Libertarian Leanings

I'll be back

I'll be gone for a few days.  A trip to the Philippines.  I don't know how much posting I'll be able to do while I'm there.  It's a pleasure trip.  But I'll be back by the 1st of June envigorated, ready to take up the battle once again, and confident that Bush and Maliki will be able to keep things under control while I'm gone.  You have to admit, they haven't been doing all that badly of late.  Fingers are crossed for Iraq, but you know -- things look better than they have in a long time.

On to the next

In the Wall Street Journal's assessment, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's gamble to take on the Shiite militias has paid off in spades.

The early setbacks might easily have emboldened Mr. Sadr, caused the Iraqi army to crumble and led to the end of Mr. Maliki's government.

Instead, Mr. Maliki and Iraqi forces persevered. And two months later, hundreds of Mahdi Army fighters have been arrested and weapons caches found. Following the model of the U.S. surge in Baghdad, Basra's streets are far safer thanks to the visible presence of 33,000 Iraqi troops. The Mahdi vice squads that terrorized the city's population are gone. The U.S. and Britain provided air support during the early stages of the operation, and continue to provide advisory support. But the Basra operation has clearly been an Iraqi success.

Something similar also seems to be happening in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, long a stronghold for the Mahdi Army. Initial press reports have suggested the battle has mostly come out a draw. But a 14-point "truce" between the government and the Mahdists (brokered last week by Iran) suggests otherwise.

Similarly optimistic news has made its way to the pages of the New York Times in an account by Amman Karim, who paid a visit to Basra, against the wishes of family, friends, and fiancée, to see the situation for himself.

My family, my close friends and my fiancée told me not to go to Basra, saying, “We don’t want to hear about your death from a media report.” They begged me to give up the idea.

Mr. Karim found that spirits in Basra were as high as in the days following Saddam Hussein's overthrow.

People feel new freedoms and compare it to the fall of the regime in 2003 when the coalition forces kicked Saddam out of power. Now they can speak freely, they can go to the market at night. Especially women, who were staying home to avoid being killed or kidnapped.

No government cars with tinted windows drive in the street like before, when most assassinations were carried out by officials in uniform. An Iraq soldier assured me that all cars used by criminals have been seized and they are not free any more to use them.

Night life in Basra is totally different from the old days. Fear is gone because of the number of security checkpoints in the street, restaurant and shops are open by night.

...

I talked to a restaurant owner who reopened recently. He was very happy to tell us about how good his business is now.

I asked him for a soft drink. He laughed and said, “You should take beer.” I said, “Do you have beer in the shop?”

He smiled and said, “Soon we will drink beer, maybe in two weeks.”

People have great hope that things will change

When I asked someone how he felt about the operation Charge of the Knights he said it was like being reborn.

It has been a startling turn for the better for al Maliki, who had been widely criticized for attempting to take on Moqtada al Sadr even though al Sadr is out of town -- presumably in Iran somewhere.  But after engaging the Mahdi Army in Basra, al Maliki went after them in Sadr City.  Last Friday al Sadr's Mahdi Army, for all intents and purposes, surrendered.

BAGHDAD — Followers of rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr agreed late Friday to allow Iraqi security forces to enter all of Baghdad's Sadr City and to arrest anyone found with heavy weapons in a surprising capitulation that seemed likely to be hailed as a major victory for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

In return, Sadr's Mahdi Army supporters won the Iraqi government's agreement not to arrest Mahdi Army members without warrants, unless they were in possession of "medium and heavy weaponry."

The mere attempt to crack down on the Shiite militias has won him crucial support from Sunni political blocks, who recently rejoined the Iraqi government after boycotting it for nearly a year.  That and the successes in Basra and Sadr City have emboldened the Prime Minister to continue efforts to wrest control of Iraq's cities from terrorists of all stripe.  Nouri al Maliki is now in Mosul, al Qaeda's last bastion in Iraq, to supervise the Iraqi Army assault on al Qaeda. 

BAGHDAD (AP) — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited the northern city of Mosul on Wednesday to supervise a military offensive against al-Qaida in Iraq in its last major stronghold, regional Gov. Duraid Kashmola said.

Maliki's flight to northern Iraq mirrors a similar trip he took almost two months ago to the southern city of Basra, where government troops fought radical Shiite militias. That fighting spread to the Shiite slum of Sadr City in Baghdad, where a cease-fire to end those clashes was only reached on Monday.

The offensive, called Lion's Roar, is the latest effort by Iraqi and U.S. troops to clear al-Qaida fighters from Mosul, the nation's third largest city. Troops began sweeping though the city's neighborhoods last week.

This has apparently not been entirely unanticipated in Mosul.  In hindsight, this somewhat mysterious post by the Iraqi bloggress A Star from Mosul offerered hints that something was up.

For the last two weeks we've been receiving lots of visitors, some come in the morning when I'm in college and some come in the afternoon. Mom can't do all the work herself since she has to sit with the visitors and so one of us (me and HNK) has to be there to help, and sometimes the two of us. From 4:30 till 7 and sometimes 8 PM the house is never empty of guests. I come back from college at around 3, take a nap and wakeup to get dressed again and help. When it's all over I just can't study.. I try but can't manage more than an hour of reading.

...

On Friday night they announced a curfew until further notice. I finally had time to study. 

Al Maliki also has the support of Iraqi Kurds in his crackdown on al Qaeda in Mosul.

The KRG gives full approval to the massive manhunt for al-Qaeda elements in Mosul province, the last stronghold of the terrorist group in Iraq.

The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officially announced its support for the military operation in Mosul to crack down on Al-Qaeda members, but asserted that Peshmarga forces would not take part.

The commander of military operations in Mosul province, Gen. Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq, announced the start of the operation, codenamed "Lion's Roar in Rightful Assault," last Saturday. It came after the arrival of a large number of military reinforcements from Baghdad. Execution of the operation, originally announced earlier this year, was delayed because of instability in Baghdad and in the southern part of the country.

"We, the KRG, support any plan or attempt by the central government and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki aimed at the stabilization of security and enhancement of the sovereignty of the State," said KRG's spokesman Jamal Abdullah in an interview with Radio Sawa. "The Peshmarga forces have not taken part in this operation because there was no official demand from the central government to the KRG."

I believe we are well past the tipping point in Iraq.  The beginning of the end for al Qaeda in Iraq came with the Anbar Awakening which blossomed into all out war on al Qaeda during the surge and the Baghdad beltway operations.  Those were great victories but they were largely U.S. victories that relied on Iraqi support, which was often in the form of intelligence.  The crackdown against the Shiite militias was an Iraqi initiative.  The lion's share of the fighting done be the Iraqi Army with U.S. air support. 

Because this has come about at Nouri al Maliki's initiative, I believe that Iraq and the Iraqi democracy will hold, even if a Democrat wins the White House and makes good on campaign promises to pull U.S. troops back from the battle.  It would appear that Nouri al Maliki will carry the day.

Staying in the race

I've speculated that Hillary's determination to stay in the Democratic presidential primary race is partly motivated by revenge.  The once "inevitable candidate" has been abandoned by most of the Democratic party leadership who now urge he to step aside for the good of the party, but Hillary is not quitting.  Today the Wall Street Journal suggests there may be other purposes.

Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the Democratic nomination are increasingly remote, with even a blow-out victory in Tuesday's West Virginia primary unlikely to make much difference. Still, the New York senator has vowed to continue campaigning until the nominating process ends June 3 in Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico.

Political analysts say office seekers who hang on, even long after the race seems futile, may be hoping to position themselves for a later run or to reshape the party more to their liking. They may be bargaining for the vice presidency, feel pressure from supporters or believe there is an off-chance they will get lucky.

It might not turn out to be such a bad thing if Hillary can reshape the Democratic party more to her liking.  The party is so far left of the American public that just about any impact she has on it will be an improvement.  ( My emphasis above.)

Who won what?

Hezbollah is claiming victory in its battle against the democratic government of Lebanon.  According to the Washington Times Hezbollah is redrawing the the Mideast map.

RAMALLAH, West Bank — Hezbollah's dramatic gains in Lebanon last week are just part of a regional process that began last year in the Gaza Strip and will continue in Jordan and Egypt, a Hamas official in the West Bank told The Washington Times.

Sheik Yazeeb Khader, a Ramallah-based Hamas political activist and editor, said militant groups across the Middle East are gaining power at the expense of U.S.-backed regimes, just as Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip from forces loyal to U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"What happened in Gaza in 2007 is an achievement; now it is happening in 2008 in Lebanon. It's going to happen in 2009 in Jordan and it's going to happen in 2010 in Egypt," Sheik Khader said in an interview.

"We are seeing a redrawing of the map of the Middle East where the forces of resistance and steadfastness are the ones moving the things on the ground."

Not everyone agrees with that assessment.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for the Hamas government in Gaza, took a different approach to the standoff in Lebanon by saying that the fighting primarily served Israel.

Meanwhile, the Jerusalem Post reports that it was the Lebanese Army who took control after a cease fire went into effect Sunday.

Lebanon's army deployed across mountains overlooking the capital Monday after at least 11 people were killed in fierce clashes between pro- and anti-government supporters entrenched in the hilly plateau, security officials and paramedics said.

The fighting lulled late Sunday after pro-government Druse leader Walid Jumblatt called on his Druse opponents in the mountains, who are allied with Hizbullah, to mediate a cease-fire and hand over the region to Lebanese troops.

The Post article contains this insight into the ramifications of Israel's struggles against Hezbollah and their like.

After the civil war ended in 1990, all of Lebanon's various militias surrendered their weapons and transformed into political parties, keeping only small arms. Only Hizbullah was allowed to keep its arms because it was considered a resistance movement battling Israel.

The destruction of Israel has long been the stated aim of terrorist groups that call themselves resistance movements, but who are in reality armed thugs engaged in the business of terror for hire to clients like Syria and Iran.

Whither the economy

For a hint on which way the U.S. economy is likely to head in the event that Barack Obama wins the White House in November, we would do well to look at the state of Mississippi.  Over the past 30 years, Mississippi has been one of the poorest states in the union, while at the same time being "America's No. 1 judicial hell hole for jackpot jury verdicts," according to Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.

One of the worst places, in term of frivolous lawsuits, was Jefferson County. It became renowned as the lawsuit capital of the country, with more plaintiffs than residents. This is the infamous county where one pharmacist was named in more than 1,000 lawsuits. In one legendary case against a pharmaceutical company that sold the diet pill Pondimin (part of the weight-loss combination known as fen-phen, which was later banned), a Jefferson County jury awarded $1 billion to the family of a woman who had taken the drug.

But four years ago, Mississippi transformed itself from judicial hell hole to job magnet, a story that is instructive for other states trying to attract jobs in turbulent economic times. The lessons here are especially timely, because the pro-growth tort reform trend that was once spreading across the country may soon reverse course.

Mississippi's tort reform dealt a blow to litigation business in that state, but that precipitated a stunning turn around for rest of the economy.

Almost overnight, the flow of lawsuits began to dry up and businesses started to trickle in. Federal Express invested $1 billion in a new facility in the state. Toyota chose Mississippi over about a dozen other states for a new $1.2 billion, 2,000-worker auto plant. The auto maker has stipulated that the company would pull up stakes if the tort reforms were overturned by the legislature or activist judges.

That hasn't happened. About 60,000 new jobs have arrived in four years – not a small number in a workforce of about 1.3 million – and a sharp improvement from the 30,000 jobs lost in the four years before Mr. Barbour took office. Since the law took effect, the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has fallen by nearly 90%, which in turn has cut malpractice insurance costs by 30% to 45%, depending on the county.

Unfortunately, Mississippi's gain is unlikely to be matched in many other states around the country, as trial lawyers are ramping up their political spending in a battle to make sure Mississippi style tort reform doesn't spread. 

Meanwhile, in other states, the trial bar is spending record amounts on 2008 campaigns to make sure that the political massacre plaintiff lawyers suffered in Mississippi isn't repeated. Next to the unions, trial lawyers are the biggest givers to Democrats. It is no secret they will want a payback if the Democrats have a big year on the state level. A big Democratic theme this year, starting with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket, is to roll back the well-heeled special interests. Trial lawyers – some of the richest people in the country – apparently don't count.

The trial lawyers perform a societal function dear to Democratic hearts -- wealth redistribution.  But, by taking from the rich to give to the injured, trial lawyers redistribute huge chunks of that wealth to themselves, and more importantly to Democrats, to Democratic party coffers.  Democrats and trial lawyers will look to keep that gravy train on its tracks and a President Barack Obama will undoubtedly help.  Based on Mississippi's recent history, we can expect this will take its toll on economic growth in the country as a whole.

How messy will it get?

Divorce is often a messy business and the Clinton v. Democratic Party divorce that the Wall Street Journal says is in the offing could get to be as messy as they come.  There was a time when Bill and Hillary represented political power for the party.  In those days nothing else mattered really. 

The price was that they had to put their ethics in a blind Clinton trust. Whitewater and the missing billing records, Webb Hubbell, cattle futures and "Red" Bone, the Lincoln Bedroom, Johnny Chung and the overseas fund-raising scandals, Paula Jones and lying under oath, Monica and the meaning of "is." Democrats, or all of them this side of Joe Lieberman and Pat Moynihan, defended the Clintons through it all. Everything was dismissed as a product of the "Republican attack machine," an invention of the "Clinton haters," or "just about sex."

When Al Gore lost in 2000 Hillary immediately came to represent the party's best hope for getting a Democrat back into the White House.  The Clinton talent for winning elections, he with two presidential terms and she with her senatorial victories, established Hillary as the inevitable candidate.  The party and the media leaped to defend the Clintons against any and all attack.  Then Barack Obama came along.

A new star emerged in Barack Obama, a man who had Bill Clinton's political talent but Hillary's liberal convictions. He had charisma, a flair for raising money, and he held out the chance of a 2008 Democratic landslide. Something more than a return to the trench warfare of the 1990s seemed possible – perhaps the revival of a liberal majority, circa 1965.

More remarkable still, Democrats supporting Mr. Obama had a revelation about Clintonian mores. David Geffen, channeling William Safire, declared that "everybody in politics lies," but the Clintons "do it with such ease, it's troubling." Ted Kennedy was shocked to see the Clintons play the race card in South Carolina. The media discovered their secrecy over tax records and Clinton Foundation donors, while columnists were appalled to hear her assail Mr. Obama for his associations with radical bomber William Ayers. Listen closely and you could almost hear Bob Dole asking, "Where's the outrage?"

By the time Mrs. Clinton made her famous claim about dodging Bosnian sniper fire, Democrats and their media friends no longer called it a mere gaffe, as they once might have. This time the remark was said to be emblematic of her entire political career. The same folks who had believed her about Whitewater and the rest now claimed she never tells the truth about anything.

As the scales suddenly fell from liberal eyes, the most striking statistic was the one in this week's North Carolina exit poll. Asked if they considered Mrs. Clinton "honest and trustworthy," no fewer than 50% of Democratic primary voters said she was not. In Indiana, the figure was merely 45%.

Some divorces end in bankruptcy when each side would rather throw away everything than let the other get any of it.  It's been said that the Clintons make a point of getting their revenge against those who cross them, and the Democratic party has crossed them.  Hillary says she's staying in the race.  It ought to be a fascinating campaign from here on out.

Quote of the day

Today's entertaining quote comes from George Will as he discusses Hillary's rationale for staying in race.

If Democrats, who genuflect at the altar of "diversity," allowed more of it in their delegate selection process, things might look very different. If even, say, Texas, California and Ohio were permitted to have winner-take-all primaries (as 48 states have winner-take-all allocation of their electoral votes), Clinton would've been more than 400 delegates ahead of Obama before Tuesday and today would be at her ancestral home in New York planning to return some of its furniture to the White House next January.

To preserve, protect, and defend

A couple of days ago John McCain delivered a speech very much worth reading.  He spoke at Wake Forest University about the presidential duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the importance of a president's judicial nominations in that endeavor. 

Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my own. They are both lawyers themselves, and don't seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives. Nor have they raised objections to the unfair treatment of judicial nominees.

For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator's measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it -- and I quote -- should share "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism -- come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama's standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama's standard, even Judge Roberts didn't measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it -- and they see it only in each other.

Guns for oil

Senate Democrats are demanding that President Bush tell OPEC to increase production or risk losing arms deals with the United States.

The Senators say U.S. consumers need the price relief that only increased oil production can bring.

Does the name Anwar ring a bell?  Apparently not.  The Senators' demand came in press release from Charles Schumer, Byron Dorgan, Bernie Sanders, Bob Casey and Mary Landrieu, liberal Democrats all.

All of these Senate Democrats are willing to accept greater carbon emissions, as long as we can also outsource jobs in the petroleum industry to Middle Eastern dictatorships. The Senators do aver that "some of us have concerns in general about arming this region to the teeth," but apparently cheap fossil fuel buys a lot of peace of mind.

A special word of concern about Mr. Sanders: He is the only avowed socialist in Congress, but the Vermonter appears to be losing his religion over $122-a-barrel oil. By signing this letter, not only is he officially recognizing the law of supply and demand; he's also proposing a more crassly commercial trade of guns for oil than anything we've ever heard from the most candid realpolitician.

To top it off, the Senator whose Web site proudly proclaims that the first bill he introduced was to combat global warming now wants more fossil fuels ready for burning. We hope his friends are closely watching Mr. Sanders, in case he blows a gasket over all of this cognitive ideological dissonance.

Cognitive ideological dissonance?  Please.  Sanders has great appeal among those who casually accept the odd notion that one possible consequence of global warming is the onslaught of an ice age.  I'm certain that Sanders' cognitive ideology is utterly impervious to dissonance.

About another week

According to Strategy Page, Moqtada al Sadr needs to make up his mind pretty quickly, whether his Mahdi Army should fight on and die, or surrender and hope for amnesty.

Over the last five years, the Shia militias, especially the Mahdi Army, have gone from a neighborhood protection (from Sunni Arab terrorists) force, to a bunch of gangsters. The Mahdi men always demanded support from the people they protected. At first it was just some food and a place to sleep. But as prosperity returned to the area, the demands increased. That prosperity also brought with it a desire for expensive vices, like drugs and prostitution. This split the Shia militias, because some were insisting that everyone lead a life of strict Islamic simplicity. Other Mahdi men would look the other way while you partied, for a price. In the last year, as the Sunni Arab terrorism campaign collapsed, the Mahdi Army lost its last bit of legitimacy. They were now starkly revealed as just another bunch of gangsters. But they were also local guys, with nowhere else to go. To surrender meant the chance of prison, or worse. Fighting to the death didn't seem like such a bad alternative, as long as there was a chance of victory, or surrender with an amnesty. But their leader, Muqtada al Sadr, knows that surrender means a major setback for the Sadr political organization. Sadr has to make up his mind quickly, while there are still Mahdi Army gunmen left willing to fight. Another week or so of fighting, and there won't be.

Hearts on their sleeves

According to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, the pundit class wants the Democratic presidential primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to be over and done.  With a front page headline Putting the 'Stale' in Stalemate, Milbank declares,

Dreading another inconclusive Tuesday night like this, the pundit class had labored to create a narrative for the Indiana and North Carolina contests. They proposed two competing story lines: Obama would close the deal, or Clinton would change the game.

One might think this would be exactly the stuff in which pundits would revel.   A nail biter of a race right down to convention night would be something to provide them reams of copy.  But not Milbank.  He claims everybody wants it over and offers results of a Fox News poll that he says backs it up.  Unfortunately, what one might expect to be a link to the Fox News poll in question leads the reader to a search of stories about Fox News.  No matter.

In reality, the pundit class to whom Milbank refers, which includes himself, wants the race over because of their uneasiness over the ensuing presidential election.  These self described neutral observers have been in the tank for the Democratic party for years, and for them, watching two Democratic candidates slug it out and soften each other up for Republican John McCain in the general election is sheer agony.

Gas, God, guns and Guam? The Democrats really need a game-changer. Or a deal-closer.

In other words, please stop fighting each other so we can get on with the battle against the real enemy -- the Republicans.

Buffett says threat of financial panic has passed

After the close of the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholders meeting in Omaha, Warren Buffett told reporters that he believes the threat of widespread financial turmoil arising from the credit crunch has passed.  So says the Wall Street Journal (subscription required).

Mr. Buffett credited the Federal Reserve for helping to avert a more-widespread crisis on Wall Street by orchestrating a bailout of Bear Stearns Cos. that "prevented, in my opinion, the contagion where you're going to have runs on investment banks."

Bank losses "aren't over by a long shot, but a lot of it has already been recognized," he said, adding that the depth of the housing crisis, unemployment and other economic factors would help determine how long the write-downs continue.

"The idea of financial panic -- that has been pretty much taken care of," he said.

I can tell you that activity in the housing market in my area is picking up.  It's not quite the buyer's market I thought it was, as I was recently outbid on a house I was hoping to buy.

Sure to be a best seller

Yesterday the Seattle Times featured a book review by a former deputy Metro editor of theirs, John B. Saul, who also teaches journalism at the University of Montana. The book is "Muqtada: Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq" by Patrick Cockburn.  In his book Cockburn gushes over al Sadr, and in his review Saul gushes Cockburn and by extension over he gushes over al Sadr as well.

Al-Sadr is not a carbon copy of Khomeini, and the extent of Iran's influence on him is a matter of dispute. But he is certainly, as Cockburn says, "the most important and surprising figure to emerge in Iraq since the U.S. invasion."

The review had to have been a labor of love for Mr. Saul, certain as he is that al Sadr is the most important figure to emerge in Iraq since the invasion.  He says this under the extravagant headline, "Muqtada," a powerful man in a complex Iraq.  Al Sadr may be powerful, and Iraq is surely complex, but the Sadr image cultivated by Mr. Saul is spoiled by the knowledge that al Sadr is not in Iraq.  As far as anybody knows, he hasn't been been there in months.

Reports indicated that Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr yesterday refused to meet with an Iraqi Shiite parliamentary delegation visiting Iran, where Sadr is said to be residing.

The Shiite parliamentary delegation that al Sadr refused to meet, had traveled to Tehran to confront the Iranians with evidence of Iranian support for the anti-government Shiite militias in Iraq who are waging war against the Iraqi government. 

Armed with the latest intelligence, a delegation from Iraq's governing Shiite alliance traveled to Iran on Wednesday to lay out its concerns to political, security and religious leaders and to discuss the way forward, said a close aide and two other politicians with ties to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

"The point is to press home the importance of Iran . . . cooperating with the Iraqi government and not dealing with any other illegal militias or factions outside the government," said senior advisor Haider Abadi, in some of the most pointed comments to date from a member of Maliki's inner circle. "We are looking for good, neighborly relations with Iran, but it cannot go on like this."

U.S. officials have been charging for months that Iran is arming, funding, training and directing breakaway factions of hard-line Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, groups they blame for some of the most lethal attacks against American troops in Iraq.

Increasingly, the Maliki government is behaving like the legitimate sovereign government of Iraq, and although it seems to be happening slowly, neighboring states are coming around to that view as well.  A Turkish delegation on a diplomatic mission to Iraq did not seek out Moqtada al Sadr upon its arrival in the country.

A Turkish delegation arrived in Baghdad on Thursday to meet with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, PM Nuri Al Maliki and Kurdish administration PM Nechirvan Barzani. The delegation's visit aims at boosting cooperation with Iraq, FM Babacan told reporters. (UPDATED)

The delegation, consisting of a senior Prime Ministry official Ahmet Davutoglu and Turkey's Special Representative to Iraq Murat Ozcelik, arrived in Baghdad on Thursday.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan told a news conference on Thursday that the Turkish delegation's visit to Baghdad aimed at boosting cooperation with Iraq.

"A new process has started between Turkey and the Iraqi central government, particularly after my visit to this country and the Iraqi president's visit to Turkey. The Turkish delegation will propose to establish a strategic dialogue mechanism between Turkey and Iraq. Turkish executives will discuss details of the mechanism with Maliki and Talabani," Babacan said.

Babacan also said the statements and actions of the local administration in northern Iraq towards the PKK will definitely have an impact on Turkey's current and future dialogue.

He added that Turkey was in contact with all groups in Iraq, and Turkey's target was stability, territorial integrity and the political unity of Iraq.

Presumably al Sadr's group is included among those in contact.  However, the Sadrist political movement will be barred from participation in Iraq's political process unless the Mahdi Army is disbanded, according to recent legislation that bars groups that maintain armed militias. 

Sadr and his political movement have become increasingly isolated since the fighting began in Basrah, Baghdad, and the South. The Iraqi government, with the support of the political parties, said the Sadrist political movement would not be able to participate in upcoming provincial elections if it failed to disband the Mahdi Army. On April 13, the cabinet approved legislation that prevents political parties with militias from contesting provincial elections this year. The bill will now be sent to parliament for approval. Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, the top Shiite cleric in Iraq, said the Mahdi Army was not above the law and should be disarmed. Sadr has refused to disband the Mahdi Army.

On April 20, Sadr threatened to conduct a third uprising, but later backed down from his threat, claiming it was only directed at US forces. The Maliki government has stood firm and said operations would continue until the Mahdi Army and other militias disarm and disband.

The notion that the Maliki government will pursue the Mahdi Army until they are disarmed and disbanded is apparently inconceivable to Cockburn and Saul.  So often we see what we expect to see, instead of what is.  Saul offers what is probably his fondest wish and what he expects to see.

Cockburn concludes that if al-Sadr had been brought into the political process from the beginning instead of resisted and fought against, "the chances of creating a peaceful, prosperous Iraq would have been greater."

It's unlikely that the U.S. would have cooperated in 2003 with someone whose newspaper once called the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, "a miracle and blessing from God," but Cockburn may be correct in his assessment that nothing has been resolved in Iraq and that the "disintegration of Iraq has probably gone too far for the country to exist as anything more than a loose federation."

The meeting last Thursday between Turkish President Abdullah Gul met and Iraqi Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi to discuss the territorial integrity and safety of Iraq, is indication of a development that has so far remained beneath the Cockburn/Saul radar.  That development would be the rise of the Iraqi government, which is actively pursuing political and diplomatic objectives and has now developed the strength and confidence to demand that everybody else pursue their objectives diplomatically and politically -- including Moqtada al Sadr.

No retraction yet

The economy isn't supporting Democratic party aspirations as well as it might.  The recent economic downturn has so far not developed into a recession as we head towards the November elections.  In fact, it's actually growing, at a slow rate I'll admit.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The bruised economy limped through the first quarter, growing at just a 0.6 percent pace as housing and credit problems forced people and businesses alike to hunker down.

The country's economic growth during January through March was the same as in the final three months of last year, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday. The statistic did not meet what economists consider the classic definition of a recession, which is a retraction of the economy. This means that although the economy is stuck in a rut, it is still managing to grow, even if modestly.

On top of that, the brief erosion of jobs has unexpectedly come to an end.  Companies added 10,000 jobs in April.

April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Companies in the U.S. unexpectedly added 10,000 jobs in April, a private report based on payroll data showed.

The increase followed a revised 3,000 gain for the prior month that was less than previously estimated, the report from ADP Employer Services showed today...

...The ADP report was forecast to show a decrease of 60,000, according to the median estimate of 25 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. Estimates ranged from a drop of 115,000 to a decline of 20,000.

So an expected loss of jobs didn't materialize, and we'll soon see how the economy responds to the summer season and the government's $168 billion economic-stimulus package that has started landing in peoples' bank accounts this past Monday.

The relentless al Maliki

According to Bill Roggio, in the midst of a relative lull in the fighting in Sadr City, Iraqi's prime minister Nouri al Maliki has vowed to continue operations against the militias in Baghdad and Basra declaring, "no one has the right to prevent us from tracking them down."

The casualties have not deterred Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. In an interview with Al Iraqia satellite television, Maliki said he would pursue the offensive against "militias" but the door remains open to those who would assist the government.

"Those who want to join the political process have to help the state in handing over gunmen or information about the hideout of the criminals and wanted men," Maliki said. "We are not talking about one militia, but several militias, al-Qaeda and other armed groups, and security forces must be informed about the places of these outlaws... and no one has the right to prevent us from tracking them down." Maliki also denounced the Mahdi Army's use of "human shields" and deplored the militia's use of mosques as weapons storage facilities.

Blame is delicious

The Jeremiah Wright issue has become all pervasive.  Not only has Barack Obama finally become so desperate that he brought himself to break with the Reverend Wright, Ralph Peters, who ordinarily dovotes his New York Post columns to military affairs, has felt it appropriate to comment on the Obama-Wright issue.

I haven't sat through 20 years of Wright's sermons, but the most striking aspect of the pastor's rants that I have heard is that - like demagogues on every inhabited continent - he prefers assigning blame to making progress.

Blame is delicious. And easy. Progress takes work.

Nor is it in the interest of demagogues to see their followers graduate from society's margins toward the center. Social, economic or political success undercuts their fundamental argument that their poor will always be with us.

It gets tricky to portray your followers as eternal victims when you live in a multimillion-dollar mansion (smack dab in the midst of your oppressors), one of your flock is a likely presidential nominee of the most powerful nation in history - and his spouse holds an Ivy League law degree and earns over $300K a year.

In a situation like that, any demagogue has to renew his call to arms - to dismiss any success he can't spoil outright.

It's not the problem that the Most Reverend Wright poses for Obama that attracts Peters to his topic.  It is Wright's predictable preaching of victimhood that draws his attention.

And just to remind us that we aren't fully immune to the seductive appeal of blaming others for our personal disappointments, in marched the Rev. Wright, fists clenched and rhetoric ringing.

His name is Legion. Wright is part of a global phenomenon plaguing every major faith and every civilization. He's not a problem for any one race, but for every race - for all of us who believe in a loving God and who maintain that every man and woman deserves a chance to succeed.

Preaching hatred and vengeance in the name of religion: Heard that from anyone else recently?

Maliki's political fortunes rise

The mainstream press is reluctantly coming around to a new reality on Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's decision to disarm the Shiite militias.   A month ago operations against the Mahdi Army were said to be botched, succeeding only in boosting Iran's influence in the region.  A supposed Iran-brokered cease fire between the Iraqi security forces and the Mahdi Army was described in press reports as a huge setback for Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

The Qom discussions may or may not bring an end to the fighting but they almost certainly have undermined Maliki - who made repeated declarations that there would be no negotiations and that he would treat as outlaws those who did not turn in their weapons for cash. The blow to his own credibility was worsened by the fact that members of his own party had helped organize the Iran initiative.

The media were quick to discount al Maliki's credibility.  They presented an ineffectual and powerless al Maliki, insisting that his fight will continue until the militias are disarmed, while members of his own party separately negotiated a cease fire.  Recent events have contradicted the media version, however.  Although it began in Basra a month ago, fighting continues even now in the Sadr City section of Baghdad. 

April 28 , 2008: After a month of fighting, the Mahdi Army has disappeared from the streets of Basra, the largest city in the south. The army and police are everywhere, and people are providing information on where Mahdi Army personnel are hiding out, and the locations of their weapons caches. Up north, in the Sadr City section of east Baghdad, the Mahdi Army is still fighting hard. But the army and police have the upper hand, and are pushing the Shia militiamen back block by block. Mahdi Army leader Muqtada al Sadr has responded by threatening to order his men to go after American troops if the government does not back off... He recently ordered his troops to stop fighting Iraqi soldiers and police, and concentrate on the Americans. The Iraqi security forces have not reciprocated, and continue coming after the Mahdi Army.

Elements of the press see Moqtada al Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric, as the key player on whom the future of Iraq depends.  According to their story line, it was al Sadr's call for a cease fire last August that was most responsible for the decline in violence in Iraq -- not the Petraeus troop surge.  Recent reports treated al Sadr's threats of all out war as the greatest danger to the Iraqi democracy.  He later qualified his threat, saying it applied only to U.S. led forces.  In any case, though, no one but the media seems to be paying any attention to Moqtada.

Clashes between the Mahdi Army and US and Iraqi forces continue in northern and eastern Baghdad over the weekend despite a call by Muqtada al Sadr for his fighters to cease attacks. US air weapons team killed seven Mahdi Army fighters in Sadr City on Saturday and early Sunday morning while the Mahdi Army attacked a police patrol in the Sha'ab neighborhood and launched mortars at the International Zone. Meanwhile, an Iraqi general has said Iran is involved with arming and training Shia terrorists to conduct attacks in Iraq.

Today, the press has finally come around to the notion that Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's exercise of military power against the Mahdi Army has translated into a solidification of his political power.

BAGHDAD — The fortunes of Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have received an unexpected boost from his initially botched offensive against militias in Basra, which has turned into a standoff between al-Maliki and the Shiite Mahdi Army militia.

The showdown is recalibrating the political balance in Iraq in ways that could help break the deadlock that has stalled progress on key measures including a new oil law and the broader issue of national reconciliation.

Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds have rallied behind al-Maliki's insistence that the Mahdi Army loyal to hard-line cleric Moqtada Sadr must disarm, creating a rare consensus among most of the factions constituting Iraq's fractious parliament.

The main Sunni bloc, the Iraqi Accord Front, which pulled out of the government nine months ago complaining about al-Maliki's performance, is now saying it will return, lending hope that Iraq's malfunctioning government can finally get to work.

"It was a very bold step of Maliki's to take on these militias, so we have to say he's doing a good job," said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Sunni bloc, which blames the Mahdi Army for many of the sectarian killings of Sunnis in recent years.

The boost in political support among Iraqis for the al Maliki government is matched In Washington by resignation on the part of congressional Democrats.  They are impotent to end the war.  This combination may prove to be the final straw that breaks the insurgency. 

House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war spending bill yet, a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end of the Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president's term.

The bill, which could be unveiled as early as this week, signals that Democrats are resigned to the fact they can't change course in Iraq in the final months of President Bush's term. Instead, the party is pinning its hopes of ending the war on winning the White House in November.

Bay Area lawmakers, who represent perhaps the most anti-war part of the country, acknowledge the bill will anger many voters back home.

"It's going to be a tough sell to convince people in my district that funding the war for six months into the new president's term is the way to end the war," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus who plans to oppose the funding. "It sounds like we are paying for something we don't want."

By funding the war all the way through the first six months of the next presidency, congressional Democrats hope the bill will preclude high profile confrontations between Congress and President Bush that may hurt them in November.  Those are confrontations the President is expected to win.  While this will not entirely remove the Iraq war from election politics, it will relegate it the back pages of the nation's newspapers which could make it an issue of lesser importance for many voters. 

There is another possible unintended consequence to this strategy.  It may very well improve prospects for electing a Democratic president, but it may also reduce the chances for ending the war in a manner acceptable to congressional Democrats.  Forcing the Iraq war off of the front pages denies the insurgency an important weapon -- a forum for their message.  Reduced exposure to American news consumers means a hampered ability to convince voting Americans that the U.S. cause in Iraq is lost, and that is the insurgency's only real hope for avoiding defeat.

Should the Democrats pass their bill, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki will have a year of U.S. support in which to draw the noose tighter around the Mahdi Army and tighter around al Qaeda in Iraq.  In a year's time the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Police will continue to grow and continue to improve.  In a year's time these operations against the Mahdi Army will likely prove to have been pivotal.  In a year's time the war may be over for Americans for all intents and purposes. 

For Democrats, however, it is not enough to merely end the war.  The only acceptable outcome for Democrats is an American defeat which would translate into a repudiation of President George W. Bush.  Their new funding bill and the rise in al Maliki's political fortunes lengthen their odds.

Reconciliation follows crackdown

Mainstream press reporting on the war in Iraq is, if nothing else, bizarre.  Buried on page A10 of today's Washington Post is a story of reconciliation in Iraq.  Reconciliation is one of those milestones that the Iraqis must achieve in order for our Democratic congress to support them in their quest for a stable democratic government.

BAGHDAD, April 24 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Thursday that the return of a Sunni political bloc that walked away from the government last year is imminent. The announcement followed a military campaign against Shiite militias that has buoyed Sunni politicians.

"The reconciliation has proved a success," Maliki said in a statement. "The state's weapons became the only weapon."

The anticipated return of the main Sunni political bloc, the Iraqi Accordance Front, is welcome news for Iraq's Shiite-led government, which has faced repeated questions about its willingness to share power. The bloc has submitted names of potential cabinet ministers to the government for consideration.

It was the crackdown on the Shiite militias that convinced the Sunni political bloc that the Maliki government represents all Iraqis, not just the Shiite majority.  It's a development most members of the press would rather not contemplate but if they must, then they will contemplate it on the back pages.  You see, it contradicts the more popular narrative -- the one conveyed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last year. 

"This war is a serious situation. It involves the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

"So we should take everything seriously. We find ourselves in a very deep hole and we need to find a way to dig out of it."

Yup, that's their story and they're sticking to it.  But as the Iraqi democracy takes hold, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that it has been a mistake at all, never mind the worst foreign policy mistake in history.  Unfortunately, Democrats have spent a ton of political capital trying to convince the American people that democracy in Iraq is a mistake, not because it is an unworthy goal but because they say they believe it is an impossible goal.

Since the press is a largely liberal bunch it does it's part to help out.  Every time Moqtada al Sadr opens his mouth from the safety of Iran, the press predicts the collapse of the Iraqi government.  Several days ago, you may recall, it was reported that al Sadr threatened all out war against the Maliki government, accusing it of selling out to the Americans. 

"So I am giving my final warning ... to the Iraqi government ... to take the path of peace and abandon violence against its people," Sheik al-Sadr said.

"If the government does not refrain ... we will declare an open war until liberation."

Apparently no one paid the slightest attention to al Sadr's threat.  Except the mainstream press, that is.  At the Associated Press they continue to wait breathlessly for al Sadr to decide Iraq's fate.

BAGHDAD (AP) — Muqtada al-Sadr is considering setting aside his political ambitions and restarting a full-scale fight against U.S.-led forces — a worrisome shift that may reflect Iranian influence on the young cleric and could open the way for a shadow state protected by his powerful Mahdi Army.

A possible breakaway path — described to The Associated Press by Shiite lawmakers and politicians — would represent the ultimate backlash to the Iraqi government's pressure on al-Sadr to renounce and disband his Shiite militia.

By snubbing the give-and-take of politics, al-Sadr would have a freer hand to carve out a kind of parallel state with its own militia and social services along the lines of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a Shiite group founded with Iran's help in the 1980s.

It also would carry potentially disastrous security implications as the Pentagon trims its troops strength and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki finally shows progress on national reconciliation.

However, as Bill Roggio reported several days ago in the Long War Journal, there has been no cease fire for al Sadr to terminate.  The Mahdi Army continues its war against the Iraqi government.

Sadr's forces have continued to attack Iraqi government forces despite a cease-fire. An incident on April 19 south of Nasariyah backfired on the Mahdi Army as 40 fighters were captured, including two leaders, after attempting to ambush Iraqi forces in Suq Ash Shuyukh. The Iraqi security forces responded by sending a joint force of soldiers, police, and special police to battle the Mahdi Army force.

The Mahdi Army forces "retreated to building that contained the local Sadr Trend office" after "facing a combination of armored vehicles and suppressive fire," Multinational Forces Iraq reported in a press release. Iraqi forces cleared the building and discovered a large weapons cache that included "explosively formed penetrators, Katyusha rockets, rocket propelled grenade launchers and a large quantity of additional weapons and ammunition." Iran has supplied explosively formed penetrators to the Mahdi Army and the Special Groups.

And as Roggio reported yesterday, the Iraqi government continues its fight against the Mahdi Army.

The showdown with the Mahdi Army continues in Baghdad and outlying areas to the North as Iraq's prime minister says the days of the militias are over. US and Iraqi forces engaged the Mahdi Army in Baghdad and the towns of Rashidiyah and Hussaniyah in northern Baghdad Province over the past several days, killing 16 Mahdi Army fighters and capturing five. Seventy-two Mahdi Army fighters have been killed in Baghdad since Muqtada al Sadr threatened to initiate a third uprising.

Moqtada al Sadr ponders his options, but the war he threatens has been under way since the Maliki government ordered the crackdown.  Since then the firebrand cleric, as he is often called by the fawning press, has become increasingly isolated.  He remains in Iran. 

On the other hand, the Iraqi government has the support of the Iraqi political parties.  The top Shiite cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, has said that al Sadr and Mahdi Army are not above the law and that it is the responsibility of al Sadr to disband his army. 

And now the Sunni National Accordance Front has submitted names of potential cabinet ministers to the government for consideration.  For the Democrats and the press this is a disaster.

Soft Power

Frederick Kagan thinks it odd that the Democrats oppose soft power initiatives just when the administration begins to employ them.  Their problem:  Bush is employing them in Iraq.

It is particularly odd that the antiwar party that has been so loudly trumpeting the need to use soft power rather than hard power is now attempting to undo years of effort to develop a sophisticated political-economic-social-military program in Iraq to secure America's objectives. Having failed to force American troops out of Iraq, Congress is now trying to strip them of all the enablers they need to win. And it is not scare-mongering to state a fact that any brigade commander in Iraq will bear out: cutting off assistance, particularly the CERP money that brigade commanders rely on to establish and maintain good relations with local populations who reciprocate by helping track down terrorists and protect key infrastructure (including the "concerned local citizens," now renamed "Sons of Iraq" who are the lynchpin of this effort), will lead to more American casualties.

I disagree with Mr. Kagan on one minor point.  It is predictable, rather than odd.  The Democrats would happily torpedo Iraqi political, economic, and military gains.  The party's opposition to the liberation of Iraq, as well as all efforts to secure and rebuild it, is has been above all else rooted in their dread at seeing George W. Bush succeed at anything.  To the Democrats Iraq is a domestic issue.  It's all about winning the next election.  "Odd" is not the word I would use to describe a political party whose members openly side with terrorists.

Are Americans unusually stupid?

So asks Robert Scheer in a San Francisco Chronicle column on found on Real Clear Politics.

Are Americans unusually stupid, or is it something our president put in the water?

His complaint is that Americans show strong support for John McCain, the only remaining presidential candidate who believes invading Iraq was the right course of action in the war on terror, even though he has been particularly harsh in his comments about the execution of it.  So Scheer asks, assuming Americans are not just closet racists, are they stupid? 

Assuming likely voters are not now thinking of yet another Republican president simply because John McCain is the only white guy left standing - an excuse as pathetic in its logic as the decision four years ago to return two Texas oil hustlers to the White House because they were not Massachusetts liberals - must mean that tens of millions of Americans have taken leave of their senses.

Scheer undoubtedly hopes to persuade misguided Americans to be smart, to vote Democratic.  His argument rests on the senselessness of the Iraq war.  Take a look at his reasoning, if that's what you would call it.

In the name of fighting the 9/11 terrorists, the Bush administrat