Libertarian Leanings

The surge in Sadr City

Captain's Quarters reports that U.S. and Iraqi troops have moved into Sadr City.  This addresses a complaint that the crackdown had been focused on Sunnis while leaving the Shiites alone.

Combined US and Iraqi forces swept through Sadr City yesterday, arresting more than a dozen suspected militia members and making a statement about the lack of limitation on the new surge operation. The US characterized their targets as "rogue" elements of the Mahdi Army and the captured could include as many as ten Iraqi policemen:

American and Iraqi troops on Tuesday stormed several buildings in Sadr City, Baghdad’s main bastion of Shiite militancy, and detained at least 16 people suspected of participating in militia violence including killings, kidnappings and torture, the American military and local officials said.

Meanwhile back on the home front Democrats step up their attacks on American efforts in Iraq.

Congressional Democrats -- especially new members -- are clamoring for action on the Iraq war, citing polls showing that American voters want to change course, but leaders have delayed significant action.

Senate Democratic leaders announced yesterday that they will postpone for at least another week a debate on war policy, despite efforts by several senators pushing to hold a vote to repeal the 2002 war authorization.

Their window of opportunity may be closing.  Violence in Baghdad has dropped, and now Democrats are in a race against time as they seek to achieve defeat in Iraq before combined U.S, and Iraqi forces can bring a substantial end to the violence.

The note

Commenters at JustOneMinute contemplate the significance of the note, first reported by Byron York.

A message from the prosecution press office released at 5:30 this afternoon:

The Court received a note containing a question from the jury at the end of the day today.  Judge Walton will address the note with the parties in court at approximately 9:30 a.m. Wednesday morning…The contents of the note will not be disclosed until the note is addressed in court and docketed sometime tomorrow morning. 

Your guess is as good as mine.

One of the better JOM guesses:

The question may be "how long must we deliberate before we can give up?"

I suspect they want some portion of testimony read back. Jurors frequently do that, Judges will often refuse, and instruct them to rely on their memories. I think Judges should not refuse such requests, particularly in longer and detailed trials.

Posted by: Patrick | February 27, 2007 at 05:33 PM

One of the better comments:

"I suspect they want some portion of testimony read back. Jurors frequently do that, Judges will often refuse, and instruct them to rely on their memories."

In light of what this trial is about that statement is hilarious.

Posted by: BarbaraS | February 27, 2007 at 06:51 PM

For those unfamiliar with the case against Scooter Libby, this is a cryptic inside joke.  In a nutshell, Libby has been charged with criminally disagreeing with Tim Russert.  Libby says he simply forgot.  Libby's defense forced Russert to concede under oath that he often forgot.  According to the prosecution that's not possible.  Hilarity aside, we may find out today what the jurors are after, and it it may be good news for I. Lewis Libby.

Oil deal approved

Captain's Quarters reports that the Iraqi cabinet has reached agreement on a deal that splits Iraq's oil wealth among, Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds.

The plan recently approved by the Kurds to split the oil revenue of Iraq with the Sunnis won approval from the Iraqi cabinet. It now faces debate in the National Assembly, whose final approval will resolve one of the toughest issues in post-war Iraq and one that has helped fan the flames of the insurgencies:

The Iraqi cabinet approved a draft of a law on Monday that would set guidelines for nationwide distribution of oil revenues and foreign investment in the immense oil industry. The endorsement reflected a major agreement among the country’s ethnic and sectarian political blocs on one of Iraq’s most divisive issues.

No mention of al Qaeda's cut.  Hmmm.  Left out in the cold, maybe?  This could be an interesting development.

The Iranian influence

A while ago an Associated Press story appeared under the headline, Bush can't back up Iran claims, and then opened by quoting an emphatic George Bush who declared that there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American soldiers in Iraq. 

Yesterday, Power Line quoted a CNN report that explains why Bush spoke with such certainty when he accused Iran of involvement with the Iraqi insurgency.

CNN says that military authorities have confirmed that they are holding a top Quds general who was reported to have been apprehended in Iraq last December:

U.S. troops in Iraq are holding a top leader of an Iranian special forces group believed to be supplying weapons to insurgents who are targeting and killing U.S. forces in Iraq, U.S. officials said Monday.

Brig. Gen. Mohsen Chirazi, said to be the third-ranking officer in the Iranian Quds Force, was arrested in late December during a raid at the home of a man connected to the leader of the top Shiite party in Iraq with deep ties to the Iranian government, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, according to U.S. officials.

This, I suppose, is why President Bush has said that we know with certainty that Quds officers from Iran have been aiding the Iraqi insurgents.

Consider those Iran claims backed up.

Lieberman speaks out

Joe Lieberman's column in this morning's Opinion Journal is the voice of reason in an unreasonable city.

Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?

I know the answer to that one.  For Democrats the important fight is the political fight over here.  As beneficiaries of a largely anti-war, anti-Bush mainstream press who provide them cover, Democrats now brazenly push to bring about the objectives of our terrorist enemies, and they seem to think nobody notices.  They think they can just blame everything on George Bush.  But the Dems really ought to be careful what they wish for.  If they succeed in bringing about an American defeat in Iraq, there will be heavy political price to pay, and their allies in the press may be too busy covering their own butts to worry about the fate of congressional Democrats.

Butt covering

The headline over Bob Novak's New Post column calls the Democrats pathetic.

...as is true with most Iraq-Vietnam analogies, de-authorization of the Tonkin Gulf resolution bears little resemblance to what is being contemplated today. President Richard M. Nixon began pulling U.S. combat troops out of Vietnam soon after he took office in 1969, and offered no objection to repealing the LBJ resolution. It passed the Senate 81 to 10 in 1970, with unanimous support from Republican senators.

In contrast, the proposed 2007 de-authorization looks like a Democratic escape from the wrath of the anti-war party faithful.

Novak has found there is almost no support among Republicans for a proposal to rescind the authorization for military action in Iraq.

Iranian weapons in Iraq

U.S. and Iraqi troops discovered a large cache of weapons near Baqouba, the provincial capital of Diyala province, about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

BAQOUBA, Iraq -- U.S. and Iraqi forces have seized a large weapons cache that includes parts for sophisticated roadside bombs that are believed to originate in Iran, U.S. military investigators said.

An informant tipped off Iraqi police on Saturday.

Won't back down

Vice President Cheney is not backing down.  He said so.  At issue are remarks he made about the plan espoused by Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha which they describe as a "slow bleed" method of bringing the war in Iraq to an end.  Cheney's position is this,

"Al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy: that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home," Cheney added. "And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it."

Pelosi complained loudly but refused to challenge the logic behind Cheney's remarks.  It was, she said, "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in."  Is it possible to make a stupider, more disingenuous statement than that one?  How can it be beneath dignity to discuss the consequences of a proposed course of action, I'd like to know.

Conditions for American withdrawal have always rested on how quickly the Iraqi government can take over responsibility for security.  It has been a challenge, but there has been progress.  Last September the Iraqi government promised three battalions for Baghdad security, but none of them showed up.  Compre that to last week when three Iraqi brigades and two Iraqi battalions reported for duty in Baghdad at a 70% strength.  Although 70% would be a dismal percentage by American standards, it represents substantial improvement.

It's too soon to know with a certainty that the operation to secure Baghdad will be a success, but it seems to be working so far.  We are only two weeks into it, but initial indications are good.  Violence has not been eliminated but it is substantially down.  Families driven out have begun to return.  Mohammed of Iraq the Model toured the city and had this to say.

The buildup of troops in the capital seems to be incremental and increasing by the day giving a steadily growing sense of the seriousness of the operation. Yesterday during my tour with some friends we were stopped to be searched seven times during about only two hours; five times in Karkh and two in Resafa. The search typically includes verifying the vehicle registration papers, looking for guns and munitions or suspicious objects, destination of the passenger/driver and often their identity cards. In general the security personnel are polite in their dealing with people they search and some of them even end the procedure with an apology for the inconvenience.

We are getting used to the procedures at checkpoints; keep your hands visible on the wheel, keep your papers close to you, prepare to open the trunk and if it's getting dark then turn the headlights off and turn the reading light on.

I hear a lot from people how they want to see checkpoint search each and every vehicle on the street even their own because we know that the more effective checkpoints are the more secure the city would be.

It comes down to the question of time.  With enough time, the violence in Baghdad will be brought under control.  But can it be done quickly enough to satisfy those who claim Iraq is a lost cause and demand immediate withdrawal?  I think the answer to that is, no.  Nothing is quick enough.  For whatever reason, the Democratic leadership has become heavily invested in an American defeat in Iraq.  They seem to be in a race to get the troops out before Baghdad can be brought under control. 

Yes, Iraq is a mess, as all wars are messes, but the Iraq policy is not a failure.  It can become a failure if we follow the advice of Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha.  Vice President Cheney knows this and has said so.  Forcing an American withdrawal from Iraq is the aim of al Qaeda in Iraq.  For Pelosi and Murtha to allow themselves, even by accident, to share the aims of al Qaeda, is incredibly stupid or incredibly brazen.  Dignity notwithstanding, Pelosi's refusal to dispute the logic of Cheney's argument can mean only one thing.  She can't.

The trial of Scooter Libby

Best coverage of the trial of Scooter Libby may be found at JustOneMinute, where the legal analysis by JOM commenters provides a view into the case that you simply will not find anywhere else.  The following is the conclusion reached by one Azaghal, a former law enforcement officer and a JOM regular.

...the release of all 8 hours of Libby's testimony before the Grand Jury disclose the inordinate amount of time Fitzgerald spent grilling Libby about the declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and when Libby talked to reporters about that. This is a clear indication that Fitzgerlad was fully aware that there was no hope for a violation of the IIPA, despite the outrageous statements he made to the trial jury. It is further apparent from the record that the CIA did not want the declassification of the NIE to take place quickly even though that left the Administration hanging out on a cliff, unable to respond to Wilson's charges. Moreover, when DCI Tenet made his July 11 mea culpa he refused to do what the Administration wanted him to do--state publicly that the CIA, not the Office of the Vice President (OVP) had sent Wilson to Niger. From all the above, it is clear beyond dispute that this entire disgraceful episode was manufactured deceitfully as part of a campaign to undermine and even bring down the Bush Administration.

It's really fascinating stuff.  Take some time to read all of it, including the comment section.

The Pullout

Amir Taheri offers a mixed judgment on the announced withdrawal of Danish and British troops from Iraq in today's New York Post.  On one hand there are those who greet the announcement as an admission of failure.  On the other there are those who take it as a sign of progress.

Iraq's leaders, starting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, insist that they were consulted about the British and Danish decisions and welcome it. Indeed, the Iraqis claim that the British had agreed to hand over control of all four provinces of the "deep south" by last December - but, in the event, only transferred two (Maysan and Muthanna). But now the other two (Basra and Dhi-Qar) are expected to be shifted to exclusive Iraqi control before next Christmas.

On balance though Mr. Taheri thinks it would be better if the Brits and the Danes were to stay awhile longer.  I'm inclined to agree.  If inserting more American troops is better for Iraq, more British and Danish troops would be better as well.