The Delusional Style in American Politics (Apologies To Hofstadter)

The looming irrelevancy which is the Iraq Study Group will be presenting their report next Wednesday. The final report is said to be finished, and what is alleged to be the main points have been leaked to the press.

As long expected, a diplomatic initiative said to involve Iran and Syria in helping to use their influence with Iraqi Shiites is one of the main recommendations.

But there is more:

Although the diplomatic strategy takes up the majority of the report, it was the military recommendations that prompted the most debate, people familiar with the deliberations said. They said a draft report put together under the direction of Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton had collided with another, circulated by other Democrats on the commission, that included an explicit timeline calling for withdrawal of the combat brigades to be completed by the end of next year. In the end, the two proposals were blended. ...

If Mr. Bush adopts the recommendations, far more American training teams will be embedded with Iraqi forces, a last-ditch effort to make the Iraqi Army more capable of fighting alone. That is a step already embraced in a memorandum that Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, wrote to the president this month.

"I think everyone felt good about where we ended up," one person involved in the commission's debates said after the group ended its meeting. "It is neither 'cut and run' nor 'stay the course.'"

Yep, another centrist approach. Just what we need.

Committee members struggled with ways, short of a deadline, to signal to the Iraqis that Washington would not prop up the government with military forces endlessly, and that if sectarian warfare continued the pressure to withdraw American forces would become overwhelming. What they ended up with appears to be a classic Washington compromise: a report that sets no explicit timetable but, between the lines, appears to have one built in.

As one senior American military officer involved in Iraq strategy said, "The question is whether it doesn't look like a timeline to Bush, and does to Maliki."

It is really remarkable that advisors have to craft policy prescriptions so that President Bush needn't be disabused of his delusional style of leadership.

McCain's Fantasy Solution

No one must have seen fit to share with the presumptive GOP presidential nominee the intelligence that Anbar Provence (the main Sunni stronghold) is a lost cause. If they have, he is now proved to be even more full of shit than previously suspected.

In a surprise move, the (Iraq Study Group) heard last-minute testimony from ... Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.) a strong advocate of sending more troops to Iraq. ... (T)he 10-member panel asked McCain to talk to them in a hastily organized teleconference, according to sources in McCain's office. The panel, which has held months of informal, secret hearings, was supposed to have finished its interviews last week.

Neither of the two options put forward by experts advising the panel called for deployment of additional troops, although the idea of sending as many as 50,000 more was advocated in testimony by other Middle East experts.

McCain's aides would not disclose the substance of the senator's comments but referred to recent media appearances. On NBC's "Meet the Press" this month, McCain warned that even providing a date for withdrawal would lead to chaos in the region.

"There are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops," he said.

To stabilize Iraq, McCain advocated first getting Sunni areas under control, to show Shiites that they do not need militias to protect themselves from Sunni attacks. The present formula is "unacceptable," he said. He also predicted that the U.S.-led coalition is "either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months."

U.S. Not Able To Defeat The Sunni Insurgency In Anbar, Report Says

The Marine Corps intelligence report about the situation in Anbar Provence that we discussed in September's Looking Bad For U.S. In Anbar, has been updated and is even more pessimistic about American security prospects in the Sunni heartland.

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.

The Marines recently filed an updated version of that assessment that stood by its conclusions and stated that, as of mid-November, the problems in troubled Anbar province have not improved, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. "The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality" remain the same, the official said.

(The document, titled "State of the Insurgency in Al-Anbar") ... is far bleaker than some officials suggested when they described it in late summer. The report describes Iraq's Sunni minority as "embroiled in a daily fight for survival," fearful of "pogroms" by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance across the capital. ...

"Despite the success of the December elections, nearly all government institutions from the village to provincial levels have disintegrated or have been thoroughly corrupted and infiltrated by Al Qaeda in Iraq," or a smattering of other insurgent groups, the report says.

The five-page report -- written by Col. Peter Devlin, a senior and seasoned military intelligence officer with the Marine Expeditionary Force -- is marked secret, for dissemination to U.S. and allied troops in Iraq only. It does not appear to have been made available to Iraqi national forces fighting alongside Americans. ...

(Devlin) described al-Qaeda in Iraq as the "dominate organization of influence in al-Anbar," surpassing all other groups, the Iraqi government and U.S. troops "in its ability to control the day-to-day life of the average Sunni."

Al-Qaeda itself, now an "integral part of the social fabric of western Iraq," has become so entrenched, autonomous and financially independent that U.S. forces no longer have the option "for a decapitating strike that would cripple the organization," the report says. That is why, it says, the death of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June "had so little impact on the structure and capabilities of al-Qaeda," especially in Anbar province.

(A) senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of his work, said yesterday that he largely agrees with Devlin's assessment, except that he thinks it overstates the role of al-Qaeda in the province. "We argue that it is a major element in Anbar, but it is not the largest or most dominant group," he said.

Tangled Up In Lies and Delusion

From Gary Younge in the Guardian (UK):

Those in the west who fear that withdrawal will lead to civil war are too late - it is already here. Those who fear that pulling out will make matters worse have to ask themselves: how much worse can it get? Since yesterday American troops have been in Iraq longer than they were in the second world war. When the people you have "liberated" by force are no longer keen on the "freedom" you have in store for them, it is time to go.

Any individual moves announced from now on - summits, reports, benchmarks, speeches - will be ignored unless they help to provide the basis for the plan towards withdrawal. Occupation got us here; it cannot get us out. Neither Tony Blair nor George Bush is in control of events any longer. Both domestically and internationally, events are controlling them. So long as they remain in office they can determine the moves; but they have neither the power nor the credibility to shape what happens next.

So the crucial issue is no longer whether the troops leave in defeat and leave the country in disarray - they will - but the timing of their departure and the political rationale that underpins it.

For those who lied their way into this war are now trying to lie their way out of it. Franco-German diplomatic obstruction, Arab indifference, media bias, UN weakness, Syrian and Iranian meddling, women in niqabs and old men with placards - all have been or surely will be blamed for the coalition's defeat. As one American columnist pointed out last week, we wait for Bush and Blair to conduct an interview with Fox News entitled If We Did It, in which they spell out how they would have bungled this war if, indeed, they had done so. ...

Last Saturday the newly elected House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, suggested that the Americans would pull out because the Iraqis were too disorganized and self-obsessed. "In the days ahead, the Iraqis must make the tough decisions and accept responsibility for their future," he said. "And the Iraqis must know: our commitment, while great, is not unending."

It is absurd to suggest that the Iraqis - who have been invaded, whose country is currently occupied, who have had their police and army disbanded and their entire civil service fired - could possibly be in a position to take responsibility for their future and are simply not doing so.

For a start, it implies that the occupation is a potential solution when it is in fact the problem. This seems to be one of the few things on which Sunni and Shia leaders agree. "The roots of our problems lie in the mistakes the Americans committed right from the beginning of their occupation," Sheik Ali Merza, a Shia cleric in Najaf and a leader of the Islamic Dawa party, told the Los Angeles Times last week. ...

(U)nless we understand what happened in Iraq we are doomed to continue repeating these mistakes elsewhere. Ten days ago, during a visit to Hanoi, Bush was asked whether Vietnam offered any lessons. He said: "We tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while ... We'll succeed unless we quit."

In other words, the problem with Vietnam was not that the US invaded a sovereign country, bombed it to shreds, committed innumerable atrocities, murdered more than 500,000 Vietnamese - more than half of whom were civilians - and lost about 58,000 American servicemen. The problem with Vietnam was that they lost. And the reason they lost was not because they could neither sustain domestic support nor muster sufficient local support for their invasion, nor that their military was ill equipped for guerrilla warfare. They lost because it takes a while to complete such a tricky job, and the American public got bored.

Pakistan Took Responsibility For U.S. Attack On Madrassa

You heard it here first, folks.

Back on November 11, in Big Trouble In Pakistan's Tribal Areas we led with this note:

"The word in security circles in Washington is that the attack upon the madrassa was indeed conducted by the U.S."

Today's London Sunday Times confirms our report:

US carried out madrasah bombing

The bombing of a Pakistani madrasah last month, in which 82 students were killed, was carried out by the United States, a Pakistani official has admitted, writes Christina Lamb.

The madrasah in the tribal agency of Bajaur was bombed during a visit to Pakistan by the Prince of Wales amid allegations that it was being used to train suicide bombers.

"We thought it would be less damaging if we said we did it rather than the US," said a key aide to President Pervez Musharraf. "But there was a lot of collateral damage and we've requested the Americans not to do it again."

The Americans are believed to have attacked after a tip-off that Ayman al-Zawahiri, the deputy leader of Al-Qaeda, was present. Local people claimed the victims included boys as young as 12 and that the tribal area had been negotiating with the Pakistan government for a peace deal.

Pakistani officials insist they were shown satellite images of people training and have checked the identity cards of all those killed, and that all were adults.

Situation In Iraq Deteriorating Rapidly

The White House ... said President Bush has no intention of backing out of talks next week with the Iraqi leader, despite threats yesterday from a powerful Shiite militia to pull out of the government if Maliki goes ahead with the meeting. The talks, set for Thursday in Amman, Jordan, have suddenly taken on the air of a crisis summit, as Iraq slides closer to all-out civil war. ...

"This summit is an act of desperation. The White House doesn't know what it can do," said David Rothkopf, a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace fellow and the author of "Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power." "The situation is deteriorating more rapidly than anyone anticipated and to an unending depth.

"I don't think, in modern American history, there is another example of such egregious failure of policy and execution. We're really seeing something unprecedented here. Even Vietnam was a slower decline, and the military forces were more in balance. . . . I don't know anyone who thinks there is an outcome in Iraq now that is hopeful."

The crisis atmosphere deepened in Iraq yesterday when followers of radical Shiite militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr pledged to walk out of parliament and Maliki's cabinet if the prime minister attends the Jordan summit. Sadr's powerful political bloc has 30 members in Iraq's new parliament. It was also pivotal in backing Maliki as prime minister during heated months-long debate over the new government.

The Bush administration has been increasingly frustrated by Maliki's leadership, particularly his inability or unwillingness to rein in fellow Shiites, including militias such as Sadr's. But the White House has limited alternatives because the Iraqi leader was democratically selected and the next election is not due until 2009. Maliki is, for now, the only political game in town.

And any U.S. exit strategy will rely on accelerating the transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqi forces under Maliki's control.

Lebanese Viewpoints

Three Lebanese people give their views on the significance of the past few days in their country: the assassination of anti-Syrian politician Pierre Gemayel, and the huge crowds attending his funeral rally.


KASSEM JOUNI, 22, STUDENT, SOUTHERN LEBANON

I'm against saying Syria did this.

I think Israel and the USA are benefiting from the situation; but I don't know who did it. We should wait for the investigation.

It's intended to hit Lebanese unity.

I was at the funeral march. I might go to the Hezbollah demonstrations also; Lebanon can benefit from both projects.

I stood as an independent in elections at my university. Both parties were against me because I was talking to both sides.

I support the resistance activities of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is a Lebanese party. It has support from Syria, but it doesn't bring Syrian influence into the country.

I think the assassination is helping the parties who are against Hezbollah, because Hezbollah's demonstration cannot go ahead.

March 14 people [coalition opposing Syrian involvement in Lebanon] say the death of Gemayel may help Hezbollah achieve its goal of destroying Sinioria's government. This is not my point of view.

I think the Siniora government should survive; they want to prove themselves.

Siniora is betting that Emile Lahoud will end his presidency and Lahoud thinks Siniora will fail. It's a challenge; I don't know who will win.


SARA KHOURY, 40's, TEACHER, MANSOURIEEH, NEAR BEIRUT

The bloody finger points at Syria, but you can't be sure. I don't think we'll ever find out.

We had high hopes when [Christian leader] Michel Aoun came back into the country, but it hasn't worked out the way we hoped.

Thursday's demonstration was a show of frustration, a show of dismay. Almost an outcry of grief.

People were hopeful last year after [the demonstrations of] March 14, they felt excited; but day-to-day politics took over.

The euphoria ebbed away. I think people are trying to get that back.

In a kind of obtuse way, I think the events of Tuesday [Gemayel's assassination] have strengthened the government.

It's such an obvious attempt to weaken the government and people are disgusted by it.

Hezbollah was very strong after the summer; they had planned some peaceful demonstrations. This has thwarted their attempts.

Hezbollah has the backing of a large part of the population and its voice has a right to be heard.

The Lebanese always respect others' differences. If Hezbollah are truly Lebanese, they should honour this history of respect between different faiths and political aspirations.

Most people just want a unified, peaceful country.


AMIRA AL-SOLH, 29, URBAN PLANNER, BEIRUT

There's a growing feeling that this was an external job, most likely executed internally. But it's harmful to come out with accusations that are unfounded.

The funeral showed the Lebanese people expressing their sorrow at another young assassinated politician. They were saying enough is enough; we stand for an independent and free Lebanon.

It's unfortunate that we're being terrorised into silence. The bottom line is that people are more afraid; there are fewer job opportunities and there is less economic activity.

Neighbouring countries on all sides are threatened by Lebanon's democracy and freedom of speech. It's a real problem for them to see a Lebanon that's free.

What happened on Tuesday in no way benefited Hezbollah. On Thursday they were due to have a march and they couldn't.

I commend Hezbollah on their role in defending Lebanon during the Israeli attacks in the summer.

But I do take issue with them resigning from the government. If their allegiance is with a united Lebanon, they should find a way to carve out a constructive role in this government.

We need to continue moving forward.

I'm fearful of the security situation deteriorating, but I don't think we are headed to civil war.

I think the world community showed us in the summer that nobody stands by Lebanon.

The US' so-called support of democracy didn't come through this summer, did it?

Gemayel Assassination -- A False Flag Op?

On November 2, we ran a piece entitled White House Lebanon Coup Plot Bullshittery.

The gist of the story was that the White House was saying that Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran, or some combination thereof, were plotting a coup against Lebanon's democratically elected government.

At the time, Hezbollah was considering launching street protests to pressure the Lebanese parliament to grant veto power over government decisions to the Shiite coalition.

It seemed that the White House didn't know the difference between a coup d'etat and organized political demonstrations aimed at bringing down a government or forcing a change in policy.

Typical administration incompetence, one would have thought.

Syria and Hezbollah are being blamed for yesterday's assassination of Pierre Gemayel, of course. This fits perfectly into the anti-Syria and anti-Iran information operations we have seen over the last year.

Syria, prior to Gemayel's assassination, was in a rather strong position in the region -- being the newfound diplomatic interlocutor of choice in Iraq.

This development must have really galled Israel.

Yesterday's assassination is a really sinister development in light of the White House "coup" statement early this month.

Given that neither Syria nor Hezbollah nor Iran would have shared with the U.S. any plot they may have entertained to kill Gemayel as part of a coup (if that's what it is), a cynical international type might wonder who gave the White House the heads up.

Or if there is a false-flag operation being conducted.

Pentagon's Iraq Options Study Tries To Polish The Proverbial Turd

These are the type of recommendations that could be expected from earnest military advisors who are asked to present palatable options for an untenable situation to political leaders who are unaccustomed to (and unwilling to psychologically accept) the taste of defeat.

The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.

Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said.

The military's study, commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, comes at a time when escalating violence is causing Iraq policy to be reconsidered by both the White House and the congressionally chartered, bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Pace's effort will feed into the White House review, but military officials have made it clear they are operating independently. ...

"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.

The sources insisted on anonymity because no one at the Pentagon has been permitted to discuss the review with outsiders. The review group is led by three high-profile colonels -- H.R. McMaster and Peter Mansoor of the Army, and Thomas C. Greenwood of the Marine Corps. None of them would comment for this article. ...

"Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.

The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.

Any plan to temporarily raise troop levels will not lead to "victory." No competent authority can make a plausible case that the additional forces could accomplish in a short time frame what the occupation has been unable to do so far--the disarming of militias, defeating the Sunni insurgency, etc.

The suggested "surge" in force level is purely for public relations purposes. Most importantly to convince the American public that the coalition is somehow still within grasp of something that can be portrayed as "victory."

Surging at this point would be militarily ineffectual -- and a transparent ruse -- easily understood as such by the Iraqis.

The "go long" option does not appear to be conducive to the bolstering of sectarian reconciliation. Or probably even to the goal of compelling the Iraqi political leaders to focus their minds on an effort to create what we desire to be a country not hostile to U.S. interests in the region.

CIA Finds No Evidence Of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program

A classified draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter is reporting.

Seymour Hersh, in an article in the New Yorker to be posted tomorrow on the magazine's website, examines the White House desire -- regardless of Iranian capabilities -- to attack Iran before George W. Bush leaves office.

The Administration's planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined to comment on this story.)

The C.I.A.'s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for comment, was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites, and on other empirical evidence, such as measurements of the radioactivity of water samples and smoke plumes from factories and power plants. Additional data have been gathered, intelligence sources told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection devices that clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near suspected nuclear-weapons facilities inside Iran in the past year or so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were found.

A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the C.I.A. analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it. The White House's dismissal of the C.I.A. findings on Iran is widely known in the intelligence community. Cheney and his aides discounted the assessment, the former senior intelligence official said. "They're not looking for a smoking gun," the official added, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning. "They're looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission." The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency also challenged the C.I.A.'s analysis. "The D.I.A. is fighting the agency's conclusions, and disputing its approach," the former senior intelligence official said. Bush and Cheney, he added, can try to prevent the C.I.A. assessment from being incorporated into a forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities, "but they can't stop the agency from putting it out for comment inside the intelligence community." The C.I.A. assessment warned the White House that it would be a mistake to conclude that the failure to find a secret nuclear-weapons program in Iran merely meant that the Iranians had done a good job of hiding it. The former senior intelligence official noted that at the height of the Cold War the Soviets were equally skilled at deception and misdirection, yet the American intelligence community was readily able to unravel the details of their long-range-missile and nuclear-weapons programs. But some in the White House, including in Cheney's office, had made just such an assumption -- that "the lack of evidence means they must have it," the former official said.

Bush, Always The Statesman

A typically unseemly spectacle was occasioned by George W. Bush -- in Hanoi -- expounding on the "lessons" learned by the United States from the Vietnam War.

Comparing America's defeat in Southeast Asia to the misadventure in Iraq, Bush stated that we now understand that "We'll succeed unless we quit."

I can only imagine what Bush's Vietnamese hosts were thinking, knowing from their experience that the president was completely full of shit.

Beyond asserting a questionable premise, W's lack of diplomatic savoir-faire left something to be desired.

It was as if the Japanese Prime Minister was to visit Washington and convey his nation's regrets that they hadn't replicated their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on other strategic U.S. targets, or mention that Tokyo should have defended the home islands better in the final months of the war.

No Unbridled Optimism From Intel Bosses

The current estimate of the situation in Iraq from the directors of the CIA and DIA:

"The longer this goes on, the less controlled the violence is, the more the violence devolves down to the neighborhood level," (Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the CIA director) added. "The center disappears, and normal people acting not irrationally end up acting like extremists."

Although the Bush administration continues to emphasize the role of al-Qaeda in Iraq, (Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the DIA director) described the current situation as "mostly an intra-Arab struggle to determine how power and authority will be distributed," with or without the U.S. presence. Al-Qaeda and foreign terrorist numbers were put at roughly 1,300, while Hayden, pressed by senators, estimated the number of insurgents in the "low tens of thousands." Maples estimated the number of Iraqi insurgents, including militias, at 20,000 to 30,000, and said there are many more who supply support.

Asked about the brazen kidnapping in Baghdad on Tuesday of some 100 employees in the Sunni-led Ministry of Education by an apparent Shiite group in commando uniforms using Interior Ministry vehicles, Hayden said the CIA station chief in Iraq said it showed that the battlefield "is descending into smaller and smaller groups fighting over smaller and smaller issues over smaller and smaller pieces of territory." ...

The Shiites, who make up more than half of Iraq's population, now want to make certain they control the new Iraqi government and to assure themselves that the Hussein group never regains power. "This fear of a return to Baathism is almost palpable among Shia elites," Hayden said.

As a result, the Shiites have maintained control of the Interior Ministry and the police. "Militias often operate under protection or approval of Iraqi police [when they] attack suspected Sunni insurgents and Sunni civilians," Hayden said. In addition, "radical Shia militias and splinter groups stoke the violence."

At the same time, Hayden said, there are fissures within the Shiite groups, and their "power struggles . . . make it difficult for Shia leaders to take actions that might ease Sunni fears." Adding to the problem is Iran, which is supporting even competing Shiite factions. "Iranian involvement with the Shia militias of all stripes . . . has been quite a new development," Hayden said.

Iraq's Shiite Government "Standing Up, So We Can Stand Down"

Today's gesture towards reconciliation in Iraq:

The Iraqi government on Thursday ordered the arrest of the country's most influential Sunni cleric for allegedly inciting violence and supporting terrorism, a move by the Shiite-led administration that could inflame the sectarian tensions already disfiguring the capital and other parts of Iraq.

Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani declared on state television late Thursday that an arrest warrant had been issued for Harith al-Dhari, leader of the Association of Muslim Scholars, one of the most outspoken defenders of Iraq's minority Sunni Arabs after the U.S.-led invasion. ...

Dhari, a vocal critic of the Shiite-led government and its American backers, travels frequently outside Iraq and could not be reached for comment Thursday. He was believed to be in neighboring Jordan.

"The warrant that was issued is evidence that this government has lost its balance and that it is announcing its bankruptcy," Mohamad Bashar al-Faidy, a spokesman for the Association of Muslim Scholars, which represents Iraq's Sunni clergy, told al-Jazeera television Thursday night. ...

While Sunni Arabs revere Dhari, Shiite political leaders describe him as a hard-liner who is deepening sectarian divisions with his caustic rhetoric and vocal support for the Sunni insurgency.

Alaa Maki, a prominent Sunni political leader, said late Thursday that the arrest warrant suggested that the government was "ignorant politically" or had an agenda. "It's a politically weak decision coming from a weak government," said Maki, a senior official in the Iraqi Islamic Party, a leading Sunni Arab group. "It comes at a time when we need to calm down the situation, when we need to minimize tensions."

Anybody But Rumsfeld, Say Democrats

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Senate Democrats could find themselves walking a fine line as the chamber takes up Defense Secretary nominee Robert Gates, weighing the value of regime change at the Pentagon after six stormy years of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against their new position of power as an incoming majority.

The dozen sitting Democrats who voted against Gates when he took over as CIA director in 1991 face a particular challenge as they re-examine old allegations about Gates's role in intelligence-gathering during the Iran-Contra affair. Several CIA colleagues came forward then to charge Gates with twisting intelligence to fit the White House agenda, criticism that had derailed an earlier Gates bid to head the agency.

The Senate's Democratic majority ended up confirming Gates in 1991, with eight members who are still serving voting yes -- including new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Yet, those 12 Democratic votes against Gates in 1991 appear to set little precedent for Senate Democrats ready to replace Rumsfeld's combative and closed leadership style with Gates, a former member of the independent Iraq Study Group that will soon weigh in on the Iraq war policy.

The first senator to reveal that he would reverse an old vote against Gates was Joseph Biden Jr. (D-Del.), who told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that a desire to change course in Iraq would overcome his former skepticism about Iran-Contra.

"To put it very, very bluntly, as long as he's not there, Rumsfeld is there," Biden said.

Another Democrat who had opposed Gates's CIA bid, Sen. Max Baucus (Mont.), then attributed his vote to unanswered questions about Gates's politicization of intelligence, a charge reminiscent of some war critics' view that the Bush administration "cherry-picked" intelligence to justify invading Iraq.

...

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who will take over the Intelligence Committee next year, gave a floor speech against Gates in 1991. Rockefeller said in a statement last week, however, that choosing Gates to head Defense "may signal that [Bush] is searching for a realistic and pragmatic approach in Iraq and the war on terror."

Other Democrats set to become committee chairmen in January voiced discontent 15 years ago over Gates's role in sharing intelligence with Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980s war with Iran, including Sens. Edward Kennedy (Mass.) and Tom Harkin (Iowa). Seven other sitting Democrats voted against Gates then: Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), John Kerry (Mass.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), and Paul Sarbanes (Md.). Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), who, like Sarbanes, is retiring this year, also voted against Gates.

Gotta Keep The Cuban-American Exiles Happy

Receipts? I don't provide no stinking receipts.

Nearly all of the $74 million a federal agency has spent on contracts to promote democracy in Cuba over the past decade has been distributed without competitive bidding or oversight in a program that opened the door to waste and fraud, according to a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office. ...

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who requested the audit along with Rep. William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.), said the lack of oversight and the failure to follow government rules led to creation of a money trough that existed largely to provide jobs and operating funds to Miami-based activists who oppose Cuba's communist government.

"I think that this administration and to some extent the last wanted simply to curry favor with the Cuban American exile community," Flake said. "It's been kind of a bipartisan thing, and you haven't had anybody really challenge it. We just kind of turned away." ...

Flake and Delahunt chair the bipartisan Cuba Working Group, which has pushed unsuccessfully for changes in long-standing travel restrictions and economic sanctions -- tightened by the Bush administration -- that prohibit sending virtually anything to Cuba. "What is striking about this," Flake said of the democracy program, "is we're basically spending money to beat our own embargo."

Under Clinton-era legislation, USAID distributes money to U.S. groups to send surreptitious aid -- including food, medicine and office supplies -- to Cuba and non-monetary assistance to political dissidents and independent journalists trying to operate within the island's tightly controlled communist system. The administration has promised an additional $80 million in funding over the next two years and expanded the program to include detailed plans for a transition to democracy in Cuba. Planning has accelerated with President Fidel Castro's relinquishment of power to his brother, Raul. Although the official Cuban government position is that Fidel Castro is recovering from surgery and will return to office, U.S. intelligence officials have said they believe he has terminal cancer.

President Orders Another Iraq Policy Review

President Bush may have determined from the substance of the questioning he received a few days ago from the Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton Commission) that the commission may be reaching negative conclusions about the Iraq endeavor, and thus, a second opinion may be necessary.

President Bush formally launched a sweeping internal review of Iraq policy yesterday, pulling together studies underway by various government agencies, according to U.S. officials.

The initiative, begun after Bush met at the White House with his foreign policy team, parallels the effort by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to salvage U.S. policy in Iraq, develop an exit strategy and protect long-term U.S. interests in the region. The two reviews are not competitive, administration officials said, although the White House wants to complete the process before mid-December, about the time the Iraq Study Group's final report is expected.

The White House's decision changes the dynamics of what happens next to U.S. policy deliberations. The administration will have its own working document as well as recommendations from an independent bipartisan commission to consider as it struggles to prevent further deterioration in Iraq.

"The president has asked all his national security agencies to assess the situation in Iraq, review the options and recommend the best way forward. The ISG report will be duly considered, and we look forward to their recommendations, as the president has always said," a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the new initiative has not been announced. ...

The White House review could give the administration alternatives so that it feels less pressure to fully implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report, foreign policy experts said. ...

The administration said its review is not a response to the imminent report of the study group, which is led by James A. Baker III, who was secretary of state under George H.W. Bush, and Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat and former chairman of what is now the House International Relations Committee. ...

The administration's new review "was not done in response to the ISG, but it came about as a result of everybody looking at facts on the ground," a State Department official said. But the administration is basically trying to do in one month what the ISG has done over eight months.

The review will knit together separate efforts that have been underway at the State Department and the Pentagon over the past six weeks, U.S. officials said. It will also include reports by the CIA and the National Security Council. National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley will oversee the expedited review and integrate the various papers, officials said. ...

One component of the larger effort is likely to be a military review initiated in mid-September by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. ...

But the military is keeping close control over its review, which "is completely separate from the Iraq Study Group and not connected with any political effort that might also be going on. This is the chairman's. . . . There is no intent for it to be folded in or incorporated in someone else's bigger product," the joint staff spokesperson said.

Gates Said Planning To Limit DOD HUMINT Activities

The nomination of Robert M. Gates as secretary of defense has begun to ease concerns in the intelligence community about the rapid growth of Pentagon intelligence activities since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said experts inside and outside the government and on Capitol Hill. ...

In 1991, after being confirmed for the dual role of director of central intelligence and CIA director, Gates tried to rein in Pentagon activities by getting a White House directive from then-President George H.W. Bush that created the Community Management Staff to help oversee all intelligence activities. A CIA history of that period says Gates, whose background was as an analyst, saw the Defense Intelligence Agency "as 'feeling [its] oats' and 'moving to expand in every direction,' including pushing some 'crazy ideas' " on the collection of human intelligence. ...

More recently, Gates watched Rumsfeld create the position of undersecretary of defense for intelligence, whose role is to coordinate and expand worldwide military intelligence activities in the post-Sept. 11 world. In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post in May, Gates wrote that he and other CIA veterans were "unhappy about the dominance of the Defense Department in the intelligence arena" at a time when "close cooperation between the military and the CIA in both clandestine and intelligence collection is essential." ...

One quick indication of how Gates will deal with interagency tensions will be whether Rumsfeld's undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Stephen A. Cambone, and his top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, remain in their current positions. They have backed the growth of the Counterintelligence Field Activity, the controversial new agency that in three years has spent nearly $1 billion to gather data to be used in the protection of defense facilities at home and abroad.

Both have supported the increased roles for the military in sending Pentagon intelligence collectors abroad to gather information that could be needed if military operations against terrorists were initiated in various countries. Some conflicts arose in past years when Defense agents turned up in countries without notice to U.S. ambassadors and CIA chiefs of station.

The word is that Cambone is definitely going, and most likely Boykin, too.

Rumsfeld Cancels Planned Trip With Bush

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has dropped plans to join President George W. Bush at a NATO summit this month in Latvia, in light of his announced resignation, a Rumsfeld spokesman said Monday.

The Pentagon will instead be represented at the meeting by Eric Edelman, the undersecretary of defense for policy, according to Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Karen Finn. Other officials had said earlier Monday that Gordon England, the deputy secretary of defense, might fill in for Rumsfeld at the summit meeting.

The NATO summit is Nov. 28-29 in the Latvian capital of Riga. ...

The Pentagon has refused to release the letter of resignation that Rumsfeld submitted to Bush. Ruff said Rumsfeld did not mind if the White House released it. At the White House, spokesman Gordon Johndroe said there was no plan to release it.

Ruff said Gates and Rumsfeld might have a discussion later this week about the coming transition, but he had no specifics.

On the day Bush announced Gates as his choice to replace Rumsfeld, Gates called England and asked him to remain as the No. 2 at the Pentagon, according to an official who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity. England agreed to stay for an indefinite period, the official said.

Other senior Pentagon officials, however, are expected to leave. None has publicly announced a departure plan.

South Korea Refusing To Go Along With U.S. Searches Of North Korean Ships

South Korea is worried about Kim Jong Il's possible reaction to Washington's plan to search North Korean ships for prohibited weapons.

The South Korean government is set to announce on Monday that it will not expand its participation in the US-led proliferation security initiative (PSI) despite North Korea's nuclear test last month.

The decision, based on Seoul's fears that increased confrontation at sea could lead to military conflict, will disappoint Washington as it presses for a tough, united response to the North's test.

Members of the United Nations will report on Tuesday how they plan to implement Resolution 1718, which calls for countries to stop cargo going to and from North Korea in order to check for weapons of mass destruction or related supplies, bans trade in heavy conventional weapons and luxury goods and urges countries to freeze funds connected with North Korea's non-conventional arms programmes.

As part of its deliberations on the resolution, Seoul has been considering whether to join the PSI, which it currently observes, under indirect pressure from the US. Both Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, and Robert Joseph, undersecretary for arms control, are understood to have asked, in a roundabout way, for South Korea to sign up fully.

However, South Korea, which favours "kid gloves" treatment of its northern neighbour, is worried that its participation could antagonise Pyongyang and perhaps even lead to war.

Does He Expect Anyone To Take Him Seriously?

"And years from now, when America looks out on a democratic Middle East growing in freedom and prosperity, Americans will speak of the battles like Fallujah with the same awe and reverence that we now give to Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima."

George W. Bush, at the dedication of the National Museum of the Marine Corps. Quantico, VA. Nov. 10, 2006

Big Trouble In Pakistan's Tribal Areas

The word in security circles in Washington is that the attack upon the madrassa was indeed conducted by the U.S..

Two months ago, Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, triumphantly announced a peace pact with Islamic extremists in the North Waziristan tribal district near the Afghan border, saying he hoped it would become a model for curbing domestic Islamic militancy and cross-border insurgent attacks in Afghanistan.

Today that model lies in shreds. Northwestern Pakistan's fragile political peace has been shattered by two devastating attacks: a government missile strike that killed 82 people at an Islamic school in the Bajaur tribal district on Oct. 30, and a retaliatory suicide bombing Wednesday that killed 42 army recruits at a training camp in the Malakand tribal district.

The missile strike was based on U.S. intelligence reports that the school was being used as a training site for Islamic insurgents, who have found sanctuary across the semi-autonomous tribal areas where Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda figures may also be hiding. Now, officials are predicting a new wave of violence, as anti-government anger spreads and religious extremists call for holy war against the Pakistani military and Western forces fighting in Afghanistan.

"This is a disaster. We all recognize the gravity of the situation," said a senior military official in this northwestern provincial capital, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It's a nightmare to have an army being attacked on its own soil and by its own people." After the two incidents, he added, "the doors to peaceful negotiated settlements are closed. I am afraid we are on a war course in the tribal areas."

Public condemnation of the missile attack has been almost universal in Pakistan. Many people say they believe it was actually carried out by a U.S. Predator drone, which witnesses described as circling overhead before Pakistani helicopter gunships arrived. U.S. and Pakistani officials have denied that. ...

Pakistani military and intelligence officials said they had little choice but to bomb the site after they received overwhelming proof from U.S. intelligence sources that it was being used as a training center for insurgents. A refusal to act, the Pakistanis said, would have badly damaged their relations with the United States, which counts Pakistan as a key ally in the war against al-Qaeda and fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.

"They loaded us with evidence. The strike was absolutely inevitable," said a senior intelligence official, also speaking on condition of anonymity. Another official called the attack a "major test" of military and intelligence cooperation between the United States and Pakistan. "We thought about other options, but the Americans weren't ready to take any chances," he said. "We were caught between the devil and the deep sea." ...

(T)he growing violence has led to urgent calls for mass tribal conflict-resolution meetings, known as jirgas. Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently proposed a series of jirgas in both countries, and the Awami National Party, which represents the ethnic Pashtuns who predominate in Pakistan's northwest, has called for a separate tribal jirga. Party leaders say the only antidote to Islamic radicalization is the ancient tribal code known as Pashtunwali, which prescribes consensual pacts to halt feuds. ...

Ansar Abbasi, Islamabad bureau chief for the News International newspaper, called the Bajaur attack "outrageous" and argued in a column that while it might have raised Musharraf's tough-guy image in the West, it served no national interest and could only exacerbate conflict between the army and the civilian populace. "Have we not fallen into a U.S. trap?" he asked.

One political leader in Peshawar said the Bajaur site was definitely a terrorist base but that it was not "politically correct to say so" in the region. Bajaur elders had reached a peace accord similar to the Waziristan pact, he said, but the missile strike came just hours before they were to sign it. "People find this mind-boggling and impossible to understand," he said.

Gates To Clear Rumsfeld Allies From Pentagon

Robert Gates as DCI allowed the community's analytical product on the Soviet Union to be tailored to meet the customer's political needs, which is pretty egregious for a career DI officer (intelligence analyst).

That's one reason why I am not as enthusiastic as some at his nomination as Rumsfeld's replacement.

Robert M. Gates, President Bush's choice to become defense secretary, has sharply criticized the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war and has made it clear that he would seek advice from moderate Republicans who have been largely frozen out of the White House, according to administration officials and Mr. Gates's close associates.

The administration officials said that Mr. Bush was aware of Mr. Gates's critique of current policy and understood that Mr. Gates planned to clear the "E Ring" of the Pentagon, where many of Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's senior political appointees have plotted Iraq strategy. ...

Mr. Gates, 63, has not tipped his hand on the changes he would favor, and several officials said they now expected him to recuse himself from the study group's deliberations, because he would have to advise Mr. Bush about which of the recommendations to accept. But several administration officials said they saw his appointment as part of a carefully orchestrated course change in which Mr. Bush fired the man who became the symbol of resistance to changes of tactics and hired one of his critics.

It's more likely that Gates' appointment is part of a "carefully orchestrated" public relations offensive to bolster American support for the war.

This is because President Bush is advertising his openness to advice on a change in Iraq policy -- as long as any change is toward "victory" in Iraq -- a concept that is problematic at best at this point.

On Thursday morning, Mr. Bush said, "I'm open to any idea or suggestion that will help us achieve our goals of defeating the terrorists and ensuring that Iraq's democratic government succeeds."

The White House Explains Bush's Prevarication About Rumsfeld's Future

Sure, I believe you, dad. But do you think mom will buy it?

The impending resignation was so closely held that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, did not learn of it until Mr. Rumsfeld called him 45 minutes before it was announced. The White House was also wary about how the news might affect the election.

"It’s like when you get asked about the dollar," one senior White House official said in describing why Mr. Bush gave no hint of the resignation when asked directly about it last week. "If you don’t give the same answer every time, the markets move."

U.S. Diplomats Receive Instructions On Dealing With Media

Karen Hughes, the State Department's undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, sent a long memo to chief diplomats, top deputies and public affairs officers worldwide Friday, spelling out "Karen's Rules" for working with the media.

SUBJECT: ALDAC [All Diplomatic and Consular Posts] Speaking on the Record

---

1. Last year, I sent out a message detailing some guidelines for speaking on the record and engaging with media. With the launch of our regional hub effort, it is especially timely to reissue this message so that my policy on this is crystal clear. I also want to reiterate up front that media outreach, especially television interviews, should be a top priority in mission activities and when developing the schedules for visiting USG [U.S. government] officials.

2. I want you to know that my office and I are here to support you as you go out and do media. I know that doing any media, especially television, is a challenging endeavor. But it is a challenge we must address in order to effectively advocate our policies to foreign audiences. I also believe it is critical for Chiefs of Mission to get out on the media and to support their staff who do appear on television. When you do media, the stakes are high, but it's important. No one is perfect and there is always the chance that any of us will occasionally make mistakes -- that doesn't mean we should stop appearing on television or participating in press conferences. We need people out there giving our side of the story. The real risk is not that we occasionally misspeak, it's that we miss opportunities to present our views, and leave the field to our critics and detractors.

3. During my recent trips and meetings with many of you, I have heard concerns about problems with getting clearance to speak on the record to reporters. I promised I would send out a message clarifying my policy on this issue, and providing what I hope is clear guidance for you all in dealing with the press. In this message, I want to share "Karen's Rules" in the hope that you all will have a better idea of what I expect, and how you can react.

4. Rule #1: Think Advocacy. I want all of you to think of yourselves as advocates for America's story each day. I encourage you to have regular sessions with your senior team to think about the public diplomacy themes of each event or initiative. As a communicator, I know that it is important to get out in front of an issue or at best have a strong response to a negative story. One of my goals during my tenure at the State Department is to change our culture from one in which risk is avoided with respect to the press to one where speaking out and engaging with the media is encouraged and rewarded. I want you out speaking to the press, on television interviews preparing and executing a media strategy, and providing our points on issues. As President Bush and Secretary Rice have stated, public diplomacy is the job of every ambassador and every Foreign Service Officer. We want you out there on television, in the news, and on the radio a couple of times a week and certainly on major news stations in your country and region.

5. Rule #2: Use What's Out There. You are always on sure ground if you use what the President, Secretary Rice, Sean McCormack or Senior USG spokesmen have already said on a particular subject. I always read recent statements by key officials on important subjects before I do press events. My Echo Chamber messages are meant to provide you clear talking points in a conversational format on the "hot" issues of the day. You never need clearance to background a journalist though you should certainly pay careful attention to how your comments may be used.

6. Rule #3: Think local. Because your key audience is your local -- or regional -- audience you do not need clearance to speak to any local media, print or television. And, you do not need clearance to speak to media in your country, even if it is US based or from a US publication, if you are quoting a senior official who has spoken on the record on a particular subject. The rule of thumb to keep in mind is "don't make policy or pre-empt the Secretary or a senior Washington policy-maker."

7. Rule #4: Use Common Sense to respond to natural disasters or tragedies. You do not need to get Department clearance to express condolences in the event of a loss, or express sympathy and support in response to a natural disaster. Obviously in the latter case do not commit USG resources for support or relief without approval from the Department; but do not wait for Department authorization to offer a statement of sympathy unless the individual or incident is controversial. Your regional hubs can help you in these instances as well.

8. Rule #5: Don't Make Policy. This is a sensitive area about which you need to be careful. Do not get out in front of USG policymakers on an issue, even if you are speaking to local press. When in doubt on a policy shift, seek urgent guidance from your regional hub, PA [public affairs] or your regional public diplomacy office. Use your judgment and err on the side of caution.

9. Rule #6: No Surprises. You should always give PA a heads-up in the event that you speak to U.S.-based media. This ensures that those who should know are in the loop on what is happening.

10. Rule #7: Enlist the help of the hubs (for those who have regional media presence) or my office if you don't get a quick response for clearance or help. The hub network is an extension of my staff, and we are here to support you in your efforts to get the USG position on the record and out in the media. Both Sean McCormack and I are committed to making sure you have what you need to advocate a US position on the key issues at your post.

11. I know this is a departure from how you all have operated over the years. But forceful advocacy of US interests and positions is critical to our effort to marginalize the extremists and share a positive vision of hope for all countries and people. I encourage you to take advantage of opportunities to speak out, and look forward to our aggressive promotion of US policy.

1999 Study Saw Need For 400,000 Troops To Succeed In A Future Iraq War

From The National Security Archive:

In late April 1999, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), led by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.), conducted a series of war games known as Desert Crossing in order to assess potential outcomes of an invasion of Iraq aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein. The documents posted here today covered the initial pre-war game planning phase from April-May 1999 through the detailed after-action reporting of June and July 1999.

The Desert Crossing war games, which amounted to a feasibility study for part of the main war plan for Iraq -- OPLAN 1003-98 -- tested "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios of a post-war, post-Saddam, Iraq. The After Action Report presented its recommendations for further planning regarding regime change in Iraq and was an interagency production assisted by the departments of defense and state, as well as the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency, among others.

The results of Desert Crossing, however, drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the immediate possible outcomes of such action. Some of these conclusions are interestingly similar to the events which actually occurred after Saddam was overthrown. The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.

The Desert Crossing report was similarly pessimistic when discussing the nature of a new Iraqi government. If the U.S. were to establish a transitional government, it would likely encounter difficulty, some groups discussed, from a "period of widespread bloodshed in which various factions seek to eliminate their enemies." The report stressed that the creation of a democratic government in Iraq was not feasible, but a new pluralistic Iraqi government which included nationalist leaders might be possible, suggesting that nationalist leaders were a stabilizing force. Moreover, the report suggested that the U.S. role be one in which it would assist Middle Eastern governments in creating the transitional government for Iraq. ...

The planning done at the Defense Department changed Zinni's original conception in some fundamental ways. For example, Zinni proposed a civilian occupation authority with offices in all eighteen Iraqi provinces, whereas the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was actually established only in Baghdad.

(T)he former CENTCOM commander noted that his plan had called for a force of 400,000 for the invasion -- 240,000 more than what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved. "We were concerned about the ability to get in there right away, to flood the towns and villages," USA Today quoted Zinni as saying in July 2003. "We knew the initial problem would be security."

Military Seeks To Double Spending On Wars

Good thing that they are holding this request until after the midterm election.

Given such a increase in costs, voters might be tempted to question the necessity of the whole Iraq adventure.

The military services and defense agencies have requested as much as $160 billion in supplemental spending for the remainder of fiscal 2007 -- a staggering figure that would bring wartime costs this year to $230 billion, defense sources said Friday.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has not yet approved the requests and does not plan to make a final decision until Nov. 15, one week after the midterm congressional elections. But should Rumsfeld sign off on the proposals, a move that defense analysts consider highly doubtful, it would double wartime expenditures from last year's totals.

The services' requests, first reported by InsideDefense.com, also would make total fiscal 2007 supplemental spending equal to more than half of the regular fiscal 2007 defense budget. The Army and Air Force requested $80 billion and $50 billion, respectively, for the last half of fiscal 2007, sources told CongressDaily. The Navy and Marine Corps appear to have submitted smaller requests.

Congress already has appropriated a $70 billion bridge fund to cover the war costs for the first several months of this fiscal year, $20 billion more than the Bush administration proposed last February in its fiscal 2007 budget request.

Several senior lawmakers, including Senate Budget Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., have become increasingly frustrated by the Defense Department's reliance on massive emergency spending bills, which bypass the authorization committees.

Military officials, too, have expressed concern that emergency spending hinders their ability to do long-term budget planning and, ultimately, could drive up costs of weapons systems.

"For all its flaws, [the Pentagon] used to have the most disciplined and orderly long-term budget planning process" in the federal government, said Gordon Adams, Office of Management and Budget associate director of national security during the Clinton administration. "This kind of practice over the last five years has killed it."

Bush Admits Iraq War Is About Oil

I thought that the Iraq war is not about oil. At least that's what the White House has insisted all along.

Not any more.

As he barnstorms across the country campaigning for Republican candidates in Tuesday's elections, Bush has been citing oil as a reason to stay in Iraq. If the United States pulled its troops out prematurely and surrendered the country to insurgents, he warns audiences, it would effectively hand over Iraq's considerable petroleum reserves to terrorists who would use it as a weapon against other countries.

"You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources," he said at a rally here Saturday for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). "And then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following. And the following would be along the lines of, well, 'Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.' "

Bush said extremists controlling Iraq "would use energy as economic blackmail" and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be "able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel." ...

Some analysts, however, said that Bush is exaggerating the impact of Iraq's oil production on world markets. Iraq has more than 112 billion barrels of oil, the second-largest proven reserves in the world. But it currently pumps just 2.3 million barrels per day and exports 1.6 million of that, according to the State Department's tracking report on the country, still short of what it produced before the invasion.

That represents a fraction of the 85 million barrels produced around the world each day and less than the surplus capacity of Saudi Arabia and other Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, meaning in a crisis they could ramp up their wells to make up for the shortfall, analysts said. The United States also has 688 million barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, enough to counter a disruption of Iraqi oil for 14 months.

Even if Iraq did not sell oil to the United States, it would not matter as long as it sold it to someone because the international market is fungible and what counts is the overall supply and overall demand, according to analysts. If Iraq cut off exports altogether, it still would not have the dire effect on the world market that Bush predicts, they said. ...

The world, in fact, has already seen what would happen if Iraqi oil were cut off entirely, as Bush suggests radicals might do. Iraq effectively stopped pumping oil altogether in the months immediately after the invasion. And yet the price of oil has never topped $80, much less come anywhere near the $300 or $400 a barrel Bush cited as a possible consequence of a radical Iraqi regime withholding the country's oil.

"They're a minor exporter," said Edward Morse, managing director and chief energy economist at Lehman Brothers. "They have potential to be a greater exporter. But it's ludicrous to suggest someone could hold the world hostage by withholding oil from the market, especially a regime that needs money."

Red State Babylon

From Red State Babylon, by James Wolcott:

If the blue states are sinkholes of moral decay, as right-wing pundits insist, how come red states lead the nation in violent crime, divorce, illegitimacy, and incarceration, among other evils? To a bus-riding innocent on Manhattan's stroller-filled Upper West Side, it looks like a case of hypocrisy meets stupidity. ...

In contemporary lore, the good people of the red states walk in Jesus's sandals while the rest of us are following Satan into the licking flames. Twenty-plus years of conservative propaganda have convinced millions of Republicans and their pet Beltway pundits that they inherited the legacy of frontier values and dwell in baptismal light, unlike modern Democrats, who crawled out from under rocks and prefer the ambiguous dark, where there's no right or wrong, only "personal choices." Newt Gingrich once spouted that Susan Smith's murder of her two children in 1994 was a sign of the evil that liberal Democrats had wrought: "I think that the mother killing the two children in South Carolina vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things.... The only way you get change is to vote Republican." ...

It isn't the cultural bastions of the blue states such as the Upper West Side that are greasing America's slide into the disco inferno. It's the Republican red states that are lowering the country's moral standards and dragging us through muck and malaise, the red states that are pustulating with horny hypocrites, rampant crime, polygamy, crystal-meth labs, federal handouts (The Economist recently christened Alaska "America's welfare state"), illegitimate births, blimping waistlines, and future generations of dumb bunnies. JonBenet Ramsey, dolled up and immortalized in her beauty-pageant footage, is the pre-pubescent red-hot-mama mascot of red-state Babylon. ...

Under Karl Rove's sorcerer's spell, Republicans learned how to exploit the intelligence gap, herding the dopey faithful to the polls, and depending on their docility between elections. "Karl Rove was there to recognize that there were substantial powers to be obtained by catering to stupid stubborn people, and George W. Bush would be the man to harvest such resources," Norman Mailer brilliantly proposes in The Big Empty (a series of dialogues between Mailer and son John Buffalo). "George W. understood stupid people well. They were not dumb, their minds were not physically crippled in any way. They had chosen to be stupid because that offered its own kind of power. To win a great many small contests of will, they needed only to ignore all evidence. Bright people would break down trying to argue with them." It's like trying to reason with a box of rocks.

SIGIR Gets Pink-Slipped

Eagle-eyed readers of this blog are familiar with Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR). The last time we discussed the office was when the right-wingers in Washington were blaming the auditors themselves -- and not the crooked contractors and their Washington enablers (to say nothing of the security nightmare) -- for the faltering reconstruction program in Iraq.

It turns out that SIGIR was a little too good at ferreting out malfeasance, and is being shut down by the Republican congress.

Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen's supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation. ...

"It appears to me that the administration wants to silence the messenger that is giving us information about waste and fraud in Iraq," said Representative Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat who is the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform.

"I just can't see how one can look at this change without believing it's political," he said.

The termination language was inserted into the bill by Congressional staff members working for Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and who declared on Monday that he plans to run for president in 2008.

Mr. Holly, who is the House Armed Services spokesman as well as a member of Mr. Hunter's staff, said that politics played no role and that there had been no direction from the administration or lobbying from the companies whose work in Iraq Mr. Bowen's office has severely critiqued. Three of the companies that have been a particular focus of Mr. Bowen's investigations, Halliburton, Parsons and Bechtel, said that they had made no effort to lobby against his office. ...

But in Congress, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle, there have long been accusations that agencies controlled by the Bush administration are not inclined to unearth their own shortcomings in the first place.

The criticism came to a head in a hearing a year ago, when Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, induced the Pentagon's acting inspector general, Thomas Gimble, to concede that he had no agents deployed in Iraq, more than two years after the invasion.

A spokesman for the Pentagon inspector general said Thursday that Mr. Gimble had worked to improve that situation, and currently had seven auditors in Baghdad and others working on Iraq-related issues in the United States and elsewhere. Mr. Gimble was in Iraq on Thursday, the spokesman said.

Mr. Bowen's office has 55 auditors and inspectors in Iraq and about 300 reports and investigations already to its credit, far outstripping any other oversight agency in the country.

White House Lebanon Coup Plot Bullshittery

The White House is trying a last minute gambit to direct the attention of American voters to the hostile Middle East, and by extension to legitimize the U.S. presence in Iraq.

The White House said Wednesday that there was "mounting evidence" that Iran and Syria were involved in a plot to bring down the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora of Lebanon, but senior officials refused to describe in any detail the intelligence they said they had collected.

In an unusual statement, the White House said it was "increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hezbollah and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon's democratically elected government."

American officials said they had evidence that Syria and Iran were trying to engineer the creation of a new "unity" government that they could control, partly through Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shiite organization considered a terrorist group by the United States.

One senior American official, who declined to be identified by name because he was discussing an intelligence issue, said there were also indications of "planning for a more violent" attack on the government, but he gave no details.

The White House orchestrated information operation has its skeptics, including the intelligence community.

Intelligence officials said they think the White House statement was referring to Nasrallah's threat of widespread protests if Lebanese leaders fail to create a unity government. One official said that although U.S. intelligence officials think Nasrallah would like more power and Syria would like a friendlier Lebanese government, there are no signs of an impending coup.

Blair in Secret Overture to Damascus

Tony Blair, Britain's prime minister, has launched a secret diplomatic move to prise Syria away from its support for radical Middle East groups and policies.

In an initiative that departs from the US policy of isolating Syria, Mr Blair this week sent Sir Nigel Sheinwald, his most senior foreign policy adviser, to Damascus where he met Bashar al-Assad, the president, and other senior figures in the regime.

Downing Street and the Syrian government confirmed on Tuesday night that Sir Nigel, one of Mr Blair's closest aides, met Mr Assad on Monday.

The UK and Syria have maintained diplomatic relations but Sir Nigel's visit is the most high-level encounter between the UK government and the Assad regime since the Iraq war in 2003. The mission precedes a visit to the region that Mr Blair hopes to make before the year's end.

Downing Street insisted the visit did not mark any change of strategy by the UK towards Syria. The US and the UK continue to believe Mr Assad is backing insurgent groups in Iraq, and meddling in Lebanon and the occupied Palestinian territories -- charges Syria denies.

However, Mr Blair -- now in the final months of his premiership -- wishes to use these "back channel" talks to test whether the Syrian regime is serious about seeking to play a constructive role in Middle East peace negotiations with Israel. Britain would also like to see Syria rethink its close alliance with Iran.

Mr Blair once placed high hopes on the British-educated Mr Assad but the UK has found Syria an unwilling ally in its Middle East goals. ...

The initiative puts Britain out of step with current Bush administration thinking, though the US said it had been advised in advance of Mr Sheinwald's visit.

Rumsfeld Didn't Get The Memo

Yesterday Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki demanded that U.S. troops cease their cordon operation around Sadr City -- and the U.S. complied.

Donald Rumsfeld -- never the most reality-based member of the administration -- yesterday approved a plan to expand the size of the Iraqi Army.

Nobody appears to have told him that U.S. influence in that beleaguered country is not what it was a few short months ago.