Libertarian Leanings

A rare example

Mohammed Fadhil of Iraq the Model offers this reaction to the U.S. presidential election.  

America presented a rare example that other nations aren’t familiar with — a magnificent case of bringing down the walls of partisanship and race for the sake of the country. In our part of the world, immigrants are refugees, and they and their offspring are destined to remain inferior and despised for as long as they live. Not so in America.

Even more amazing was the scene of losing leaders saluting the winner with utmost sincerity and graciousness. In my opinion, McCain’s speech was more powerful and moving than Obama’s. I wish our leaders in the Middle East enjoyed half the courage of America’s leaders to acknowledge loss when they experience it and respect the winners.

Finally, I would like to take off my hat for the man who’s leaving the White House: President George Bush, the liberator of Iraq. Invading Iraq was a sound decision in spite of the mistakes that were made. He and Senator McCain, whose surge strategy saved Iraq from slipping down the brink of civil war, will be remembered as heroes by millions of freedom-loving Iraqis.

Update:  Quite obviously, it's been a while since I've browsed through the Iraqi blogs on the blogroll.  Bassam Sebti blogging under the banner It's a New World had this reaction to Obama's victory.

Indeed, Obama’s victory was a victory to the entire world that has become fed up and tired of Bush’s policies. Looking at Obama taking the stage and addressing his supporters in Chicago left me with a great feeling that this man changed the history of America. Now change can be good and bad. Bush and his administration did their part (bad of course) but Obama represented the good change. He wrote history like Martin Luther King and the founding fathers. All I could think of at that moment was how great the American democracy is and how the American people moved to the next step which should have been done way earlier. Nevertheless, they did it. They forgot about their race differences and finally voted for an African American. American democracy has entirely become the model of all democracies around the world.

Obama’s speech was very moving. The very first sentence made me respect him even more.

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

Last night’s victory was indeed the answer to all those who had ever suspected American democracy. As for McCain, as much as I didn’t like him, as much as I highly respected him after hearing his speech. I commend him for his respectful speech. His words showed he was not a loser but someone who truly loves his country.

Hayder Al-Khoei, who blogs as Eye Raki is not so optimistic about the coming Obama administration.

When I woke up I realised it was Obama. At first I was upset but then for some strange reason, a verse in the Quran started to play (on repeat mode) in my head. It was the last part of verse 30, chapter 8, Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War):

"...They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah." [Quran 8:30]

With a smile I saw the bigger picture. I realised that if Obama was 8 years older and had won the Presidential elections 8 years ago, Saddam would not only have still been in power, but Obama would probably have been in one of Saddam's Presidential Palaces drinking coffee with the butcher as part of his terrorist out-reach programe for the Middle East. George Bush won the 2000 elections for a reason. Similarly to how God sent Moses to deliver the Israelites from Egypt, God had guided Bush to deliver the Iraqi people from Saddam. Saddam planned, Obama is planning, but God is the best of planners. Bush won, Saddams dead and the rest is just details.

The world rejoices at the election of Obama, fervently believing that America has been redeemed.  In reality the Obama victory stands as proof that America has been in no particular need of redemption.  Still, there is at least one noticeable advantage that comes out of the Obama victory:  Reporters, celebrities, and other liberals will say nice things about America for a while.  How nice.

The Iraqi Cabinet Approves

Earlier today the Iraqi cabinet voted to approve a security agreement with the U.S. that will allow American forces to remain in Iraq beyond the expiration of the UN mandate which is the legal basis for their presence.

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi cabinet voted overwhelmingly Sunday to approve the security agreement that sets the conditions for the Americans' continued presence in Iraq from Jan. 1 until the end of 2011.

All but one of the 28 cabinet ministers who attended the two-and-a-half-hour session voted for the agreement and sent it to Parliament for consideration, a huge relief to the United States, which had been in intense negotiations with the Iraqis for nearly a year.

The United Nations Security Council resolution that allows U.S. troops to operate in Iraq expires Dec. 31, and, without an extension of the resolution or a separate agreement with the Iraqis like that approved by the cabinet on Sunday, forces of the U.S.-led coalition would have no legal mandate to operate.

“This is the best available alternative,” the Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said shortly after the vote. “We have always said this is not a perfect solution for the Iraqi side and it is not a perfect solution for the American side. But it is a procedure which was forced by circumstances and necessity.

“This is the time after the progress in the security situation to transfer the security file to the Iraqi side, step by step.”

The next step is approval of the agreement by the Iraqi parliament.  A vote by Parliament is expected on November 24th.

"We hope to take a vote on the agreement on November 24," parliament's deputy speaker Khalid al-Attiya told AFP.

The Iraqi cabinet decided earlier Sunday to approve a draft of the agreement, which will replace a UN mandate that expires at the end of this year.

The agreement would see US troops withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns by the end of June 2009 and from the country as a whole by the end of 2011.

Parliament's endorsement of the pact is crucial before it can be signed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and US President George W. Bush.

Radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr had hoped to influence the Iraqi cabinet vote by threatening attacks on U.S. troops if the agreement is passed. 

BAGHDAD — Radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr threatened Friday to resume attacks on U.S. forces if they remain in Iraq, as envisioned in a draft security agreement that would allow them to stay until the end of 2011.

Al-Sadr's statement appeared aimed at upping the ante before a cabinet meeting Sunday at which ministers are expected to decide whether to support the accord.

The cleric's Mahdi Army militia battled U.S. forces off and on from 2004 until last spring, when fierce clashes erupted in the southern city of Basra and in the Baghdad district of Sadr City. Since then, his fighters have largely observed a cease-fire, and al-Sadr has said he wants to turn most of his militia into a religious and social movement.

He has kept a low profile in recent months and is believed to be in Iran, according to U.S. military officials.

Although it was not made clear by the the article quoted above, al Sadr's Mahdi Army got its clocks cleaned by the Iraqi Army in Basra and in Baghdad.  This may have played into al Sadr's decision to turn his militia into a social movement.

Consensus has it that the Iraqi agreement with the U.S. is not perfect, but it's good.  Most importantly, it has the approval of Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.  Without his approval there is no deal. 

Sistani is enormously influential among the majority Shiite population; in 2004, when he wanted to put pressure on the Americans to hold direct elections, he called upon his followers to march by the hundreds of thousands in a peaceful but powerful demonstration of force.

Imperfect though it may be, democracy is breaking out in Iraq.

Iraq -- the war is over

Glenn Reynolds got a phone call from Michael Yon.

"THE WAR IS OVER AND WE WON:" Michael Yon just phoned from Baghdad, and reports that things are much better than he had expected, and he had expected things to be good. "There's nothing going on. I'm with the 10th Mountain Division, and about half of the guys I'm with haven't fired their weapons on this tour and they've been here eight months. And the place we're at, South Baghdad, used to be one of the worst places in Iraq. And now there's nothing going on. I've been walking my feet off and haven't seen anything. I've been asking Iraqis, 'do you think the violence will kick up again,' but even the Iraqi journalists are sounding optimistic now and they're usually dour." There's a little bit of violence here and there, but nothing that's a threat to the general situation. Plus, not only the Iraqi Army, but even the National Police are well thought of by the populace. Training from U.S. toops has paid off, he says, in building a rapport.

Against the foundation tide

One of the top news story back in August of 2007 was Karl Rove's resignationfrom the White House staff. At the time Rove predicted Republican fortunes would improve by the 2008 elections because American fortunes in Iraq would have improved by then.  He was right about the American fortunes but wrong about Republican fortunes.  Back in 2007, in the context of Rove's resignation, I predicted that John Sununu would lose his Senate seat. 

Afterthought:  Having said that, even if General Petraeus reduces the violence in Iraq to zero over the coming months, I anticipate that our junior Senator from New Hampshire, John Sununu, will go down in defeat in 2008.  He's been avoiding the topic of war and it will cost him.

Sad to say I was right.  Though they didn't seem to know it at the time, and perhaps still don't, Republican fortunes were tied to George Bush and the war in Iraq.  Trying to change the subject was not going to work.  It is true there were other factors as well.  The current economic crisis was beyond Republican control.  And, although the President's approval rating was extremely low, it was something that Republicans might have been able influence had they stood with him.

During the summer of 2006 when Karl Rove spoke to New Hampshire Republicans in Manchester, he urged candidates not to avoid the Iraq war as a campaign issue.  He said that Republicans had no reason to be ashamed to stand up for the war, that it was the Democrats who should be under fire for choosing to "cut and run."  As it turned out, Republican candidates opted to distance themselves from George W. Bush, instead.  It didn't work. Republicans suffered huge losses anyway. 

I'd say those losses suffered in 2006 carried over into 2008.  Decisions to avoid talking about Iraq in 2006 allowed the political left to dominate the discussion and define the war issue on their terms.  This was driven home in the presidential debate when John McCain attacked Barack Obama's poor judgment by pointing out that had we followed Obama's advice on the troop surge we would have lost the war in Iraq.  Obama brushed it aside, saying the bigger mistake was to invade Iraq in the first place.  McCain did not reply.  End of discussion.

Success in Iraq is vital to our national security, yet it dropped off the radar for the general election.  When it did arise as a campaign issue it was dismissed as a mistake.  Just as in 2006 when Republicans chose not to back their president and make the case for the war, John McCain chose not to dispute Obama's assessment during the debates.  Iraq should have been a winning issue.  But from 2006 on, the Republicans had decided that it was pointless to argue how we got to where we are in Iraq, and instead, to focus on what we hope to leave behind.  It was a refusal to back George Bush, and it was a huge mistake.

Republicans abandoned the field to our leftist media.  The result has been a relentless campaign under way in a mainstream press reinforced by "foundation journalists."  Its objective is to discredit the war with the purpose of discrediting Republicans.  That it is an ongoing campaign can be seen by the date of a "news" article by the Center for Public Integrity entitled False Pretenses.  Published in January 2008 it claims to report:  "Following 9/11 President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq." 

This is not news, it's not journalism, and it's not true.  It's campaigning under the guise of journalism.  It's a campaign that's been under way since 2003 when Democrats first decided that Iraq was an issue on which they could safely oppose a wartime president, and it's a campaign that has gathered steam since then, just when you might think it would be ending.

There are a raft of non-profit journalist organizations promoting the left, including the Center for Investigative Reporting, Mother Jones, and ProPublica.  Launched in October of 2007 ProPublica is a non-profit news organization supposedly engaged in "journalism in the public interest."  Here is a sampling of the kind of "public interest" journalists they hire. 

"Jennifer LaFleurhas been the computer-assisted reporting (CAR) editor since 2003 for The Dallas Morning News, where she works on the investigative team. She has directed CAR at the San Jose Mercury News and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and was IRE’s first training director. She has won awards for her coverage of disability, legal and open government issues. Ms. LaFleur is the co-author of IRE’s Mapping for Stories: A Computer-Assisted Reporting Guide.

Jake Bernsteinhas worked at The Texas Observer, an investigative biweekly, for six years, and as its executive editor since 2004. Earlier in his career, he was a staff writer for the Pasadena [Texas] Citizen and then for the Miami New Times. His work has received numerous state-level and national journalism awards, and The Texas Observer, under his leadership, was named Best Political Magazine of 2005 by Utne Reader. Bernstein is co-author of Vice: Dick Cheney and The Hijacking of the American Presidency (2006).

Michael Grabell has been a reporter for the Dallas Morning News since 2003, covering police, courts and aviation safety and security. He was a member of the newspaper’s team covering Hurricane Katrina and led a six-month investigation into a bus fire that killed 23 nursing home patients fleeing Hurricane Rita. The investigation was a 2007 finalist for the Livingston Award for Young Journalists.

Paul Kielhas written for TPMmuckraker, Talking Points Memo’s investigative reporting blog, since 2006. TPM’s coverage of the firings of U.S. attorneys and politicization of the Department of Justice won a George Polk Award for legal reporting.

A.C. Thompsonhas been a reporter for 12 years, mostly in the San Francisco Bay area. In 2006-2007 he was an investigative reporter for SF Weekly. For eight years before that he worked in a similar role for the San Francisco Bay Guardian. His work has also appeared in a number of national magazines. His work received the George Polk Award for local reporting in 2005. Thompson is co-author of the book Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA’s Rendition Flights.

Krista Kjellmanhas been an associate producer in the investigative unit of ABC News for almost three years. The Blotter, the investigative unit’s web page on which Ms. Kjellman played a key role, has, during this period, been honored with the Online News Association Award for investigative journalism, a George Foster Peabody Award and an IRE Award. 

My emphasis above.

Naive Republicans believed that victory in Iraq would automatically translate to victory in the election, and maybe in a rational world it would have.  But in this media climate there is a pretty good chance that Republican defeats in this election will end as an American defeat in Iraq, instead.

 

While there is no way be certain that Republican prospects would have been better had they followed Karl Rove's advice, it's hard to imagine that they could have been any worse. But the only way Republicans could have countered the combined media's anti-war message was to force it to cover Republican arguments that the invasion of Iraq was the right course in the War on Terror.  Granted, it would have been a formidable task given the amount of money going into the anti-war message, but the Joe Lieberman example argues that it might have been successful. 

The campaign war chest for the anti-war message is growing, and today, just as in 2006, playing defense isn't going to carry the day for Republicans.  Conservative and libertarian sources of foundation journalism are needed to get a message of liberty out on a continuous basis.

Over the next four years leftist foundation journalists will continue to inundate the American public with "investigative" and "analysis" stories that will conclude, George W. Bush was the worst president in American history.  Republican fortunes and those of libertarian conservatives will suffer along with the President's reputation if those stories are not only rebutted but also attacked as the dishonest political campaigning that they are. 

Democrats' game plan for Iraq

Just a little reminder.  In the unfortunate event that they win a super majority in congress, this is what Obama and the Democrats have in mind for Iraq. 

David Bellavia at George Washington University

David Bellavia, author of House to House, spoke to a group at George Washington University about the War on Terror and his experiences in Iraq.  Mr. Bellavia fought terrorists from all over the world in Iraq.

Via Blackfive.

Late inning rally for Hillary?

In an interview with the Washington Times former Clinton administration Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said she opposes a "date certain" for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. 

Former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said Thursday the Iraq war has created damaging consequences for U.S. diplomacy, but Washington should not agree to a specific deadline for withdrawing troops in the midst of conflict - something proposed last year by the candidate she now supports, Sen. Barack Obama.

"I never was for a date certain," Mrs. Albright told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. "In Bosnia, we gave a date certain, and then we couldn't get out and that undercut our credibility."

It's an interesting time for Albright to contradict the candidate she claims to support, unless you consider that Hillary's earliest opportunity to make another run at the White House is in 2012.  But that can only happen if Obama is defeated in November.  Are the Clintonistas mobilizing for Hillary?

Iraqi and U.S. negotiators reach agreement

Bloomberg reports that Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have reached agreement on the status of forces in Iraq.

Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have agreed on "aspirational'' timelines for the presence of American forces in that country along with legal rules for the military personnel, a Pentagon official said.

Geoff Morrell, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said the accord would allow for decisions on troop withdrawals to be based on security conditions.

Morrell wouldn't confirm that the draft would require U.S. forces to leave by 2011 unless Iraqi officials asked them to stay longer. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Sept. 14 that a major withdrawal of U.S. troops is expected by 2011.

While declining to reveal details of the draft agreement, which he said wasn't yet final, Morrell said Gates believes it would safeguard U.S. forces in Iraq.

The language of the agreement is being reviewed by senior officials in both countries and Gates has begun briefing key U.S. lawmakers on it, Morrell said.

The deal is subject to approval by the Iraqi parliament but there has been some question as to whether it needs congressional approval. 

Some members of Congress have argued the Bush administration will need to send the Iraq SOFA to Congress for ratification, but White House officials have resisted. Michael J. Matheson, a professor of law at George Washington University, told lawmakers in February 2008 that if a SOFA is "limited to giving U.S. forces and personnel exemption from foreign law, the president may conclude it without further congressional approval." But Yale Law School professors Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway argue the agreement being negotiated "moves far beyond" traditional accords—such as proposed exemptions for civilian contractors—and should therefore be subject to congressional review (WashPost).

The Bush administration has undoubtedly structured the agreement in such a way that congress gets no chance to block it, as the Bloomberg story would seem to confirm. 

The phone calls were made in fulfillment of a pledge to consult with lawmakers before the agreement is completed, Morrell said.

The Bush administration doesn't plan to submit the agreement for a formal vote in Congress. It will be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval, after first being reviewed by the Council of Ministers, Morrell said.

A finalized agreement would be an Iraqi repudiation of Obama's lobbying efforts to delay it.

Obama's blinding greed and selfishness

Lately there's been a drop off in the number of posts coming from the Iraqi bloggers on my blogroll.  It's my guess that politics has overtaken war as the topic of interest, and there is a smaller American audience for Iraqi political blogging. 

At any rate, after couple of weeks away, Iraq the Model is back with something to say.

I was hoping that presidential candidates would not put their electoral objectives above those of their nation. Alas, blinding greed and selfishness seem to prevail sometimes.

I don’t dare suggest that Obama wanted to obstruct the treaty because it threatens Iran and other despots in the Middle East; I’m sure his purpose is different. The thing is that his purpose is also different from that of the U.S. or of Iraq — two friendly states looking forward to building long-lasting cooperation based on shared interests and mutual respect. We want victory in the war; Obama wants victory in elections — this is the problem. I’m not sure how or if people here think the treaty might affect the presidential race, but in Iraq and the Middle East people think that signing the treaty before elections would be regarded as a victory for Republicans that could propel McCain to the White House. Again Iran and many in the Middle East don’t want McCain to be in the White House. I guess that’s one thing they have in common with Obama.

It's been my view that Democrats had planned on playing Iraq as another Vietnam, complete with abandonment by a disgraced and defeated America.   Should Obama take the White House and should Democrats win control of and both houses congress, all funding for Iraq will be cut off.  It will be Democrats' last chance to gain the defeat they've been trying to blame on the Bush administration for the last five years.

Candidate Obama conducts foreign policy

A New York Post column by Amir Taheri accuses Barack Obama of publicly campaigning for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, while privately trying to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay the agreement with the US on the status-of-forces agreement.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

While Iraqi leaders are not unanimous in their views of a potential Obama administration, the possibilities they anticipate would arise from an Obama administration are not attractive.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Fears on both sides of the divide could come true.  Democrats have already argued that political progress in Iraq has been hastened by the 2006 electoral victories that gave them control of both houses of congress.  An Obama victory in November will be promoted as a catalyst to further progress, but alas, progress doomed to failure.  Support for Iraq will dry up as Obama accedes to the majority view among Democrats and refocuses the war on terror back to law and order operations.