Libertarian Leanings

Lieberman

Senator Joe Lieberman, Democrat from Connecticut, has recently returned from his fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and he says there's progress.  From today's Opinion Journal,

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

But he concedes it's not over and he warns,

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

"To seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory," he says.  He's charitable when he implies that it's "America's bipartisan leadership" who might choose defeat, but the fact is he distances himself from fellow Democrats who seem to believe defeat for the U.S. in Iraq is not a defeat for them.  Maybe it's not.

Fascinating bit of coverage

This morning I noticed a front page article in the paper edition of the Union Leader about the results of a poll.  Troops are hurt by criticism, poll says.

Seventy percent of people said criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale — with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale while 21 percent say it helps morale.

The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush's Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.

Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of circumstances.

There are a couple of interesting things about this.  It originated with the Washington Post, written by Chris Cillizza and Peter Slevin, and tucked away on page A04 of the Saturday edition.  The headline: Sympathetic Vibrations.  Grabs your attention, doesn't it!  In that same article, the opinion poll reporting was "balanced" by news of the disposition of campaign contributions from a Republican contributor who was indicted for campaign finance violations.  The story said recipients were donating the questionable funding to charity.  See?  There's no bias at the Post.  Although, it's funny how polls that show low approval of the President always make the front page.  In the meantime five papers including the Union Leader picked up the story.  These include the Buffalo News, the Bremerton Sun, the Canton Repository, and The Daily of the University of Washington-Seattle.  That doesn't give the story much legs, but it's something.

My initial reaction to the story itself was very positive.  I thought, an opinion poll is one thing the Democrats might pay attention to.  Maybe now those traitorous bastards will stop delivering messages of encouragement to the insurgent terrorists who are setting off bombs and trying to kill our troops.  I won't hold my breathe.

The hangman

If there is a final nail to be driven into the coffin of terrorism in Iraq it will be at the trial of Saddam Hussein.  Saddam's hangman speaks:

"They would usually say 'there is no God but God'," said Abu Hussein.

Death always came after weeks of torture.

"Sometimes we would hang them upside down and beat their feet with clubs. Or we would electrocute them," he said.

"One of the worst things was putting 10 people in a one-square-metre room for weeks. They had a brief break every day and were allowed the toilet every three days," he said.

Three executions were carried out each Monday and Thursday. One day Saddam's feared son Uday showed up and asked about eight political prisoners standing nearby. He ordered their immediate execution, said Abu Hussein.

Abu Hussein, a father of three, said watching men writhe in agony as they died sometimes made him cry. But he said nobody could afford to defy orders in Saddam's Iraq.

"We would have been killed on the spot. One time this executioner was one hour late in hanging someone and he was himself hanged. What could we do? All of this had a toll on us," he said.

Remorse takes a back seat to survival.  For Abu Hussein the return of Saddam is a foregone conclusion and when that happens compassion will be useless.

But the mention of Saddam turns him into a hard man prepared to torture and kill.

"I know they will set Saddam free. He is a strong man with a brain like a computer," he said.

Many of his fellow executioners fled Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, fearful that prisoners or their families would seek revenge for their suffering at Abu Ghraib, now a U.S.-run facility also marred by prisoner abuse.

Abu Hussein, a Sunni, works at Iraq's interior ministry dominated by Shi'ites long oppressed under Saddam.

Abu Hussein says nobody knows his past but he isn't taking any chances. Wearing a bullet-proof vest and armed with two guns, he longs for the old Iraq.

"Only Saddam can save us. It felt terrible but I am willing to hang and torture again. Saddam taught us about force. He is a strong personality," he said.

As long as there's hope that Saddam will return, peace will not come to Iraq.

Iraqi Red Crescent thanksgiving

The Iraqi Red Crescent donated a million dollars to Hurricane Katrina relief.

"I wish we could have a billion dollars to give," Said Hakki, the organization's president, said by telephone from Baghdad. "Even then, it is not enough to show our appreciation for what the U.S. has done for Iraq and is still doing."

The donation was made with the approval of the office of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and is thought to mark the first time that Iraq has sent aid to the United States.

Haydar al-Abadi, a senior adviser to the prime minister, said in a separate telephone interview that he was worried that the gesture -- though noble -- could prompt complaints that the money should have been spent on the country's own emergencies. But Mr. Hakki was adamant.

"Giving thanks is an Iraqi tradition as well as an American one. This is the minimum we could do after the Americans shed their blood in our country, mixing their blood with ours," he said. He said the overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein was "a blessing from God, and the U.S. was His tool."

Mr. Hakki left his job as a urology professor at the University of South Florida in Tampa last year to take charge of his country's massive -- and often lethally dangerous -- relief operations. Those dangers were underlined two months ago when two truckloads of relief aid were captured by Islamic extremists. Their two drivers and two volunteers narrowly escaped being beheaded .

A million dollars amounts to twenty percent of their annual budget.

The General weighs in

The General disagress with Congressman John P. Murtha, saying he doesn't care much for tone of the debate going on in Washington.

The top tactical commander in Iraq says an abrupt pullout of U.S. troops would be "destabilizing" and labeled "disturbing" Washington's heated political debate that has some Democrats calling the war unwinnable.

Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the Multinational Corps Iraq, said that 36 Iraqi battalions, about one-third of the total force, are now responsible for their own security sectors and can fight the insurgency. But they are not yet ready to operate totally independent of U.S. supply lines and tactical advice.  Because of that, he said, now is not the time for an American withdrawal.

"Iraqi security forces are able to conduct operations in a large portion of their area with only limited coalition support," Gen. Vines told Pentagon reporters via a teleconference from Baghdad. "They do require our support at this time. That support will be increasingly less over a period of time, but a precipitous pullout, I believe, would be destabilizing."

Gen. Vines' U.S. troops, which number 160,000, are now fighting against a backdrop of a heated debate in Washington over the course of the war. Some Democrats want a fixed timetable for troop withdrawals, a move President Bush rejects because, he says, it sends the wrong signal to terrorists and Saddam Hussein loyalists.

Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, upped the ante last week. He called the war unwinnable and asked that a six-month withdrawal from Iraq begin immediately, triggering a fierce House debate Friday night on a resolution which would call for just that. It failed 403-3.

Even before the troop debate, Democrats charged that the commander in chief deliberately misstated the intelligence on Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction. The White House struck back, starting last week, saying the president presented the same intelligence on WMD that some Democrats used to justify their vote for using force to oust Saddam.

"Of course the debate and the bitterness is disturbing," Gen. Vines said. "But after all, we are a democracy, and that is what democracy is about is people will have differences of opinions."

Asked about troops' morale, Gen. Vines said, "Certainly soldiers are concerned about whether or not they enjoy the support of not only their elected representatives, but the people, and they know that they have their support."

While staring victory in the face the Democrats in congress call the war unwinnnable and demand an "immediate redeployment", a move some might consider oddly timed.  In the past they've likened the troops to Nazi and Soviet gulag prison guards.  It's their way of showing of support.

Ker' ry v. tr.

To make evil, harmful, and untrue statements about; to speak evil of.

A new verb has entered the vocabulary, courtesy of John O'Neill.

Senator Kerry, supposedly defending Rep. John Murtha, said, "I won't stand for the Swift-Boating of Jack Murtha!" As one of the 254 members of Mr. Kerry's unit in Vietnam who belonged to Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth, I found Mr. Kerry's comments most ironic.

To us, Mr. Kerry's comments meant that no one should do to Mr. Murtha that which Mr. Kerry did to all of us and our fellow Vietnam veterans, living and dead. Mr. Kerry's disgraceful comments on many occasions in 1971 (while we were locked in combat), claiming falsely that we were "murdering" hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and committing rape and mayhem on a daily basis, are a part of the public record for which he has never apologized. This might be called "Kerrying" our soldiers.

I wonder if it will catch on.

Turning the tide

We've grown accustomed to seeing news stories that seek to cast American and coalition troops in the worst light, while terrorists are accorded status as modern day Minute Men.  That romantic view of the terrorists seems to be wearing thin.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- Exploding buildings, booby-trapped cars and bloodied victims began appearing on Arab satellite television recently in daring dramas that deal with Islamic militancy in al Qaeda's main breeding ground.

The producers of the shows say they are another battleground in the war on homegrown religious zealotry, which many Middle East governments are confronting by crackdowns and media campaigns.

"Al Tareeq Al-Waer" ("The Rugged Path") and "Al-Hur Al-Ayn" ("The Beautiful Maidens") were aired during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, a time of peak viewing in the Middle East.

The terrorists are not the good guys in these dramatic productions.  Arab world prime time is catching a glimpse from a different perspective.

After al Qaeda turned its attention away from the West to attack Arab and Muslim cities, the need to understand the roots of radicalism assumed extra urgency in the region.

In "The Rugged Path," a community is torn apart when some members wage a violent campaign to remove their "infidel" rulers and install "just Islamic rule," a reference to insurgencies against pro-U.S. governments in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

The story takes place against a backdrop of actual events. As in real life, the Arab-Israeli conflict and U.S.-led operation in Iraq affect the characters' lives and feed their anger.

"There is real suffering in the Arab world, and we need to expose it," said Jordanian Jamal Abou Hamdan, the show's writer. "There is rage in Arab and Muslim societies, but it is being channeled in a wrong way. This repression builds up and explodes, and youth have become susceptible to brainwashing."

"The Beautiful Maidens" is based on an al Qaeda bombing of a housing compound in Saudi Arabia, which killed mostly Arab and Muslim expatriates.

There have been reports of death threats over the production of these stories.  No surprise there.

No Plan?

Does anybody remember when John Kerry and John Edwards campaigned on the thesis that the Bush Administration had no plan to win the peace?  Here are some selected quotes from today's Washington Post article on the new Iraqi army.

...the new army is meant to fight guerrillas rather than invade Iraq's neighbors or level Iraqi villages, U.S. officers tend to describe what they are training as a counterinsurgency force, rather than an army...

...the Iraqi army is in line this month to cross a symbolic mark: 100,000 men trained and equipped. The goal is 135,000. The Defense Ministry's call for junior officers from the old army has drawn applications from 3,769 officers, with 2,662 of them accepted, said Wellman, the U.S. spokesman...

...All 99,766 of the soldiers now in the army had to take a national oath, and U.S. and Iraqi leaders maintain a careful mix of officers at top levels. Those are among other measures to try to keep the army from being dominated by Shiites, Kurds or Sunnis. "The goal here is to make the army and eventually the police force an institution of national unity," Dempsey said...

...In Taji, Alwan, the Sunni army captain, was ready to set a timeline for significant U.S. withdrawal. "Two years," Alwan said. If the Americans pull out before that -- before the government is steady, the constitution set and the army trained -- it "means we would go to civil conflict," he said.

They're still saying it.  No plan.  Go figure. 

Perfect

This is yesterday's Day by Day cartoon by Chris Muir. He nails it, doesn't he.

The Wrong Discussion

There’s an aspect to the discussion of pre-war intelligence on Iraq’s weapons systems, besides the questions of what we knew versus what we should have known. We should consider the particular timing of this discussion. What’s been playing out in Congress and in the media at the moment displaces any serious discussion of the invasion as a national security strategy. It’s a discussion we ought to have had by now.

The timing is the tip off. While it may seem slightly off topic, I’d like to bring up a post by Mohammed Fadhil of Iraq the Model in which he wondered about Congressman John P. Murtha’s demand for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

I can’t imagine why Mr. Murtha said something like “is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region”.

It is really strange when a US representative says something like this few weeks after the elected Iraqi government demanded from the UN to extend the mission of coalition forces for another year; apparently my government (and I) do not think that US military presence is harmful for us and the Arab League also thinks that an immediate withdrawal would be disastrous for Iraq and the region.

His perplexity comes from making a chronological connection between the congressman’s demand for withdrawal and the Iraqi request for extension. Murtha’s demand makes little sense in that context. But when considered in the wake of the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby, who was charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to the grand jury, it makes perfect sense. The Democrats perceive a point of vulnerability in President Bush and his Administration. They see an opportunity for attack too tempting to pass up.

Murtha’s foray against the Administration had nothing to do with Iraq. There's no chance Bush will order a pull out. Murtha knew it. The seriousness of his demand is best measured by the speed and margin by which it was voted down.

It was past 10 p.m. when Murtha addressed a relatively subdued House. Hunter's resolution "is not what I envisioned" because it avoids a broader debate of the war, which "is not going as advertised," Murtha said. "The American people are way ahead of us" in wanting a strategy to bring the troops home, he added. "It's easy to sit in your air-conditioned offices and send them into battle."

Could he be right? We American people believe the troops were sent over there so we could work out a strategy for bringing them home?

This continuing incoherence on the part of the Democrats is best explained in the context of domestic politics. Discussion of pre-war intelligence is part of a political strategy that has nothing to do with Iraq. If the Democrats had real concerns over pre-war intelligence, you’d expect a little worry over what might have become of those WMD that never turned up. In whose hands might they be now? Somehow that escapes their interest. The usefulness of this debate is in its value as a bludgeon. The pretense is national security. The aim is the next election. The nation and the world now focus on whose fault it is that the Democrats have never had a clue.

Meanwhile, an overarching strategy in favor of Saddam’s removal remains hidden from public view by Democrats’ continued high profile insistence that they were misled and mistaken. Michael Scott Doran, formerly Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, is now on the National Security Council staff in charge of the Middle East. In the January/February 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs his article, Palestine, Iraq, and American Strategy, sums up the strategy this way.

Unless America is prepared to abandon its position and pull back from the region, as the British did three and a half decades ago, it must carry its struggle against al Qaeda and Saddam to the finish, putting an end to all doubt regarding its resolve. Thwarting Saddam's ambitions and continuing to root out bin Laden's henchmen and associates, moreover, will do more than take care of immediate menaces. It will also serve to sober up onlookers with oppositionist ambitions of their own, making them recalculate the odds of defying a power that has demonstrated its intention to remain a permanent and dynamic regional player.

Once the near enemies have been bested, however, the moment will arrive to launch a vigorous and sustained effort to address the far enemies, as the crucial second stage in strengthening the Pax Americana. Unless the suppression of Saddam is seen to lead to a better life for the Iraqi population, and unless American strength and resolve is used on behalf of all the region's people, not simply the governments of American allies, then a new set of near enemies will certainly arise and have to be dealt with in their turn. In the long run, the strength and passion of Palestine-as-symbol will be sapped only by the creation of a new, more persuasive historical narrative that allows the people of the Middle East to see the United States, and the West more generally, as their partner in the quest for a better life.

To deny that there might be a geopolitical strategy at work, one must resolutely avoid looking at any maps. Back when the invasion of Iraq was contemplated, Democrats complained that Saddam Hussein was the wrong enemy. The known nuclear capabilities of North Korea made it the greater threat they said, one they demanded we address unilaterally. Even more dangerous than North Korea was Iran. Since that time multilateral diplomatic efforts involving Japan, China, and South Korea along with North Korea and the United States have moved forward. While North Korea remains a threat it’s a diminished threat due to the combined diplomatic effort. And what about Iran?

Prior to September 11, 2001 Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and to some degree Pakistan were nations hostile to America. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, Pakistan required very little in the way of persuasion to join us in the war on terror. Subsequently, knocking over the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has given us a new ally and a potential base of operations. A peek at the map shows that Iran’s eastern border is occupied by American allies, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

While we all would like things to move more quickly, Iraq is settling down as a democratic ally of the United States. Another peek at the map shows Iran’s western border occupied by Iraq and Turkey. Iran is quickly becoming surrounded by American allies, and they are allies who are getting very tired of terrorist bombs going off in their midst. They are allies who know where those bombs are coming from.

Since the writing of his article, Mr. Doran’s prediction that regional onlookers would sober up has come true. The nuclear black market network of A.Q. Khan has been uncovered, Syria has ended its occupation of Lebanon, Libya has renounced pursuit of nuclear weapons, and even relations between Pakistan and India have improved. It’s not unreasonable to anticipate by 2008 Iraq will be stable, Iran will be surrounded, and multilateral diplomatic efforts to persuade both Iran and North Korea to forsake nuclear arms will be a continuing effort. One base of terrorist operation, Afghanistan, has been eliminated. Iraq will soon follow.

But for the Democrats to step back and look at the big picture would rob them of political opportunity. Their focus on pre-war intelligence is an attempt to dissect the rationale for taking one step in a larger strategy that seeks to fight the terrorists head on and keep the terrorists from acquiring nuclear capability. Suffice it to say, the Democrats have their own ambitions. Their focus on pre-war intelligence at this particular time is their leverage for achieving them.  Nothing more.