Not because they think the Democrats are interested in victory in Iraq but rather because they know that the Democrats want as quick an exit for our troops as can be done without exposing themselves to political charges of cutting and running. The obvious corollary to an American withdrawal is utter and complete chaos in Iraq with not only Shia slaughtering Sunni but also rival Shia militias - the Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades - slaughtering each other in a quest for power.

Ahmadinejad may be a loon, but he’s not crazy enough to tolerate a failed state on his border. The Iranians may be forced to send their own troops into the resulting chaos and quagmire to restore some semblance of order. And wouldn’t that be the irony of ironies as it would be payback time for Iraqis who would gladly transfer their hate from occupying Americans to the Iranians who they fought for 10 long years in one of the more brutal wars of the 20th century.

The collapse of the Iraqi government would also give greater independence to the Kurds in the north who already enjoy a large degree of autonomy from Baghdad. With Kurdish Iranians over the border already seething over their perceived second class citizenship and yearning to be united with their ethnic brothers and sisters not only in Iraq but also Turkey and elsewhere, the Persian nightmare of restless minorities causing trouble within the Iranian border may become an uncomfortable reality. And once a few groups start to rebel, anything is possible including a general uprising against the rule of the theocrats.

Also, any success that the Iranians may have with their nuclear program is a double edged sword. While the chances of an American strike against Iranian nuclear facilities may be fading, the fact is that most of the world is united against the idea of a nuclear armed Iran. The closer the mullahs get to their goal of manufacturing a weapon, the more pressure will result from countries like Russia and China that today seem to be hanging back, reluctant to impose even minimal sanctions.

As the Iranian program progresses, they may find those who have been running interference for them at the United Nations less and less sanguine about radical fundamentalist Muslims having the ultimate weapon. And with their economy in the toilet and nearly 50% of the population under the age of 25 (26% under the age of 14), tough sanctions and the resulting international isolation could create the perfect conditions for a revolutionary overthrow of the government.

Meanwhile, Syria is, if anything, in even more trouble than Iran. Just next door, Israel has been making noises about going after Hezb’allah’s patron and supporter in order to keep the terrorists from re-arming. And while Syrian President Bashir Assad continues to meddle in the affairs of his Lebanese neighbors, his support and encouragement of Hezb’allah may be about to yield the unintended consequence of a civil war. Nasrallah is no Syrian toady and is now following his own agenda that he hopes will bring him to power either directly through new elections or indirectly by giving him veto power in a new “government of national unity.”

Resistance to Nasrallah’s plans may erupt into street violence within the week. And while most observers believe that Hezb’allah would emerge victorious, the resulting fractured society would be almost as hard to govern as next door Iraq. Besides, Assad needs Lebanon virtually intact. The little country has been a cash cow for the Syrian Alawi ruling class as they milked and skimmed the economy in the past for every farthing they could.

It is Iraq where Assad faces the most danger. A precipitous American withdrawal would present the Syrians with many of the same problems faced by Iran with a few extra headaches thrown in for good measure. The 90% of Sunni Muslims who make up Syria’s population would not look kindly on the slaughter of their co-religionists in Iraq. Refugees would pour across the border, straining the government’s resources. And the nightmare prospect of a potential radical Shia state ensconced on his border has been one reason that Assad has cooperated - however minimally - with American efforts to staunch the flow of fighters coming into Iraq via Syria.

Even Russia and China, who would seem to gain from American setbacks in the Middle East, would be facing problems that may, in the long run, actually draw them closer to the United States on some issues.

The nuclear non-proliferation problem doesn’t end with Iran. Both nations realize that it is in their vital interest to keep a lid on the bottle containing the nuclear genie if only to forestall a nightmare future with dozens of nuclear powers, any one of which capable of igniting World War III. This is why eventually, both nations will work with us to keep Iran from getting the bomb. The alternative is just too gruesome to contemplate.

In the Middle East, both nations realize the need for peace and stability - especially China who in a few years will surpass Japan as the second largest importer of oil behind the United States. Russia, with its restless Muslim minorities, also sees peace in the Middle East as a key to its future internal security. Both nations may temporarily profit by US missteps in the region. But ultimately, both realize that it is the United States and our special relationship with Israel that is the key to peace. Anything that reduces American influence in the region also potentially diminishes the chances for stability, something both countries can ill afford.

The bottom line is that as bad as things may seem to us, the fact that our enemies will be limited in taking advantage of our blunders due to consequences beyond their control should, if not make us feel better, at least lift the pall of gloom and doom that emanates from the punditocracy on a daily basis. And it should also remind us that we’re in this war for the long haul. Temporary set backs in Iraq or anywhere else should not deter us from continuing the fight to rid the world of Islamic extremists and the putrid ideology they wish to impose on the rest of us.

More selective leaking from our friends at the Central Intelligence Agency:

A classified draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has said.

Seymour Hersh, writing in an article for the November 27 issue of the magazine The New Yorker released in advance, reported on whether the administration of Republican President George W. Bush was more, or less, inclined to attack Iran after Democrats won control of Congress last week.

A month before the November 7 legislative elections, Hersh wrote, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a national-security discussion that touched on the impact of Democratic victory in both chambers on Iran policy.

“If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran,” Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.

Of course, the CIA might be wrong - or at least this analysis may be flawed. There are probably other assessments that are much less sanguine regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions but no one leaked those reports. They’re a secret.

And I suppose Iran’s known and verified relationship with Big Daddy A.Q. Khan - father of Pakistan’s atomic bomb - and his travelling nuclear arms bazaar was just a coincidence - a happenstance of fortunate circumstance. Besides, Khan wasn’t selling nukes, he was selling ice cream machines.

Except that this document discovered by the IAEA, proves that either Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons or those ice cream machines have one helluva kick:

A document obtained by Iran on the nuclear black market serves no other purpose than to make an atomic bomb, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.

The finding was made in a report prepared for presentation to the 35-nation IAEA board when it meets, starting Thursday, on whether to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.

The report was made available in full to The Associated Press.

First mention of the documents was made late last year in a longer IAEA report. At that time, the agency said only that the papers showed how to cast “enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms.”

The agency refused to make a judgment on what possible uses such casts would have. But diplomats familiar with the probe into Iran’s nuclear program said then that the papers apparently were instructions on how to mold highly enriched grade uranium into the core of warheads.

In the brief report obtained Tuesday, however, the agency said bluntly that the 15-page document showing how to cast fissile uranium into metal was “related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components.”

Iran is probably claiming the document was accidentally stuck in between instructions on how to make a killer Rocky Road or maybe a sublime Moose Tracks.

Most of the rest of the planet believes that Iran’s heavy water reactors at Natanz and Arak serve no other purpose than to manufacture plutonium, a waste product of the nuclear reactions at the plants. Or perhaps the CIA believes that the heavy water will be used to create a particularly tasty variation of “Magilla Vanilla.”

And all of this secrecy and subterfuge surrounding their nuclear efforts is almost certainly not due to the fact that they wish to hide the development of a weapons program but rather because their recipe for “Black Cherry Surprise” promises to sweep the world.

All kidding aside, one point made by the assessment is probably correct; Iran is no where near having the capability to enrich uranium to the 85-90% necessary in order to build a bomb. And the heavy water reactors are years away from generating enough power to manufacture enough plutonium for a single weapon (although the 40 Megawatt facility at Arak promises to be a veritable plutonium assembly line once its fully operational and producing).

The key to the assessment is that the CIA has found no “firm” evidence of a secret Iranian nuke program. There is plenty of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that they are, in fact, working hard to build the bomb. But the fact remains that there is no documentary or photographic “smoking gun” that would confirm our suspicions one way or another.

To proceed on the assumption that they aren’t building a bomb would be stupid. To bomb them without some idea of what facilities to hit would be equally dumb. And while negotiations would almost certainly be a waste of time, protocol, tradition, and common sense demands that we talk directly to the Iranians at some point. For this reason - and because they are at least 3 and probably more years from even getting close to succeeding - it would seem politic of us to sit down with the Iranians and discuss nukes, Iraq, and other regional issues that impact our security.

Besides, maybe the CIA will discover Iran’s secret frozen custard capability. That would make talking to the mullahs worthwhile.

The question of the ascension of Alcee Hastings to the position of Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is one that will go along way toward answering the question uppermost in many people’s minds in this post election Democratic honeymoon”

Are the Democrats serious about national security?

Forget for a moment that Hastings would replace a steady, if unspectacular Jane Harmon who has taken a common sense approach to her duties, including a thoughtful appraisal of the domestic spying allegations. Also forget about Hastings impeachment nearly 20 years ago from the federal bench. He was, after all, found innocent by a jury of his peers. And reading this account by Byron York, one can see where reasonable doubt could have played a role in the juror’s decision.

On the other hand, there is an enormous amount of damning evidence as well - including Hastings’ behavior immediately after discovering that the FBI had arrested his co-conspirator. But it is all water under the bridge. It is what Hastings has done since his election in 1992 that should concern us.

And that record reveals a man who believes that the United States is the root of most of the problems in the world today. It reveals an admirer of Fidel Castro. It reveals a man with enormously troubling positions on issues vital to the security of the United States.

A sampling:

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)

The bill was supposed to deter arms and technology sales to China. Is it good that a potential chairman of the House Intel Committee doesn’t care about a potential enemy improving the quality of it weapons which could someday be used against the US?

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)

While this might be expected of any your run-of-the-mill liberal members of Congress, the fact is that the bill required the UN to initiate common sense reforms on things like budget and personnel matters - issues that any well run organization should be held accountable for. More should be expected from an Intel Chairman than knee jerk ideological reactions.

Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)

Here’s a jawdropper. I’d love to hear Hastings justify lifting the travel ban on Cuba, especially after this bill made the minimum demands that the ban be lifted “only after the president has certified that Cuba has released all political prisoners, and extradited all individuals sought by the US on charges of air piracy, drug trafficking and murder.”

Voted NO on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)

Should we have withheld our UN payments until a genuine democracy (us) was returned to our seat on the Human Rights Commission? Or should we go ahead and acquiesce while Libya, Iran, and other hell holes and human rights nightmares sit in judgement? Hastings didn’t think so.

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Even with amendments that addressed many civil liberties objections, Hastings still didn’t think it necessary to support the bill.

Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refineries. (Jun 2006)

The recent spike in gas prices was not so much a crude oil supply problem but rather a refined gasoline supply problem. That’s because we haven’t built a new refinery in this country in 20 years. We actually import refined oil products. This bill would have allowed for expedited refinery approval.

Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.

It all makes perfect sense. Not only oppose new domestic refineries but oppose finding new domestic supplies.

Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

A small matter but experts say that such nationwide standards would make it easier to spot illegal entrants to the US. And the bill also had a provision to toughen asylum requirements by expanding the number of relevant factors - another small but important step in keeping the homeland secure.

Voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)

Where are tomorrow’s officers going to come from? Hastings wants to make it harder for both the military and students to find out.

Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)

While not necessarily a bad vote, reforming the intelligence community was the number one priority spelled out by the Commission. One would think that someone deadly serious about our intelligence agencies would have voted for the measure and then worked to shape the reform measures that he though necessary.

****************************************

It should be noted that Hastings, while getting close to a zero rating from most conservative groups, also supported the deployment of SDI as well as voting to continue the Iraq War - despite voting against it at the outset which no one should hold against him. He is not entirely disinterested in improving our military and his record on veterans affairs is exemplary.

But the votes above reveal someone who, in my opinion, does not share the urgency nor the seriousness of purpose that the times demand. For that reason, the Democrats would do well to find another candidate (if Pelosi is deadset on allowing her personal vendetta against Harmon to potentially harm national security) who shows the same kind of thoughtfulness as Jane Harmon brought to the position of Intel Chairman.

Whether that is possible within the current ideological context of the Democratic party will determine whether the nation can trust the party to carry out its responsibilities of governance during a time of war with the zeal and seriousness that our situation requires.

Rather than sitting back and allowing the Iraq Study Group to dictate an endgame for the Iraq War, George Bush has decided to go all in and make one final effort to turn the security situation around and get the political process moving so that our troops will be able to start coming home and America can claim some kind of victory in Iraq:

An offensive on several fronts is in the works that includes more troops, political progress on Iraqi reconciliation, a regional summit, and increased funds for training:

Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.

Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq. This could involve the convening of an international conference of neighbouring countries or more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement of US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Point three focuses on reviving the national reconciliation process between Shia, Sunni and other ethnic and religious parties. According to the sources, creating a credible political framework will be portrayed as crucial in persuading Iraqis and neighbouring countries alike that Iraq can become a fully functional state.

Lastly, the sources said the study group recommendations will include a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces. It will also stress the need to counter corruption, improve local government and curtail the power of religious courts

In effect, Bush has co-opted the ISG and forced them to concentrate on “a strategy for victory” rather than “phased withdrawals” and timetables.”

As recently as a month ago, the Baker Commission was all set to declare the war lost and begin bringing the troops home:

A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, “Stability First” and “Redeploy and Contain,” both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, “Stability First,” argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

Bush has altered the Commission’s deliberations and changed its dynamic by engaging the bureaucracy in a long delayed (too long?) review of Iraq policy from which these recommendations have sprung. Baker’s group had little choice but to incorporate them into their report or risk being shunted to the sidelines in the policy debate.

Given the amount of flack I’ve taken from both the left and right recently whenever I write about Iraq, I am hesitant to lay it all on the line here. At times, I’ve truly felt battered and bruised by friend and foe alike. It’s one of the reasons I’ve altered my comments policy (see below). However, if y’all promise to be gentle, I will sum up for you exactly how I feel about this plan:

Too little. Too late.

The fact is 20,000 American troops is less than half of what people who know a helluva lot more about the subject than I do have been begging for. And any plan for “National Reconciliation” may be good on the macro level. But the violence in Iraq has now degenerated into micro conflicts:

General Maples said that the violence continued to increase in “scope, complexity and lethality” and that it was “creating an atmosphere of fear and hardening sectarianism, which is empowering militias and vigilante groups.”

. . . Reinforcing this view, General Hayden said the C.I.A. station in Baghdad assessed that Iraq was deteriorating to a chaotic state, with the political center disintegrating and rival factions increasingly warring with each other. “Their view of the battlefield is that it is descending into smaller and smaller groups fighting over smaller and smaller issues over smaller and smaller pieces of territory,” he said.

National polity has been shattered. It is doubtful whether even the 50,000 troops recommended by many observers - including Senator McCain - could restore any semblance of peace and security in the 4-6 months that General Abizaid says we have before the situation becomes irreversible. Unless we are willing to stay for 5-10 years with this level of commitment and expenditure of blood and treasure, I can’t see how the faith of the Iraqi people in government, in law and order, in civil society can be re-established.

I doubt whether there would be very much support in America for that kind of commitment. Especially since there is absolutely no guarantee that Iraq won’t devolve into a jungle anyway.

There is still good that can be done that has a small chance of improving the situation. Going after the militias with those additional troops would at least solve one of those macro problems that are bedeviling the Iraqi government. And the idea of a regional summit is intriguing. Not direct talks with Iran and Syria but rather engaging them in the context of regional security with other nations might be just the ticket. Because once we leave, the real bloodbath begins. And unless the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States as well as Syria (although the ruling class in Syria are Alawis, the country is 90% Sunni) want to see their co-religionists in Iraq led to the slaughter, their best course may be to assist in securing a modicum of peace prior to our departure.

The idea that we can accelerate the training and deployment of the Iraqi army is all well and good except that to date, the Iraqis have been close to useless. When we moved additional troops into Baghdad to help with security back in August, Prime Minister al-Maliki promised us 3,000 Iraqi troops to assist us in holding neighborhoods where our sweeps ferreted out terrorists and death squads. To date, less than 1,000 have shown up. The reason: wholesale rebellion by entire units of Iraqi troops who refuse to serve in Baghdad.

I will let that fact speak for itself regarding the accelerated training of Iraqi troops.

I am going to support this last roll of the dice by Bush even though I don’t think it will work. I am glad he is trying it. But if this is the best we can do at this late date, I fear that we will have to be satisfied with achieving the noble goal of kicking Saddam Hussein and his murderous henchmen out of power while falling short in our efforts to stabilize Iraq and bring some form of democracy to that bloody, tragic country.

Far short of victory, I’m afraid. And despite the catcalls and bric-a-brats thrown by the left, a noble undertaking, botched from the start, incompetently prosecuted, and in the end, a failure.

UPDATE

Allah’s thoughts bear reading in their entirety but here’s some first class analysis:

The Guardian’s source expects that if things don’t look better within six months of the new deployments, the pressure on Bush — including from Republicans worried about the party’s prospects in ‘08 — will be so intense that he’ll have no choice but to withdraw. To which I say, what prospects in ‘08? If he doubles down and craps out, we’re done. He’s betting everything here; whether it’s because he believes that fervently in the cause or simply because he can’t bear to lose face is almost beside the point.

And of course, he’s not the only one who’ll be making a last big push. If I were in charge of AQ and feeling “reinvigorated,” I’d target those 20,000 new troops with everything I have. I’d even reassign resources I was saving for attacks on the west if it’d help. Nothing would strengthen the anti-war crowd’s hand like a mass slaughter of people who wouldn’t have been there had Bush listened to the Democrats. One spectacular attack, especially if it involved WMD, would purchase years of American isolationism.

Yup.

Ed Morrissey is even more dubious of the plan than I am:

Forgetting about the “democracy crap” means that all of that long-range strategy has just disappeared. Instead, the US presumably would put a strongman or military junta in place in Baghdad, probably secular, as a way of achieving stability. The new junta would likely attract the Ba’athist elements that have operated the majority of the insurgencies in Iraq, helping to end one form of terrorism in the country — but putting the terrorists back in charge again. The Iraqi people, who turned out in force for three elections and who want democracy to work, would essentially be sold back into some form of authoritarian executive by the US.

Pardon me, but I hardly see how this strengthens us in the Middle East. If we send 20,000 troops to Baghdad in order to stand up a strongman, why would anyone in the region support democracy? Why would anyone trust us if we promised to back their activism for freedom and liberty?

Are we back to “He may be a sonufabitch but he’s our sonufabitch?” I sincerely hope not. As Ed points out, such a policy would not help the small group of democrats in the Middle East who are attempting to reform their governments. In fact, it cuts the legs from underneath them just when they need us the most.

UPDATE II

Buttressing my analysis above regarding the loss of national polity is this piece in WaPo that everyone should read:

Since midsummer, Shiite militias, Sunni insurgent groups, ad-hoc Sunni self-defense groups and tribes have accelerated campaigns of sectarian cleansing that are forcing countless thousands of Shiites and Sunnis in Baghdad to seek safety among their own kind.

Whole towns north and south of Baghdad are locked in the same sectarian struggle, among them the central Shiite city of Balad, still under siege by gunmen from surrounding Sunni towns after a bloody spate of sectarian massacres last month.

Even outside the epicenter of sectarian strife in the central region of the country, Shiite factions battle each other in the south, Sunni tribes and factions clash in the west. Across Iraq, the criminal gangs that emerged with the collapse of law and order rule patches of turf as mini-warlords.

Read the whole sad, tragic, thing.

The term “bi-partisan” is taking on a whole new meaning recently as both Republican and Democratic lawmakers are scurrying to seek cover behind the apron strings of the Iraq Study Group and its Old Wise Men who are desperately trying to find a way out of Iraq without making it appear that the US is “cutting and running.”

This, of course, is what James Baker’s group was set up specifically to do; provide safe political haven for Republicans and Democrats and take the sting out of partisan recriminations that would accompany any phased withdrawal of American troops that doesn’t take into account what is happening on the ground or in the halls of government in Iraq.

There are two choices in Iraq; win or lose. Those looking for nuance won’t find any. Those looking for a comfortable formula that would come up short in the “win” department but not exactly be a loss either are kidding themselves. There has never been a war that I can think of that didn’t have a winner and a loser. And trying to spin Iraq as a “draw” would be laughable - at least to our enemies who will dance long into the night the day that our “phased withdrawal” from Iraq is announced.

The ISG is just the latest in a long line of Commissions, Panels, and other appointed groups whose job it is to cover the political posteriors of politicians who either won’t or can’t decide tough political questions. Social Security reform, base closings, and budgetary reform are three recent examples of what amounts to Congress abdicating its responsibilities in the face of gridlock.

In the case of the ISG, the appointment of James Baker - the recognized Bush family Mr. Fix-it - was the tip off as to just what the Commission’s role would be. And the make up of the ISG - an array of foreign policy elites from both parties, most of whom are on record for getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible - was also indicative of its mission to extricate America from the Iraq morass before permanent harm could be done to our interests in the Middle East.

Even Mr. Bush, struggling to find a way to if not ignore then certainly minimize the role of Baker’s group, has softened his stance slightly on such things as “timetables” and “redeployment:”

Still, Mr. Bush’s tone has already changed to the point where he is now drawing fewer lines and sounding more welcoming to outside ideas.

Asked yesterday whether he would accept recommendations from the group that included timetables, Mr. Bush did not rule it out, instead saying he will not “prejudge” the report. At a press conference last week, he announced the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and nominated Robert M. Gates, who until Friday was a member of the study group, as a replacement.

Mr. Levin said the change in attitude was apparent.

“I didn’t hear anything about cutting and running,” he said. “I didn’t hear anything about if you are proposing that we begin a phased redeployment in four to six months, that somehow or other that will help the terrorists.”

Bush won’t say it but its hard to see how removing American troops can do anything but help the terrorists. And that is the great trap of any timetable that envisions a phased withdrawal. It is a trap that the insurgents, the death squads, and the militias (and the Democrats but obviously for much different reasons) are devoutly wishing the Administration fall into.

There seems to be abroad among war critics the notion that if we have a timed withdrawal of our forces that this will somehow light a fire under the government of Prime Minister al-Maliki to get busy tamping down sectarian violence, negotiating the sticky problem of oil revenue sharing, coming up with a national reconciliation plan, and a half dozen other Mission Impossible movie scenarios, all the result of the basic notion that the Iraqis just aren’t trying hard enough.

Bursting that bubble should be priority #1 of the Administration:

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

We can tie the withdrawal of American forces to all the “benchmarks” of progress by the Iraqi government you wish. We can grovel before Baby Assad and Ahmadinejad begging them to stop supporting the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq who are making life a living hell for Sunni and Shia alike. We could probably even temporarily increase the number of troops in Baghdad (10,000 max say the experts and that’s only if we don’t rotate our people home for a few months). But in the end, we’re stuck with the question of do we do what it takes to win by expending the resources, the men, and the time so that we can bring order out of chaos, freedom out of terror? Or do we give up and go home?

The Democrats feel that the American people have determined that the war is lost and that the troops should be brought home (arguable but lets run with the premise for a minute). Why bother with a “timetable” then? It blunts the “cut and run” criticism while springing a trap on the Administration and Republicans for 2008.

This timetable will be gussied up with all sorts of signposts and benchmarks of progress by the Iraqis. They will look and sound reasonable while also being impossible to achieve. And here’s where the political trap is sprung.

When it becomes clear that the Iraqis have not achieved the requisite progress that would allow a set number of American troops to come home, pressure will build to bring them home anyway regardless of whether the benchmarks have been achieved or not. The Democrat’s base will see to that. And of course, the question will be asked whose fault it is that the Iraqis are “behind schedule” in achieving those benchmarks? If you guessed President Bush, you win a cookie.

Such is the “bi-partisan” nature of the timeline.

I have little doubt that the Baker group will be able to spin their plan into some kind of blueprint for “victory.” The only people in the world who believe that will be dyed in the wool Republicans and the politicians who don’t have the political courage to come out and call our efforts in Iraq a defeat in the War on Terror. Our enemies will have no such difficulty in determining who won and who lost in Iraq. And neither will the rest of the world.

No timelines. No “phased withdrawal.” Get Maliki to sign off on US forces fighting and killing the militias. Instead of the half hearted attempt currently underway to reform his government, urge him to go much farther by cleaning out the vipers nest in his own Interior Ministry. Find some way to accelerate the training and deployment of the Iraqi army. Purge the police of militias and death squads.

And yes, engage the Syrians and Iranians in a dialogue on Iraq. About the only negotiating stick we have is the threat of our immediate and precipitous withdrawal. The resulting chaos would send refugees streaming toward Iran and Syria’s borders not to mention a bloodletting of their co-religionists that would upset the domestic applecart at home and might force them into becoming reluctant peace keepers or even active participants in a civil war.

There are a half dozen other “benchmarks” of Iraqi progress that would have meaning if victory was our goal. Most of all, it would take time. How long? Five years? A decade? Osama Bin Laden was right. We just don’t have the staying power when standing toe to toe with the terrorists who would gain the most from our withdrawal.

And I can think of nothing more alarming to the future of the War on Terror than giving the terrorists an easy victory that they didn’t win on the battlefield but rather in the hearts and minds of the American people.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey gives a pretty convincing argument for staying in Iraq, echoing some of my concerns and splashing some cold water on the “redeploy now” crowd:

The efforts by Democrats to shift into reverse are based on two arguments: that the US is creating the impetus for violence simply by being present, and that Nouri al-Maliki could solve the problem if we scared him into taking action on his own. Both Zinni and Batiste dispute these assumptions, and for good reason. The forces arrayed against the Iraqi government and Coalition forces consist primarily of native radicals who will not abide democratic institutions, but instead want dictatorships based on sect and ethnicity. A smaller but significant portion are foreign terrorists who have flocked to the al-Qaeda franchise, led now by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

Zinni and Batiste know this. Both scoff at the notion that Maliki could stop the violence at his current strength levels, although both agree he could do more politically. Zinni and Batiste agree with John McCain that the US needs additional troops in Baghdad and a better strategy for weakening and destroying the militias. This week, American troops started going after Moqtada al-Sadr’s forces in the capital, reversing an earlier decision to abide by Maliki’s demand to leave them alone. More of that kind of thinking will help, and that will certainly put the kind of political pressure on Maliki that might some changes to his policies.

The question uppermost in my mind is…

WHY IN GOD’S NAME DIDN’T YOU DO IT BEFORE THE ELECTION!

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as defense secretary on Wednesday, one day after midterm elections in which opposition to the war in Iraq contributed to heavy Republican losses.

President Bush said he would nominate Robert Gates, a former CIA director, to replace Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. The three were expected to appear in the Oval Office at 3:30 p.m. ET, according to NBC News.

Asked whether his announcement signaled a new direction in the war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops, Bush said, “Well, there’s certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon.”

Bush lavished praise on Rumsfeld, who has spent six stormy years at his post. The president disclosed he met with Gates last Sunday, two days before the elections in which Democrats swept control of the House and possibly the Senate.

Was it out and out hubris that kept the President from firing Rumsfeld before the election? Wouldn’t firing him have signaled a “change in course” and knocked the chocks from underneath the Democratic critique of “stay the course?” Did the President’s stubbornness and overweening pride prevent him from appearing to give in to his political opponents before an election?

I may be very tired and not reading this correctly but what this says to me is that Bush cared more about his personal standing than he did the party. The fact that he said a week ago that Rumsfeld would be his Secretary of Defense till the end of his term probably played a role in waiting until after the election. But firing Rumsfeld now rather than last week (or last month for that matter) just doesn’t make any sense to me.

No doubt Rumsfeld was popular among many conservatives for his disdain of the media and his leadership during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But when it came to winning the peace, especially in Iraq, there is little doubt that his policies were a disaster. One need only look at Iraq today to confirm that analysis. If he was doing such a bang up job (as many of my readers will let me know in the comments), why isn’t Iraq farther along the road to taking care of itself? Why is much of the country in absolute chaos? Why is the Iraqi army a joke with only 10 battle ready battalions according to his own Pentagon?

One could go on and on asking questions about the disastrous decisions Rumsfeld has made in the three plus years of this war. But it was his relentless, upbeat, assessments of “progress” in Iraq that called into question the man’s ultimate fitness for the office. Admitting no mistakes. Allowing for no bad news. The constant “glass is half full” press briefings got so wearing that I simply stopped watching and listening when he came on.

I am not calling into question his integrity. I am criticizing his competence. And given the situation in Iraq and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, his failures are there for the whole world to see.

Gates, a CIA vet and card carrying member of the military industrial complex (a joke my friends. He’s a Washington defense/foreign policy insider) is a fair choice but I would have preferred a Sam Nunn or some other old, wise man who could have ridden herd on both the Generals and the bureaucracy by virtue of their reputation. And naming a Democrat would not have been a bad move by the President following the election results yesterday.

We’ll see. In the meantime, Iraq continues to bleed. Our soldiers continue to die. And whatever would constitute a “victory” in Iraq seems to be slipping away.

If, as seems more and more likely, the Democrats take control of the House, we will hear much crowing on the left about the part that the War in Iraq played in the GOP’s downfall. They will demand that the President now come up with a plan that would bring the troops home in a specified period of time.

Democrats will tell you that they will tie that timetable to real progress by the Iraqi government and military in getting a handle on the security situation and other benchmarks. The problem is a simple one:

DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT IF ONE OF THOSE BENCHMARKS HASN’T BEEN ACHIEVED THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL ALLOW THE TIMETABLE TO SLIP?

They will argue that the timetable is more important than any “artificial” measurement of progress and agitate for the withdrawal anyway. In fact, I would fully expect the Democrats to use the published timetable as a political club, constantly beating the Republicans over the head with the fact that the war is not going according to the schedule they so carefully set down. At the very least, they’ll have one more thing about which to Blame Bush and, because wars tend not to cooperate when politicians set down arbitrary conditions for its ending, the Dems will have a field day until November of 2008 at the Republican’s expense.

The problem with this “anti-war mandate” that we will be hearing so much about over the next few days and weeks is that it only seems to exist in the minds of of war opponents. That’s because, from where I sit, there is no talk from the candidates here in Illinois about leaving Iraq at all or any kind of “anti-war” sentiment whatsoever.

Melissa Bean (Ill eight), a freshman Democrat running in a marginally red district and considered extremely vulnerable hasn’t even mentioned the war in her ads which effectively skewer her opponent as a right wing extremist. (That’s okay because, well, he is.) And perhaps most surprisingly, Democratic candidate Tammie Duckworth, an Iraq War vet and double amputee running in the hotly contested sixth district of Illinois, is running an ad that, if I were in her district, would make me comfortable with voting for her. Nowhere does she express an iota of anti-war sentiment in the ads. Instead, she concentrates on trying to get the President to “change course” as well as make sure our troops have everything they need.

I have a theory about what’s going on in the country with people’s ambivalent feelings toward the war. And to illustrate it, allow me to pose a counterfactual for you.

Suppose D-Day had failed and the allies had been thrown back into the sea. Most of our airborne troops dead or captured. The assault waves decimated. Instead of the more than 2,000 men who sacrificed their lives on the beaches of Normandy, the number of dead could have approached ten times that.

Even worse, Hitler would have been able to transfer the bulk of his western armies to the east and possibly defeat Stalin’s Russia given that another invasion was out of the question for at least a year. And an extended war in Europe would have meant a possible delay in throwing our best at Japan.

What would the American people have done when they went to the polls in November of 1944?

If Wendell Wilkie and the Republicans could have framed the election around the idea that they could do a better job in running the war and bringing victory, I daresay FDR and the Democrats would have been in enormous trouble.

But we don’t have that situation today because the Democrats refuse to acknowledge anything but defeat in Iraq. They have set parameters that don’t even define victory, only withdrawal and, given what is happening in Iraq at the moment, a humiliating defeat as we retreat and leave the battlefield to al-Qaeda.

Bush/Rummy/Cheney have made every mistake that was possible to make in Iraq and then blundered some more. But this is not Viet Nam. The American people are not resigned to stalemate and defeat. If you were to ask 100 Americans “If there were a way to win the War in Iraq, would you support our staying there until the job was done?”… my guess would be a very healthy percentage would answer in the affirmative.

This is why Democrats are not running “anti-war” ads - except true blue liberals like Ned Lamont. And look what’s happening to him.

All of this brings up the point that there is not going to be an “anti-war mandate” despite what you may hear from the left after the election. The American people want victory. And at this point, given the alternatives, even a timetable sounds like it could be spun as a win.

Try another counterfactual, this one more recent: Suppose the Democrats had run on a platform that they had a plan that could bring us victory in Iraq. Suppose they were willing to raise troop levels, get serious about training the Iraqi military, tell Maliki to shove it and take off after Mookie and his militia and finish the job that should have been done 2 years ago - kill the bastard and destroy his ability to make trouble.

I don’t think the Republicans would have had a prayer. They would have been steamrolled.

At bottom, when given the choice between victory and defeat, the American people choose to win. And if, by some miracle, the Republicans hold onto the House tomorrow, it won’t be because they deserve it or because they’ve managed the legislative branch so expertly. It will be because in the end, the American people made this election a referendum on who best would pursue victory in Iraq. And that just might be the most shocking surprise of all.