Right Wing Nut House

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is yours truly for “Religion and Politics: Intolerance Is Growing.” There was a tie for second with Andrew Olmsted’s “You Keep Using That Word…” and American Future’s “The Mysterious Mr. Ritter” sharing runners up honors.

Finishing on top in the non Council category was “The Blogosphere at War” from The Belmont Club.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not likely.

UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Bunch also smells a war brewing with Iran.

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

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

Under enormous pressure from the netnuts and other liberal activists, it appears that the Democratic leadership is caving in and is going to try and cut off funding for more troops in Iraq:

Senior House Democrats said yesterday that they will attempt to derail funding for President Bush’s proposal to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, setting up what could become the most significant confrontation between the White House and Congress over military policy since the Vietnam War.

Senate Democrats at the same time will seek bipartisan support for a nonbinding resolution opposing the president’s plan, possibly as early as next week, in what some party officials see as the first step in a strategy aimed at isolating Bush politically and forcing the beginning of a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from the conflict.

The bold plans reflect the Democrats’ belief that the public has abandoned Bush on the war and that the American people will have little patience for an escalation of the U.S. military presence in Iraq. But the moves carry clear risks for a party that suffered politically for pushing to end an unpopular war in Vietnam three decades ago, and Democratic leaders hope to avoid a similar fate over the conflict in Iraq.

The trick for the Dems is to walk the fine line between dissing the Commander in Chief and hurting the troops. For the former, I don’t think the American people could care one way or another. But the quickest way for the Democrats to lose their majority would be the appearance that they were abandoning the troops in the field.

Indeed, it is going to be very hard to separate defunding the “surge” and cutting funds to the troops already there:

House Democratic leaders have said they will not use the power of the purse in any way that would harm troops in the field, a position that had run afoul of the party’s liberal activists. Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said that pledge is being calibrated to apply only to troops in the field now.

Tauscher said Democratic policy must “satisfy the American people that we’re putting a speed bump in front of the president that will actually hold,” adding: “The White House is used to doing business on their own, but they’re realizing things have changed. This is vastly different.”

House Democrats also expect to introduce soon a resolution of disapproval for Bush’s new policy but have moved farther than Senate Democrats toward an outright funding confrontation with the White House.

That “speed bump” also has perils for the majority. Suppose Bush surprises us and actually convinces a sizable portion of the American people that his surge is necessary? The obstructionist party during wartime - even during an unpopular war - never fares very well. Don’t believe me? Let’s email the Whig party and ask them what they think. After opposing the Mexican War, the election of 1848 was the beginning of the end for them.

By far the biggest risk the Democrats take in blocking the surge is in promoting the perception that they don’t want to “win” the war. Even though a majority of Americans believe we are losing in Iraq that doesn’t mean that a majority accepts their view that we’ve already lost. So if the Democrats can fool the people into thinking that they still support the concept of “winning,” and can portray their obstruction of the surge as part of a strategy that will lead to “victory,” (or at least avoid “defeat”), there should be plenty of support for blocking the President’s plan to send more troops to Iraq - at least in the House.

I don’t think the Senate will go along with any attempt to deny funds for a surge - at least at this point. It’s hard to say what another week of pressure from the Kossacks and other netnuts will do to that prediction. If, as this article points out, the Dem strategy is to isolate Bush by going on record opposing the surge while working to deny funds for the move at the same time, it is possible that support for Bush will collapse in both the House and the Senate and even the GOP will begin scrambling for an out on Iraq.

It will be very difficult to keep Bush from sending those extra men. And any effort to deny him those troops by the Democrats is fraught with danger. But support for the war is at such a low ebb and support for Bush even lower, the Dems just might be tempted to flex some muscle and start running the war their own way.

Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston (of Hot Air) have made it to Baghdad and are currently embedded with a unit that appears to be at the center of the action:

My Hot Air colleague Bryan Preston and I have been in Iraq, embedded with an incredibly dedicated Army unit in Baghdad tasked with training Iraqi security forces (both Shia and Sunni) conducting counterinsurgency operations, and carrying out civil affairs work. Yes, there is danger and chaos and unspeakable bloodshed in parts of Baghdad. Sectarian violence–compounded by everyday street crime and tribal conflict–is rampant. Corruption, incompetence, and apathy infect the Iraqi government. You’ve gotten endless news coverage of all that. But there are also pockets of success and signs of hope amid utter despair. I’ll give you more details of our embed unit after we get home. We have much to report and will be publishing a multi-part video and audio series, blog posts, and op-eds on security conditions, media malpractice, and the big picture on the war next week. Having met, watched, and interviewed a broad cross-section of our troops during our brief but fruitful travels, my faith in the U.S. military has never been stronger– but I will not sugarcoat my skepticism and doubts about decisions being made in Washington.

First of all, I speak for (almost) everybody both left and right when I wish them good luck and pray that they stay safe.

I say “almost” everyone because if the past is any guide, there will be sneering contempt from some lefty blogs - criticism that drips with racism, sexism, and a a jaw dropping kind of obscene hate. I plan on posting the reaction from the left to Malkin’s trip to Iraq because these people must be exposed as the ignorant racists they truly are. Ignoring their hypocrisy only makes them believe they are clever rather than pond scum.

Criticism of Malkin and Preston is not the issue. It is perfectly acceptable to criticize what they write and their impressions of what is going on Iraq. But the rancid way in which some lefty bloggers will personalize their criticism will not be tolerated by me or, I imagine, a host of others.

Feel free to leave links from lefty blogs in the comments who you feel step over the line. As news spreads of the Malkin/Preston embed, I should have plenty to write about this afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said all the right things. He said them in the right way. He said them with conviction. He was humble where he should have been. He was firm where he should have been. He was vague where he should have been (Iran). He was specific where he should have been (Anbar).

I largely agreed with the President’s assessment - as far is it went. Why he kept mentioning “sectarian elements” rather than militias and not mention al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army by name is a minor point but telling. What it says to me is that despite al-Maliki’s assurances, we’re still not sure what the consequences will be when we start going after Mookie’s Army. If the Mahdi Militia comes out swinging, the Iraqi army will have its hands full with no guarantee that they will actually fight them. In fact, this entire plan is dependent on an Iraqi army that has yet to prove it can do anything much at all. Deploying 18 brigades to Baghdad when the largest combat action that the Iraqi army has been involved in has been company sized engagements will test the new army to the limit.

Still, there’s no time like the present for the Iraqis to get their feet wet. Now all we have to do is hope that they’ll show up in Baghdad as ordered. Last summer when Maliki tried to deploy troops to Baghdad, many of the units mutinied and refused to serve. Let’s hope they have that little problem ironed out as well.

I would have hoped that we somehow could have engineered al-Maliki’s downfall and replaced him and his government with a much broader coalition of Sunnis, Kurds, and secular Shias. But the Grand Ayatollah Sistani nixed that idea because he feared the Shias would lose power in any arrangement that didn’t include the flaming Shia nationalist al-Sadr. This was unfortunate since the fear of absolute Shia dominance is one of the things driving the insurgency. Sharing oil revenues, which the President mentioned in his speech, is only part what has to be a sustained and serious effort by the Iraqi government to assure all factions that the Shias will not ride roughshod over everyone else. The sharing of revenues is a start. We await other moves by Maliki that will prove his statesmanship with other factions in Iraq.

So we refine our strategy in Iraq. Now what? Fewer people will die, hopefully. But the President barely touched on the consequences of this sectarian violence; the depopulation of Sunnis from the capitol as well as the mass exodus of Sunnis from the country. There are 1 million in Syria, 700,000 in Jordan, nearly 100,000 in Egypt, about 40,000 in Lebanon, and about 20,000 in Turkey. Another 50,000 have fled the Middle East all together and ended up in Europe and the US.

And since Sunnis generally made up the most skilled and most educated part of the workforce, this is a brain drain of immense proportions. What is driving these people away is the fact that, despite what the President said about Shias wanting to live in peace with the Sunnis, the fact is there is a sizable minority of Shias who don’t believe that, who either want to kill Sunnis or have them gone from Iraq.

This is the biggest challenge facing the Iraqi government and it won’t be solved by sending troops to Baghdad or even taking the guns out of the hands of the militias. This is a sickness in the Iraqi soul and only some kind of national reconciliation a la South Africa could make a start toward healing these wounds. America can’t do anything to help here either except perhaps create an atmosphere where such a process would be possible.

What Bush is proposing could lead to a limited success in Iraq; saving the Sunnis from annihilation and giving the streets back to the Iraqi government. Beyond that, any democracy that emerges from our involvement there will also be up to the Iraqi people. We’ve done just about all we can do in that regard as well.

I believe the President should get a bump in support from this. And support for the war may increase a couple of points as well. But the days of moving the American people en masse towards a belief in victory are long gone, crashed on the shoals of unfulfilled promises and the disheartening realities of the violence in Iraq. But if what the President proposes is the very best we can hope for - and I believe that it is - then perhaps it will eventually be seen by both the Iraqi and American people as having been worth the effort.

For those of you who receive a feed from this site, I have broken down and finally allowed for the publishing of the entire post for each blog entry rather than the first couple of lines.

I have entered into an advertising agreement with a news aggregator who needs to publish my entire article in the feed. Hence, the change.

Don’t know what this will do to traffic. But given that I’ve got around 3,500 Bloglines subscribers alone, I’m hoping it won’t drive visitors away too much.

When I start publishing podcasts of my radio show, I intend to make those available in the feed as well.

Any comments pro or con would be appreciated.

After three years of carping, harping, caterwauling, criticizing, not to mention spinning ever more outrageous and fantastical conspiracy theories about the war, it is time for the Democrats to stand up and do what they say they’ve been sent to Washington to do; get us out of Iraq.

Now is the time we find out whether the Democrats are a bunch of gutless cowards whose political calculations about “supporting the troops but not the mission” has any meaning beyond the sound bite culture of Washington and political campaigns. Now is the time we discover whether Democrats have the courage of their convictions and truly believe that the war is a lost cause, necessitating the immediate withdrawal of our forces.

Not “redeployment” or other weasel words that the Democrats have used in the past in attempting to hide from the gales of history that are blowing ever more fiercely through the Middle East and beyond, but the physical withdrawal of our troops from the fighting. In other words, a halt to combat operations, an admission that the war was not only ill advised, ill considered, and carried out with spectacular incompetence but also that we have lost the conflict and that the terrorists, jihadis, and murderous thugs in the Sunni insurgency have won.

Along with this admission of total failure must come an acknowledgement of success by our enemies. This is the nature of war. One side comes out the winner. The other, a loser. And if the Democrats had any balls at all they would be just as loud and obnoxious when complaining about al-Qaeda’s “victory” against us as they are when complaining about everything else having to do with the war.

They won’t do it, of course, It might lose them a few votes. So despite the fact that they believe the war a failure, that Bush an incompetent fool, that our men are dying needlessly in Iraq, that civilians are being butchered in a lost cause, that there is nothing we can do to stem the tide of victory by al-Qaeda and the jihadis, they will sit back on their over fed, overly ample haunches and kibitz like a bunch of old maids at a bridge game, maintaining a high moral tone while abjectly failing to act in a moral fashion.

For if the Democrats really believed all they say about Iraq - and there should be no doubt that they do - then the only morally defensible position to take is to cut our losses and bring our troops home. Not in 6 months. Not in three months. There should not be one more American soldier who dies or is wounded because of what they see as the illusory notion that there is any kind of victory to be had in Iraq.

But no. The Democrats want to have it both ways. They want an “out” just in case the security situation really does improve as the result of our sending an extra few thousand men to Baghdad. They don’t want Republicans to take political advantage of their moral stance regarding the withdrawal of our troops. They want to be able to claim that they “succeeded” in making Bush change direction in policy - especially if their is a significant improvement in the security situation.

Frankly, I don’t know what they’re so worried about. The chances that an extra 20,000 troops will make a difference in the long run are slight indeed. Three times that many and there may have been a chance to alter the cycle of sectarian violence that now claims far more lives every day than al-Qaeda terrorists or Sunni insurgents. As it stands, the extra troops are little more than a symbolic gesture by the President, a sign to his supporters and the Iraqis that he is still committed to achieving some kind of “victory” - whatever that means.

And lest you think I am any more satisfied with the Administration’s plans than I am with the stance of cowardly Democrats, think again.

The President has been saying for three years that we cannot fail in Iraq, that it is absolutely vital to our national security and to the future of our country that Iraq be seen as a success in the War on Terror.

If this is so, why has he been so lethargic in defending his actions? Why hasn’t he answered his critics with anything except platitudes and rosy scenarios that bore little relation to the reality of what was actually happening on the ground? Why did he resist any review of his strategy for so long, even after it became clear that we were failing in Iraq? And why for the love of God has he dithered for more than 4 months as the violence, already severely disrupting Iraqi society by making more than half a million refugees and record numbers of civilian dead, reached new heights of savagery and brutality?

George Bush is a failure on many levels as President but he has reached the zenith of incompetence as a moral leader. His apocalyptic rhetoric about the consequences of failure in Iraq has not been backed up by the kind of leadership that would have given the American people a stake in this conflict beyond the families of our soldiers who have born the entire burden of sacrifice in this war. This has meant that support for his policies was bound to deteriorate if things went south in Iraq. And, like the moral cowardice of the Democrats who refuse to take their rhetoric about the war to its logical conclusion by advocating an immediate withdrawal, the President has demonstrated his own moral laxity by opening a huge chasm between what he says the stakes are in Iraq with his actions.

For if, as the President contends, these stakes are so high, why not call up every National Guard member and every reservist we have? If our equipment is being slowly ground down by overuse in the hot, desert-like conditions of Iraq, why not ask for a crash program to have American industry turn out new equipment? Why not constitute a new “War Production Board to prioritize and order American manufacturers to turn out what is needed to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion? Despite the loss of much of our manufacturing base, you can’t convince me that this couldn’t be done - if there was the will and the leadership to do it.

Why not rationing? Why not raise taxes? Why not put his cherished domestic agenda on hold while the American government bends every effort and concentrates almost exclusively on winning the war in Iraq?

How unrealistic am I being by hearkening back to the domestic tactics we used in World War II that successfully gave every American a stake in our victory or defeat? Obviously, very little of what I proposed above would be possible or even practicable. But I listed those actions because they illustrate a point; that the President has not tapped the enormous reserves of patriotism nor the deep, traditional well spring of self sacrifice that the American people have demonstrated they are capable of if they believe the stakes are high enough. And this President has failed miserably in doing that.

Because the President lacks the political courage to take these kinds of actions that would unite us in a common cause and call forth our best effort, we are losing the war. And now, at this late date, the best we can do is send a paltry 20,000 more men to a failing state that is in danger of falling off a cliff and turning into another Somalia - a haven for roving gangs of thugs with guns and terrorists to plan and train for their next mission against the United States.

The time for evasion by all sides is over. What we need is an up or down vote in the House and Senate on continuing this war. Either we decide to do everything in our power to prosecute the war to the fullest extent possible in order to achieve even a limited victory (defined as a stable Iraqi government in charge of its own streets) or we begin the immediate withdrawal of our forces and let the Iraqis stew in the mess we have made. Move some troops to Afghanistan where at least there is a fighting chance for success. But get them out of Iraq and allow the regional players who have done their best to undermine our efforts there to pick up the pieces themselves. We will just have to deal with their success as another aspect of the general War on Terror.

The aftermath will not be easy to overcome. But if we decide enough is enough, we will have to face the consequences of our failure and move on from there. And if we decide to do whatever it takes to win through to a limited victory, then it’s time to make the President responsible for his rhetoric.

Whatever the decision, no more straddling, no more evasions, no more hiding behind political doubletalk. For both the President and the Democrats, half measures won’t cut it. It’s time to stand up and be counted - no matter what side you’re on.

It appears that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert may be in some legal hot water. The Jerusalem Post is reporting that the State Attorney will announce that a criminal investigation will proceed when the PM returns from a far east trip:

The state has decided to open a criminal investigation against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on his alleged role intervention in the government tender for the sale of the controlling interest in Bank Leumi stock, Channel 10 reported Tuesday evening.

Due to a conflict of interest, Attorney General Menahem Mazuz, who would ordinarily be the official to declare a criminal investigation involving a head of state, has removed himself from the Olmert affair. According to Channel 10, Mazuz’s sister may have had a role in the Bank Leumi affair.

Instead, State Attorney Eran Shendar will announce the criminal investigation after Olmert returns from his visit to China.

According to Channel 10, the extent of the investigation has not yet been announced. While police will likely concentrate on the alleged Bank Leumi improprieties, it is possible that other scandals in which Olmert is suspected of taking a role will also be addressed, such as a number of real estate deals that may have been conducted illegally, including the purchase of Olmert’s home on Rehov Cremieux in Jerusalem.

Olmert is alleged to have intervened in the government tender for the sale of the controlling interest in Bank Leumi stock. And the real estate deals that are under investigation were sweet:

A Jewish-American businessman who has donated money to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert bought a home owned by the Olmert family for 30 percent more than its market value in the mid-1990s, the Haaretz daily reported Wednesday.

The reported deal marked the latest sign of trouble for the Israeli leader, who is already facing criticism for his handling of the war in Lebanon and is being investigated for other another questionable real estate deal.

According to the report, Uri Harkham bought the home in Jerusalem’s Nahlaot neighborhood in 1995 for the inflated price of about $660,000. He sold the house several years later for $430,000 a significant loss, the report said.

Harkham, a California real-estate owner and clothing maker, contributed $25,000 to Olmert’s 1993 campaign for mayor of Jerusalem, according to the paper.

And that’s just one of Olmert’s problems. He may also be in trouble for trying to stack the Income Tax Authority with cronies:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is a suspect in the case that exploded into the headlines today, in which “connected” businessmen are suspected of influencing top officials at the Income Tax Authority, some allegedly through the prime minister’s bureau chief Shula Zaken, to get tax breaks, reports journalist Yoav Yitzhak.

He claims the police have preliminary information but it isn’t clear if and when Olmert will be questioned.

Through his website News First Class, Yitzhak claims that Olmert enabled Zaken and her brothers to influence appointments at the Income Tax Authority, though he knew of her contacts and the businesses of her brothers.

The apex was the appointment of Jacky Matza as tax commissioner, whom the police suspect Olmert appointed at Zaken’s urging.

But Olmert had an interest in the matter, according to the suspicion, because Zaken and her brother Yoram Karashi had been involved in obtaining tax breaks for the prime minister’s personal friends and supporters.

For a guy who showed a curious lethargy in prosecuting a war against Israel’s deadliest enemy, Olmert sure exhibits a lot of energy when it comes to the finer points of political corruption and influence peddling.

In the meantime, the military man most responsible for the Lebanon debacle, IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, has refused to resign and Olmert refuses to fire him. This has caused a crisis in the upper echelons of the IDF:

A senior Israel Defense Forces officer told Haaretz on Monday that many of the army’s senior officers believe the confidence crisis among the top brass is still strong, and that the coming months will test Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz’s ability to lead the army in reforms.

“A large segment of conference participants doubt the ability of the current leadership to lead,” a major general on the General Staff told Haaretz, during the first day of a two-day conference for senior IDF commanding officers.

The conference, located at the Hatzor air force base in southern Israel, was held to discuss the findings of the in-house investigations into the army’s wartime performance.

And given some of the criticisms emanating from this conference, Olmert may have to bite the bullet and fire Halutz due to the performance of the general staff during the war:

The following were mentioned among the lessons of the war: over-reliance on the Israel Air Force as a counter to Hezbollah; late call-up of reservist divisions; inability to solve the threat posed by short-range rockets; poor training and equipping of ground forces, particularly of reservist units; and failures in how decision making was made at the General Staff level.

Sources at the conference told Haaretz that in taking lessons from the war, Halutz is focusing on ways to prepare the IDF for future confrontations. They also stressed that the gathering was not presented as a setting for disagreements, and therefore many of those in attendance chose not to challenge the investigators’ findings and the relatively minor measures taken against individual officers.

It sounds like what’s wrong with the IDF won’t be fixed over night, especially the training of reserves that in recent years has suffered from budgetary concerns and perhaps a false sense that with Egypt and Jordan at peace with the Jewish state, the regular IDF forces would be able to handle most conflict scenarios that would come up. This kind of wake up call was a painful lesson and will almost certainly be addressed by Halutz or whoever is appointed to replace him.

And Olmert? He has chosen a foreign venue to admit his policy of unilateral concessions to Hamas and Hizbullah has been a failure:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently expressed his disappointment with the results of Israel’s two unilateral withdrawals, saying that the violence that broke out in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip in recent months convinced him that there is no point in any future unilateral moves of this kind.

In an interview with the Chinese news agency Xinhua prior to his departure Monday for a three-day visit to China, the prime minister said that he believes in the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In order to achieve this, he added, Israel will have to withdraw from a large part of the territories that it controls today, and “we are ready to do this.”

“A year ago, I believed that we would be able to do this unilaterally,” the prime minister said, referring to a withdrawal from the West Bank. “However, it should be said that our experience in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip is not encouraging. We pulled out of Lebanon unilaterally, and see what happened. We pulled out of the Gaza Strip completely, to the international border, and every day they are firing Qassam rockets at Israelis.”

My reaction to that can be summed up in one utterance:

DUH!

Here’s a man who has a knack of “trivializing the momentous and complicating the obvious.” (HT: Gettysburg)

It will be interesting to see how long Olmert can survive these scandals and investigations. And it will also be interesting to see if there will be new elections in the next 6 months in Israel that may bring big changes both to the office of the Prime Minister as well as the Knesset.

US AC-130 gunships attacked some fleeing al-Qaeda members along the Somalia-Kenya border wreaking havoc, sowing confusion, and evidently killing several terrorists - including a possible al-Qaeda financier who may have assisted the bombers who destroyed our African embassies in 1998:

A U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunship attacked suspected al-Qaeda members in southern Somalia on Sunday, and U.S. sources said the operation may have hit a senior terrorist figure.

The strike took place near the Kenyan border, according to a senior officer at the Pentagon. Other sources said it was launched at night from the U.S. military facility in neighboring Djibouti. It was based on joint military-CIA intelligence and on information provided by Ethiopian and Kenyan military forces operating in the border area.

Sources said last night that initial reports indicated the attack had been successful, although information was still scanty.

“You had some figures on the move in a relatively unpopulated part of the country,” said one source confirming the attack, who, like several others, would discuss the operation only on the condition of anonymity. “It was a confluence of information and circumstances,” he said. The attack was first reported by CBS News.

This is more like it. First, we had cooperative intelligence sharing from both Ethiopia and Kenya - the two major players in that part of the world and both of whom want nothing to do with al-Qaeda and radical Islam. Secondly, the operation appeared to be well planned and expertly carried out. Third, the bonus to the operation may be the timely deaths of two higher ups in al-Qaeda who have been responsible for aiding the perpetrators of attacks on American interests:

One target of the strike, sources said, was Abu Talha al-Sudani, a Sudanese who is married to a Somali woman and has lived in Somalia since 1993 — the year of the attack against U.S. troops that was chronicled in the book and movie “Black Hawk Down.” In a 2001 U.S. court case against Osama bin Laden, Sudani was described by a leading witness as an explosives expert who was close to the al-Qaeda leader.

More recently, Sudani was identified by U.S. intelligence as a close associate of Gouled Hassan Dourad, head of a Mogadishu-based network that operated in support of al-Qaeda in Somalia. Dourad is one of 14 “high-value” prisoners transferred last September from CIA “black sites” to the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence then disclosed that Dourad “worked for the East African al-Qaeda cell led by . . . al-Sudani” and carried out at least one mission for him, related to a plan to bomb the U.S. military base in Djibouti.

And that’s not all. US intelligence has fingered Sudani as the financier for the terrorist attack on our embassies in 1998. And the terrorist who was the beneficiary of that financing may have been killed in the raid as well:

Others have identified Sudani as the financier for Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, believed responsible for the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. All are among the senior al-Qaeda operatives the Bush administration has charged were sheltered by Somalian Islamic fundamentalists controlling Mogadishu, the country’s capital. They are believed to have fled late last month when Ethiopian troops drove the fundamentalists out of the capital and toward the Kenyan border.

[In an interview early Tuesday, Abdirizak Hassan, chief of staff for Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi, confirmed the strike. Hassan said he heard from American officials that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed had been killed, although U.S. officials said he had not been in their immediate sights. "Among the targets was Fazul," he said, "and we understand that Fazul is no more."

Hassan also said Somali officials authorized the strike. "We gave permission for actions that are more than airstrikes," Hassan said. "Whatever it means to rout these people out, we have given them permission."]

So to sum up; a multi national effort to destroy fleeing al-Qaeda terrorists, carried out with precision and our military’s usual deadly efficiency, with the permission of the UN approved and backed Somali government, may have sent two major al-Qaeda figures along with several others to hell.

One would think that such an operation could be supported by all Americans who wish to fight terrorism. In fact, I would say that this is a no brainer - even for the left.

But what do I know?

These men are believed responsible for acts of terrorism, and the people who were attacked were believed to be the men in question. Evidently that forms a sound basis for administering (or, at least, attempting to administer) the death penalty, at least by U.S. standards.

While this person represents the loopy left, even “mainstream” liberals are clucking their tongues and wagging their fingers in disapproval:

See, here’s the thing. The US, again, refused to talk directly to the ICU. The ICU, like Hezbollah, wanted, needed, recognition (even more than Hezbollah). A deal could have been made. But it wasn’t. Instead what the US has done is back a foreign invasion in support of a puppet government with no popular support…

If the ICU had taken over Somalia they could have been dealt with as you deal with nations - pressure, sanctions, maybe even bombing runs - plus the carrot of aid and trade relations. As a guerilla movement there is nothing the US can do to them that it has not already done.

The ICU will win in the long run. A lot of people will die in the meantime. Al-Qa’eda will have another haven, and the US will be reviled for putting a bunch of bloodthirsty raping monsters back into power.

All in a day’s work in the Bush administration.

I don’t know whether to fisk this idiocy or simply sit back and laugh at the breathtaking naivete and appalling ignorance.

First of all, we spent the last 6 months urging the Transitional Government to talk with more moderate elements in the Islamic Courts Union:

Frazer, the top U.S. diplomat for Africa, had said late Sunday in Nairobi that Yusuf’s government, which was formed by an international conference in 2004 and has never controlled Mogadishu, needed to bring moderate Islamists into the regime.

“I support reaching out to the … Islamic Courts,” Frazer said. “We see a role in the future of Somalia for all who renounce violence and extremism.”

The message signaled a more conciliatory U.S. stance on the Islamic Courts Movement, which had seized Mogadishu in June from U.S.-backed warlords. Initially U.S. officials based in Kenya had some contact with moderates within the movement, including Sheik Sherif Ahmed, a geography teacher who emerged as their leader.

But Ahmed soon was edged out by hard-liners, led by suspected al-Qaida operative Hassan Dahir Aweys, who laid claims to territory in neighboring countries and called for jihad against Ethiopia. Frazer made a series of statements starting in November claiming that al-Qaida terrorists had overrun the courts movement.

U.S. officials think that the militants are sheltering three terrorists who masterminded the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The Bush administration is widely thought to have given neighboring, Christian-led Ethiopia the green light to expel the Islamists.

Funny how the Agonist writer failed to mention that tiny detail of a declaration of jihad against largely Christian Ethiopia by the radicals in ICU long before the invasion. But then, that just doesn’t fit the narrative of the US as bloodthirsty warmongers so it could be safely jettisoned in favor of a comparison of the those gentle souls in the ICU with democratic reformers from Hizbullah.

The stupidity of such a comparison boggles the mind. Hizbullah was enormously unpopular in Lebanon even before they declared their intention to overthrow the legitimately elected government of Prime Minister Siniora. The overwhelming majority of Lebanese place the blame for starting the destructive war against Israel right where it belongs; in Hassan Nasrallah’s lap. To say that Hizbullah has any “popular support” at all beyond the Shia minority (and a sizable segment of secular Shias oppose them as well) is laughable and demonstrates a towering ignorance of what Hizbullah is doing in Lebanon - mainly the bidding of their masters in Syria and Tehran.

And the “popular support” for the ICU in Somalia?

Jubilant Somalis cheered as troops of the U.N.-backed interim government rolled into Mogadishu unopposed Thursday, putting an end to six months of domination of the capital by a radical Islamic movement.

Ethiopian soldiers stopped on the outskirts of town, after providing much of the military might in the offensive that shattered what had seemed an unbeatable Islamic militia. Islamic fighters fled south vowing to continue the battle.

“We are in Mogadishu,” Prime Minister Mohamed Ali Gedi declared after meeting with local clan leaders to discuss the peaceful hand-over of the city.

The ICU had been taken over by radical foreign Islamists in the previous months. Whatever “law and order” they brought to the country came at the expense of the security of their neighbors in Ethiopia and Kenya as the direct threat of jihad against Ethiopia proves conclusively. Not only that, it became apparent that the ICU was setting up a safe haven for terrorists who could strike US and western interests (and friends) in the region:

“We had seen intelligence evidence these three al Qaeda operatives were very much influencing the leadership of the council of the ICU — for example providing logistics, fuel and arms to the militias,” said Jendayi Frazer, the U.S. State Department’s Assistant Secretary for African Affairs.

U.S. officials in East Africa said earlier this week that al Qaeda operatives were developing the ability to attack U.S. targets just as they did when the embassy bombings killed hundreds.

Intelligence shows al Qaeda stepped up its operations in Somalia in June after an Islamic militia took power.

Their camps taught radical Islam to young men, weapons flowed in from eastern European arms dealers and money arrived from the Middle East, U.S. officials said.

“What we were really concerned about was there seemed to be much more recruiting, much more training going on. They were positioning themselves to expand their area of influence beyond Somali borders,” said Rear Adm. Richard Hunt of Task Force Horn of Africa.

Before I condemn the entire left for the stupidity exhibited above, let’s wait and see if any liberals cheer this victory against al-Qaeda. I am hoping that there is some sanity both in Congress and among the netroots who recognize that as flawed as the Transitional Government might be, they are a damn sight better than an Islamist-backed, radical fundamentalist outfit like the ICU running things.

And if we can convince the legitimate government to talk with more moderate elements in the ICU and perhaps bring them into the government in some sort of power sharing arrangement, even the left might celebrate.

Analysts who had been critical of U.S. policy in Somalia said the Bush administration might be focusing on achieving political stability there after years of being preoccupied with preventing al-Qaida cells from taking root.

“If the U.S. is indeed doing more than making a few public statements in support of dialogue with moderates, then it does represent a shift in the public face of its policy,” said John Prendergast, senior adviser to the International Crisis Group, a research center on global conflict.

The Islamists’ ouster left a power vacuum in Mogadishu, where the transitional government has little support. The city’s powerful Hawiye clan accuses Yusuf, who’s of a rival clan, of being a puppet of Ethiopia.

“If southern Somalia is to stabilize, it is essential that the transitional government hold substantial power-sharing talks with the Hawiye clan elders and Islamic Courts officials,” Prendergast said.

Trying to sweeten the deal, the U.S. has pledged $40 million in new aid to Somalia, including $14 million to support a proposed African peacekeeping mission. Frazer said the money wasn’t conditional on the transitional government negotiating with the Islamists.

We appear to be undertaking a substantial, determined effort to make the right moves in Somalia now - both militarily and diplomatically. As to the latter, patience may be a virtue that I would urge on my lefty friends. Somalia has resisted efforts to coalesce into a nation for the past 15 years and it will take time for our policies to bear fruit; that is, if we can sustain them.

But if the above excerpts from lefty blogs is the kind of mindless, knee jerk reaction to our efforts and the efforts of a sizable portion of Africa to defeat the ICU and establish a viable government in Somalia, then we can do well to ask our lefty friends a very pointed and pertinent question:

Just what will it take for you to support military action to kill our enemies?

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey:

The Ethiopians did us a big favor by dislodging the Islamists from Mogadishu. Once on the run, the US could bring all of its technological assets on line to track them, and the Air Force waited long enough for all of them to run into the trap. The Navy positioned the USS Eisenhower in the waters nearby Somalia just in case it finds even more targets to strike.

It may have taken us a long time, but we do not forget. Let’s hope that our attack took out these high-value targets and plenty of their followers to boot.