Some subset of missions accomplished, anyway

I will admit I never really expected to see this headline, let alone in Obama's first term. After ten years, it almost feels more like an anticlimax than a victory. (At least to me; the surreal crowds in D.C. and NYC apparently think otherwise.) Ok, then, let's bring home all those troops wasting time in Afghanistan and Iraq, 'kay?

(It's also worth noting that this was a victory for old-fashioned intelligence and human ops, none of this data-sifting and drones. Imagine!)

Quote of the day

I wonder what younger people (teens) think about why the hell we went to war in Iraq. I lived through the whole nonsense as an adult and I still have no fucking idea.

- Atrios

(@Eschaton)

Growing up

Well, it looks like the Iraqi voters have grown up politically since their last elections, refusing to vote for incumbents, political bigwigs, or religious parties as instructed, and instead picking and choosing. Look at that! always nice to see the public being smarter than they're given credit for, especially in places that we like to dismiss as primitive...

(via a BagNewsNotes tweet)

Fools rush in...

Yeah, what she said. All of our "planning" about Iraq is embarrassing to read about...

(via Atrios)

Edit: And then there's stuff like this -- just make the numbers up! Sigh.

I just need five minutes of your time...

Apparently the Congressional Research Service reports that the Iraq war/occupation is costing $222,000 per minute these days -- that's over $1 million for every five minute web-surfing break you take today. Can anybody honestly tell me that with the meter running that fast, there aren't better uses for the money? (Can you say that with a straight face to those just losing their contaminated Katrina trailers and no housing in sight?)

Dog and pony show

A political analyst in Rolling Stone writes that the disappointing performance of Congressional Democrats since they took power isn't just a symptom of the unified Republican opposition, but the result of insincere dedication to the very issue that brought them into the majority:

In and around the halls of Congress, the notion that the Democrats made a sincere effort to end the war meets with, at best, derisive laughter. Though few congressional aides would think of saying so on the record, in private many dismiss their party's lame anti-war effort as an absurd dog-and-pony show, a calculated attempt to score political points without ever being serious about bringing the troops home.

It's certainly felt that way from the outside, but hearing it confirmed by insiders is still very disheartening. Perhaps Markos is right that the only way to make this party pay attention to the demands of their constituents is to hit them with viable primary challenges until they start to follow through on their promises. That's certainly a lot harder for everybody than just doing the right thing because you have the opportunity now . . .

Also disturbing is this charge:

Rather than use the vast power they had to end the war, Democrats devoted their energy to making sure that "anti-war activism" became synonymous with "electing Democrats." Capitalizing on America's desire to end the war, they hijacked the anti-war movement itself, filling the ranks of peace groups with loyal party hacks. Anti-war organizations essentially became a political tool for the Democrats — one operated from inside the Beltway and devoted primarily to targeting Republicans.

I think there are plenty of avenues of anti-war activism that are running full throttle, but if the media gets distracted by some high-profile sham efforts, it definitely makes everything harder there too. Bitey bite bite!!

(via local Drinking Liberally troublemakers)

Learning by example

I've been among those righteously peeved at the revelation that the CIA destroyed a heap of tapes of its interrogations of suspected terrorists -- not least because such tapes could settle the matter of whether we were torturing detainees and/or whether we got any useful intelligence (doubtful). I'm also waiting for heads to roll on the destruction-of-evidence front. But today I felt my first shimmer of sympathy for the other possible motives behind the disposal of these tapes:

The agency watched Donald Rumsfeld, William Haynes and Ricardo Sanchez walk while Lynndie England and Charles Graner took the fall for Abu Ghraib. No one wants to be the Lynndie England of the Black Sites.

Yes, I think those who used excessive force should be held accountable, but it's true that smacking the rank and file for following orders isn't really the point; it's the higher-ups who said that such methods were OK that should be punished. (Impeachment for Rumsfeld/Cheney, anyone?) Setting agents up as scapegoat targets isn't really a win for the system.

(via Talking POints Memo)

Fair weather fans

Yes, indeed -- the first thing to fall by the wayside when things aren't going as well as hoped...
Sigh.

What could possibly go wrong?

Huge numbers of independent contractors, somehow outside of both Iraqi and American law, working for long stretches in difficult circumstances with little oversight. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by things like this (in addition to more high-profile incidents like the Blackwater shootings), but I'm appalled and disheartened.

Latest in a proud tradition

That is, once again the Bushies find it in their hearts to reward incompetence, this time lining up performance bonuses for the officials overseeing independent security contractors in Iraq, the ones accused of criminal lack of oversight and misbehavior on the ground... (Can a medal of honor be far behind?)

(via Talking Points Memo)

Heartening moves in the House

Well, I'd begun to think that all of Congress was abdicating responsibility on the Iraq war, but apparently not:

1. The Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee says he won't allow war funding bills to come to a vote until they have some basic assurances that there's plan for withdrawel. Not everything one might want, but a bold start to potentially bigger things.
   
   
2. Meanwhile, two House Democrats are going to raise the issue of supplementary taxes to fund the current war appropriation -- such a thing was done during WWII and Vietnam. No chance of passage, but it gets the question of fiscal responsibility (and the scale of war wastage) into the ongoing discussion.

Go, team!

Invisible money-suck

A dailyKos diarist has an interesting way of looking at the real price of gas, factoring in the amount that we spend for defense and security related to the Mideast sources, not to mention the loss of the more productive ways those dollars might have been spent. Looks like we're paying an amazingly steep tax, but it's just not applied at the pump.

Oopsie

How many years into this Iraq war business are we? Four? Apparently nobody ever told military commanders how to handle contracters working with/for/against them, especially when they misbehave. Military rules? Civilian justice? Pure Wild West no-holds-barred shoot-em-up ok? (I think the answer speaks for itself.)

Wait, maybe things *aren't* going swell in Iraq?

Thomas Friedman, famous (and widely mocked) for saying over and over that "these next six months" (measured from any current moment) would determine the future of Iraq, now says we're out of time. Welcome to reality space-time, Thomas!!

(via Atrios)

Ouch!!

There have been some awkward political self-revelations this summer, but the most painful thing I've seen is this video of John McCain denying reality, contradicting testimony he elicited, and generally showing either a huge detachment from the real world or an immersion in spin so deep that he no longer knows where he stands. Either way, I hope he gets out of this race -- I, for one, can't take anymore...

Edwards interview(s)

For those still weighing their options among the Democratic Presidential candidates (and I count myself as one), I recommend this two-part interview with John Edwards conducted over at Talking Points Memo. It is largely focused on foreign policy and Iraq, and Edwards says some good things about the need for long-term international cooperation in controlling terrorism, about how the Senate should be handling Bush's funding requests ("no timetable, no funding"), and about his analysis of the situation on the ground in Iraq (present and looking ahead). The interview is interspersed with some clips from Edwards' speech given the same day, to flesh out his views on some of these points, and he also ruminates a bit on how his candidacy is different from the other candidates' and from his own in 2004. Good information; I hope that the TPM folks will try to track down Obama and Clinton as well.

Update: it's also worth reading this post at dailyKos, which compares some foreign policy white papers written by Edwards and Obama (and also, so far, by Guiliani and Romney). Heartening flashes of reality there, and even some inspiration. Some of my favorite quotes:

In the Islamic world and beyond, combating the terrorists' prophets of fear will require more than lectures on democracy. We need to deepen our knowledge of the circumstances and beliefs that underpin extremism. (Obama)

Rather than alienating the rest of the world through assertions of infallibility and demands of obedience, as the current administration has done, U.S. foreign policy must be driven by a strategy of reengagement.(Edwards)

Again, will be interesting to see Hillary's contribution to this discussion.

Line of the week

Goes to Barak Obama, as part of his strong new speech on Iraq:

The bar for success is so low that it is almost buried in the sand.

Indeed. Am impressed that he's coming out with a not-later-but-now position on this; had feared that all the Top Candidates would shy away from such leadership (Edwards is being treated as almost second tier, and thus a bit of a lonely voice). If nothing else, perhaps this will push Clinton to notice that the American public is developing a high degree of unanimity behind rational action . . .

Some thoughts for quailing Democrats

Why they're so focused on "compromise" when the American people want us out of Iraq now I cannot say, but if they need some infusion of spine, perhaps these analogous quotes will help them think again. We're not fooled by the Dance of the September Reports, and if you can't act with the nation behind you, why are we still paying you guys?

"Incomplete" by my standards

Apparently General Petraeus will testify before Congress, but no written report will be presented by him to either Congress or the White House. Will the White House present nothing, then? Perhaps the GAO report already said it all, and they're hoping to say a lot less . . .

How exactly to measure progress on benchmarks in the absence of both a report and any agreed-upon facts? Or are we giving up that pretense too? Sigh.

(via Talking Points Memo)

Idiots claiming seriousness

This is a bit of a meta piece, since it's about skewering the pundits. But really, it's about how the groundwork is being laid for military action in Iran, the early steps being to define those who support such lunacy as Right-Minded Serious Folks.

Thus, Hiatt's attack on [IAEA Head] EdBaredei begins with the complaint that he "was lionized by opponents of the Iraq war" for being right. That's because in Hiatt's world, having been right on Iraq -- and being "lionized" by war opponents -- are actually hallmarks of unseriousness.

Really, the loops of logic documented here (not only denying the facts but reversing their own positions and actions over decades) are enough to make your brain quiver. Also clear, the script that's being peddled is depressingly identical to that used to justify the Iraq war. Will our media (and Congress!) be so credulous as to allow us to instigate another disaster in the name of, um, Seriousness?

(via Atrios)