I get letters, I write letters back. Here's a snippet of todays:

Dear Congressman Henry Brown, Jr.

I've just received and read your defense of shock-jock Rush Limbaugh -- a man with "strong ideological leanings" -- regarding his labeling of anti-war soldiers as "phony."

Your defense of the pundit is weak and, frankly, embarrassing (at least for your supporters). You claim Rush was speaking of Jesse MacBeth and not any number of soldiers who would question the policies of your party, our president and people who share "strong ideological leanings" such as your own. Well, that's what Fox News 'reported' (possibly stretching the meaning of that word past the max). When Rush first used the name Jesse MacBeth on the 26 September 2007 show, it was nearly 2 minutes after he used the phrase "phony soldiers." In several calls in subsequent minutes and days he continued to use his new attack rhetoric numerous times. For example, in a 28 September 2007 broadcast, Rush expanded his group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran, and your colleague, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp (who is currently serving in Iraq). These men are both anti-war and, therefore, to Rush and many sharing "strong ideological leanings" they are "phony soldiers". Finally, If Rush was talking about this one soldier -- Jesse MacBeth -- he would have been quoted as calling him a phony soldier since he is but a single man.

I don't accept your response nor do I appreciate your defense of a man such as Rush Limbaugh. He is no better than the folks at Move On who questioned the political intentions of a military general in a similarly inflammatory way. I'm embarrassed that you stooped to this level to protect such a man.

...

Labels: Henry Brown, politics, Rush Limbaugh, South Carolina

Malcolm Nance, an adviser on terrorism to the Department of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, was a witness and supervisor to "hundreds" of waterboarding training exercises at the US Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School. The practice of waterboarding, he concludes, "is a torture technique – period" noting that the practice does not simulate drowning but actually introduces water into the lungs.

The practice involves strapping the person being interrogated on to a board as pints of water are forced into his lungs through a cloth covering his face while the victim's mouth is forced open. Its effect, according to Mr Nance, is a process of slow-motion suffocation.

The practice Bush administration officials refuse to take responsibility for, despite praising its effects in the field, is thought of by Nance as "controlled death."

Labels: Bush, conservative, DHS, foreign policy, politics, torture, US

Nearly two months ago South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham made the presumptuous projection that "[w]ithin the next weeks, not months, there will be a major breakthrough on the benchmarks regarding political reconciliation." Unfortunately Graham's prediction was incorrect.

Fast-forward seven weeks to the recently released Government Accountability Office report which notes that legislation promoting political reconciliation between disparate Iraqi sects still has not been passed. Additionally, the report concludes the Iraqi government has not taken advantage of the lull in violence and that hope was dwindling "for achieving current U.S. security, political and economic goals in Iraq."

While US politicians and pundits make wild predictions and the US military works hard to make them come reality, senior Iraqi politicians are scoffing at the very idea of political reconciliation. Iraqi press observer Marc Lynch notes that Prime Minister al-Maliki recently "mocked calls for national reconciliation and dismissed those calling for such reconciliation as conspirators."

Labels: GAO, Iraq, Lindsey Graham, Maliki, politics, reconciliation

Marc Lynch passes along this discouraging, though not surprising, snippet from the Iraqi press:

Speaking of exposed nerves, the Iraqi newspaper al-Zaman reported yesterday that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki mocked calls for national reconciliation and dismissed those calling for such reconciliation as conspirators. Yes, I anticipate rapid progress on the national reconciliation front. What could possibly go wrong?

Indeed...

Labels: Iran, Iraq, Kurd, politics, reconciliation, Shiite

It's truelly painful to witness.

Our conservative politicians, desperate for something to distract the public from the horrendous reality that is the Republican party, have recoalesced into the shortsighted idiots that caused the occupation of Iraq back in 2002-2003... and the media in large part is right there with them. We have a few months of below average violence and we're on the cusp of victory in Iraq? What planet are you people on? Truth is we've done little there since January and the Iraqis have done less.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today frames this truism nicely. We've surged and therefore there should be less violence (check!) and political reconciliation (ehhhh!). Who in their right mind would begin arguing that the surge has been a success at this point. To me, it's pretty obvious that we're stuck back in January at the latest.

I've heard some conservatives claim that the Democrats will "change their minds" about Iraq. They may, but not because the 'we're winning' claim is correct, but because that's what most Democrats do: The majority of them are weak. A strong Democrat, a progressive Democrat, would take the argument and beat the offending conservative over the head with it. The point of the surge was to secure a portion of Iraq to allow for political reconciliation. There has been absolutely nothing on this point of reconciliation, period. Not even a hint. Therefore the surge is failing. Plenty on action condemning some of our unaccountable mercenaries (which should be our responsibilities), but none on reconciliation. That's a pretty big point.

An appropriate reading of the mentioned GAO goes like this:

The U.S. and Iraqi governments have failed to take advantage of a dramatic drop in violence in Iraq, ... prospects [are] waning "for achieving current U.S. security, political and economic goals in Iraq."

Iraqi leaders have not passed legislation to foster reconciliation among Shiite Muslims, Sunnis and Kurds, and sectarian groups still retain control of ministries and divide Iraqi security forces...

Moreover, the Bush administration's efforts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq are plagued by weak planning, a lack of coordination with the Iraqi government and among U.S. agencies, and an absence of detailed information on "the current and future costs of U.S. involvement in Iraq,"...

"U.S. efforts lack strategies with clear purpose, scope, roles and performance measures," ...

The findings raise questions about whether the increase of U.S. troops that began last February will ultimately achieve the goal of giving Iraqi political leaders enough of a respite from violence that that they can work to resolve Iraq's many problems.

:::

This is a time for serious assessment of the problems at hand, and our leaders and our media are being feed numbers to claim progress? We were told there would be legislation, words, agreements, photo ops. We haven't got much time left to hold the lid on Iraq. To claim victory is right around the corner is to assume the word victory will be redefined as "still stuck in the same place we were last year" by March '08.

[UPDATE] Marc Lynch shows concern about the ridiculousness of all this in a recent post:

Body counts are only one small part of a much larger puzzle. What I want to know is not the day to day casualty trends, or good news stories from some carefully selected hamlet, or the latest assassination of an Awakening shaykh. I want to know: does the devolution to the local level make strategic sense, even if it reaps short-term tactical sense? Towards what endpoint are the tactics leading? Do we want to see a unified Iraq with a sustainable political accord - the official goal of American policy, as Undersecretary of State Nick Burns reminded the DACOR audience yesterday? If so, are American political and military tactics encouraging or discouraging such an outcome? Those are questions that we could be discussing in this moment of relative American political respite, but there's really not much of it (a moment of self-criticism here: I suppose I should give credit to the Biden partition/federalism resolution effort, even though I strongly disagreed with it, for at least trying to raise such issues.)

Maybe that's because there is no possible winning strategy anymore, just better or worse tactics leading nowhere in particular. I understand the logic of the bottom-up reconciliation strategy quite well, thanks. I just see no evidence whatsoever that it is working: whether public opinion surveys, continuing refugee flows, or sectarian and confrontational political discourse. Yes, Ammar al-Hakim went to Ramadi, which is encouraging - but his mission failed... and if you look at what he was actually trying to sell to the Sunnis, you'd be less encouraged than some people have been by the atmospherics. Yes, Tareq al-Hashemi went to Sistani with his National Compact, but the Compact has gone nowhere. And so on. The national political level remains completely deadlocked, and the politicians seem to have lost whatever sense of urgency they felt back in August and September. And all of those politicians behave according to the logic of moral hazard that the US has created - since the Bush administration can't credibly threaten to escalate and won't threaten to withdraw, it has no leverage over any of them while protecting them from the consequences of their decisions. And even if those politicians did somehow magically come to agreement, their ability to deliver on any such agreement declines by the day.

Labels: conservative, foreign policy, Iraq, politics, Republican, surge

On 7 September, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) predicted that "[w]ithin the next weeks, not months, there will be a major breakthrough on the benchmarks regarding political reconciliation" in Iraq. This encouraging pronouncement was made at a friendly gathering at the American Enterprise Institute.

Days later while questioning General Petraeus, Senator Graham laid out sobering reality in American blood and treasure the stay the course strategy would cost.

So you're saying to the Congress that you know that at least 60 soldiers, airmen and Marines are likely to be killed every month from now to July, that we're going to spend $9 billion a month of American taxpayer dollars, and when it's all said and done, we'll still have 100,000 people there.

In the wake of the Petraeus testimony earlier this month, Senator Graham backtracked from "weeks, not months" to multiple months declaring that if the Iraqis "can't do it in 90 days ... it means the major players don't want to."

Since Senator Graham's first prediction of imminent progress on 7 September, few steps forward have been taken while setbacks have filled the narrative. The Iraq oil law, a major benchmark in the reconciliation process, appears to be collapsing. A high-profile Sunni tribal leader central to the "Anbar Awakening" strategy was assassinated just ten days after meeting with President Bush in Anbar province. A pentagon report highlights a "notable turn for the worse" in Southern Iraq. The deteriorating conditions may force the British troops to return to the strategic southern city of Basra. The goal to hand over security in all 18 provinces to Iraqis (originally set for this November but in June was pushed back to next March) has been postponed again until next July. A recent Shiite-Sunni reconciliation meeting of top leaders was interrupted by suicide bomber leaving at least 25 dead and 40 wounded. In a recent meeting between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki, benchmark legislation like the new oil law and tempered de-Ba’athification measures were replaced with questions of Iraqi sovereignty relating to the actions of private military contractor Blackwater USA and the "illegal" detention of an Iranian national in Northern Iraq.

While what Lindsey Grahams crystal ball predicted in terms of political reconciliation was erroneous, he was right about two things: there have been 59 US military fatalities so far this month and the latest budget requests for funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the largest since the 'war on terror' began six years ago.

Labels: foreign affairs, foreign policy, Lindsey Graham, politics, reconciliation, Republican, surge

The stay the course crowd who favor the presidents escalation policy in Iraq were given a tasty--but pointless--nugget today. This, of course, was used to continue their desperate attempts to inflate the successes of the "surge" and equate anyone analyzing the lack of progress in Iraq as anti-American terrorist supporters. The E & P story that brought this on says:

The [Gallop] poll of 1,012 adults, taken earlier this month, found that 47% give [Petraeus] a favorable rating, and only 21% unfavorable. The rest had not heard of him or had no opinion.

This is no surprise. Petraeus is a likable guy, a scholar, a patriot and has brought some welcome relief in Iraq; albeit years too late. From what I've read from his counter insurgency manual, he appears to be the man for this job. As I said in February, if we were able to give him what he needed and the Iraqi politicians deliver on reconciliation, we might actually be able to pull this thing off. I'd much rather Petraeus write the President's mid-September report on the escalation in Iraq than whoever the White House taps (Kagan, O'Hanlon?). However, there are two sides to every COIN (bad joke, sorry). The "[l]eft-leaning Editor and Publisher" errantly suggest that "his 'surge' report may gain support.

This is wrong for two reasons. First, The report is not his, it will be written by the White House. Much to the Administrations chagrin I'd imagine, Petraeus and Amb. Crocker will be able to testify in public, although before Bush's mid-September report is released. Next, a recent poll agrees with Gallops findings but uncovers that the American public aren't going to let a Petraeus' character interfere with their assessments:

Though 47% of Americans may like Petraeus, a majority does not trust he will be forthright in his assessment to Congress next month. Fifty-three percent expect him to try to make things sound better than they actually are...

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll also reports that 72% of Americans say the September assessment will not have any impact on their opinion on the war, no matter what Petraeus says.

Only seventeen percent of those who currently oppose the war say new developments could change their minds about it, along with 12% of those who support it. The vast majority report their opinions are set, however, with 47% staunchly opposed and 21% in support.

For those Americans who are still undecided and want a real report to assess and not a political document written by the White House, look for the GAO report September 1^st.

Labels: foreign policy, Iraq, Petraeus, politics, surge