Kidnapper President Posted by Michael Signer

On the revelation that Iran's new President may have been an organizer of the 1980 hostage-taking in Tehran, I have to disagree with my friend Kevin Drum, who writes:

I'm not sure that this really matters a lot, since Ahmadinejad has been routinely described as ultra conservative all along and it's pretty obvious that neither he nor the clerics who actually run Iran have any love lost for the United States. But it's an interesting tidbit anyway and I thought you might be interested.

Well, I completely disagree.  I side with Laura Rozen, who writes, "It's hard to imagine that US-Iran relations could get much worse but this would be the kind of historical irony that could do it." 

On reflection, I'm concerned less by what this signifies of any further intentions by (this may have been Kevin's point) Ahmadinejad, than by how the Administration will react to this predicament.  Especially with an Administration possessed with all the nimble diplomatic skills of, say, William Wallace, Ahmadinejad's past is going to present a terrible challenge. 

Ahmadinejad was already going to be a terrible pain in the ass.  The media has generally just described him as a "hard-liner," without going into specifics.  But look at a description in the Khaleej Times of a June 24th campaign rally for the "little street-sweeper":

British, US and Israeli flags had been painted on the ground at the entrance to the mosque so voters could sully them with the soles of their feet as they entered.

Ahmadinejad proceeded to praise the "martyrs of Islam" in his speech, as well as the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini." 

Well, so there's all of that, which could be interpreted (a) as raw affection for suicide bombing, (b) sheer pandering to the lower-class population that constituted his base, (c) a little bit of both. 

But, still, the picture may be more complex.  In his same speech, Ahmadinejad proceeded to extoll freedom.  Freedom, you say?  Really?  Just read what he said:

"Freedom is the spirit of the Islamic revolution and it is God's biggest gift to the Iranian nation.  We want to spread freedom in all aspects and we will have the biggest freedom in the spheres of economy, society, and politics.  Today the freedom in Iran is unique but compared to the desired freedom we are just the beginning of the way."

There are several ways to interpret these remarks:  (1) It's a whole-hearted lie, aimed at converting a popular sort of Western freedom-rhetoric in a media-sensitive age to soften Ahmadinejad's image, a little, (2) To Ahmadinejad, "freedom" is code for "rebellion against Western cultural decadence and political and military imperialism," and (3) There's actually a very subtle emerging doctrine of nativist nationalist Iranian/Islamic proto-democracy whose best aspects are worth cultivating by the United States. 

I think (3) is the answer, bolstered by a fascinating speech titled "Letter to Tomorrow" by Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Khatami, from this spring.  Khatami says (and apologies for the length quotation, but I think it's necessary to truly get the flavor of this new ideology):

Advancing toward a democratic system demands that a democratic culture be nourished. In our country, this culture can thrive and flourish by relying on Islamic justice and modesty, which have brought justice to the humanity, and have also been the factors contributing to the establishment and consolidation of democratic social relations, norms and practices and democratic political processes as well. It is left to our young generation to contemplate on the exiting historical situation and follow up its brave demand for establishment of a democracy compatible with its religion and culture; recognize both its resources and impediments and deal with them prudently. Democracy is a concept, a path and a process.

And then this passage on Iran’s resentment of outside influence.

A generation, which is agonized by dependence, which rightfully considers itself deserving freedom, without breaking away from its own national culture and religion and which is fearful and resentful of extremist and the narrow-minded moves that try to impose their violent and biased guardianship and volition on societies should be made to take charge of its own destiny lest deviated thoughts, narrow-mindedness and illusions hijack the great opportunity afforded to us, our Revolution and our noble people in this era. 

Ahmadinejad's victory speech makes a little more sense in light of his predecessor's remarks, which indicate some appreciation for the Western ideal of freedom, strained through the sieve of Iranian Islamist culture.  Ahmadinejad has already made some surprising overtures to the West,  politically, suggesting in his victory speech:

We are interested in protecting the rights of the Iranian people, and there is no one who can tell us not to use this technology. And if we look at this with mutual trust and understanding and if the European Union is committed to what they promised, we will continue our cooperation with them.

Based on all of this, there's a chance -- a small chance, granted -- that there's a narrow, brambly, but promising path for US-Iranian relations, focused on cultivating the intriguing hybrid of nativist self-respect; education; increasing secularization and a rolling-back of the clerics' institutional power; a growth in democratic institutions; growth in the lower-class, fanatic-breeding economy; and careful, deft diplomacy focused on carrots as well as sticks.

With some blend of these ingredients, there's a chance we could help this populist leader walk out of the wilderness and into the world.

But if we react to this hostage story -- as horrifying as it is -- with the President's customary sturm und drang, we're going to make things worse.

Democracy with Rice Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Condoleezza Rice's recent trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia is having quite a second life in the blogosphere.  You can start over at americansforrice.com and follow related links to find her fans hyperventilating over everything from her new haircut to her stance against all gun control.  (Next week, when my beloved is off work and caring for BloggerBabe, I will be trying to verify this site's claim that her father "hunted Klansmen, not ducks" -- count me politely skeptical for now.)

Exhibit B is a Weekly Standard piece by an ABC reporter who breathed deeply of the rarefied air on Air Force Two-and-a-Half, as we used to call the Secretary's plane.   He is positive, positive that no one has ever taken it to the Saudis like Secretary Rice.  He is struck, well, dumb by the sight of bright toenail polish on a Saudi woman reporter.  (Guess he's never read any of those trashy exposes on the lives of wealthy Saudi women, or he'd expect nailpolish...)

Finally we have the pile-on hapening over at America Abroad, where at last count something close to 30 posters had signed on to slam Anne-Marie Slaughter for suggesting that Rice's remarks in Cairo showed a welcome humility.

I'm struck by the contrast between the ABC reporter's breathy insistence that "Condoleezza Rice did something no US Secretary of State has ever done in the Middle East" and the equally fervent insistence of Slaughter's critics that Rice "lies through her teeth over and over again."

About that Cairo speech:  the Weekly Standard asserts that the White House sent senior adviser, former chief speechwriter, and acknowledged speech genius Michael Gerson along to help out the 25-year old speechwriter.  Call me cynical (maybe it comes from having been a 20-something writer on that plane once upon a time) but the speech is only average to good for Gerson's usual.  And it seems to have produced more rapture among Americans than among its intended Arab audience.  I would say that it appears to have been written more with an American audience in mind, but perhaps instead I should say "with an American mindSET." 

(Note to Christian Bale, the State Department speechwriter:  way to hang tough and get the stuff they cut from your draft into the media.  Bet your boss didn't appreciate that!)

AND not much in it is as new as the Administration would like you to believe.  Yes, the Administration is currently pressing Cairo and Riyadh more openly and vigorously than has been the case in a while.  For that they deserve credit.  But their mismanagement of Iraq, their lethargy on Middle East peace, and their inability to develop a serious energy policy, have at the same time left the US even more at the mercy of the "friendly" Arab despots than we were seven years ago, when Madeleine Albright created a similar fuss by descending to the Saudi tarmac in a vee-necked, knee-length dress and shaking hands with her Saudi counterparts.

I'm delighted to have our Secretary of State talking about all governments being "inherently imperfect" and recalling that the US has "no call for false pride and every reason for humility."  It's an invitation for the reformers we are trying to help to tell us what they really need, and ask us to stop sending what we think they need instead.  It's an invitation for others to call us on it when our humility falls short.

But all Secretaries of State learn, most of them painfully, that making elegant speeches in place of elegant policies only gets you so far.  The risk of being Secretary, especially, we've seen, of being a woman and/or minority Secretary, is that you are not merely a policymaker; you are a totem of all things great and good, all things American.  It starts to seem as if saying something can make it so.  Playing to that is tempting; being judged for it later, excruciating.

Iraq: Peace Process or Bust Posted by Lorelei Kelly

With the White House still linking Iraq to 9/11 and an "Out of Iraq" group forming in Congress--our war policy at the moment is not a real discussion between the left and the right but a rhetorical battle between the leftovers and the righteous. No elected leaders yet have an enduring strategic plan for ours and Iraq's future. The one glimmer of creative possibility in this bleak landscape has been recent news about the US military initiating talks with the Iraqi resistance. Hala Jabar, reporting for the Sunday Times of London writes: 

The talks appear to represent the first serious effort by Americans and Iraqi insurgents to find common ground since violence intensified in the spring.

Kudos to the military for taking this important first step. Now the question is how can we support this initiative with a comprehensive and coordinated peace process for Iraq?  Patrick Doherty has some excellent suggestions based on Northern Ireland's experience.. We don't lack for solid baseline knowledge and good advice. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals in the United States and around the world who are specialists in conflict resolution and who have on the ground experience engineering processes that shift the critical mass of a population toward stability instead of violence.  The 1990's provide several examples.

We need to pull together our military and civilian experts on peace processes--plus individuals from academia and the non-governmental world--to jointly develop a plan to shift the critical mass in Iraq. One British organization, Conciliation Resources, even specializes in engaging armed groups. Although difficult to countenance and always controversial, non-state armed groups are often central figures in conflict resolution.  In the last two decades, armed groups have participated in peace processes on every continent, resulting in a wealth of experiences of dialogue and peace negotiations. So we have a large menu of formats and ground rules to choose from. The criteria for the stakeholders should be anyone who could be a spoiler. There are limits to participation, however. As Robert Dreyfuss writes, Zarqawi jihadists are irredeemable and would never be allowed.

And these conflict resolution folks aren't namby pambies living in academe--most are on the ground practitioners. Some have been kidnapped, held hostage, threatened and otherwise endangered on their missions. They are serious peace-ninjas. They know how to recognize the auspicious signs of a workable peace and they know when to call it off.  Recommendations for steps forward in Iraq are plentiful. A comprehensive peace process could draw on different individual ideas...say Richard Clarke's notion of rapid response garrisons combined with social recovery lessons learned in the Balkans.

Back to elected leaders: focussing on withdrawal instead of a real strategic plan is just wandering close to the ethical black hole without stepping off the edge.  I don't know many progressives who honestly rule out some level of military presence in Iraq to protect the civilian population.  In fact, if we are to remain--it will be with mostly military personnel. But our military does more than kill people and break things. It also knows how to build.  Seeing the military as a talented resource for a negotiated peace is what progressives must  learn to do.  Conservatives, on the other hand, must accept that we need to take steps that they might deem distasteful or ideologically unfit--like negotiating with insurgents.

There is still time to steer Iraq in the direction of hope and opportunity.  But Americans have to stop with the strategy of killing Iraqis and begin the hard and risky work of negotiating with them.  It can be done.

Bush Speech: Scorecard Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Let's measure Bush along the criteria laid out the other night:

#1 - Willingness to Face Reality About Conditions on the Ground: A-. The speech was less upbeat and sugarcoated than expected.   Impression was that we're in a very tough struggle.

#2 - Honest Appraisal of Iraqi Security Forces: B. Here, too, I don't think Bush gave us a lot of reason for false optimism.  But even his somber assessment did overstate the facts.

#3 - Characterization of the Insurgency:  C.  By conflating the insurgents with al Qaeda Bush made out as though the battles in Baghdad are a kind of retaliation for 9/11. 

#4 - Rejection of Partisanship: B.  He did avoid partisanship, but he tacitly accused those with misgivings about staying the course as weak-willed and unpatriotic instead of acknowledging that events have given rise to legitimate concerns.

#5 - A Commitment to Stronger Support for U.S. Troops: D.  Bush urged flag-waving and letter writing, but said nothing about doing more to tangibly support military families or veterans.  This was a surprising gap and will hurt efforts to heighten public support.

# 6 - A Plan to Buttress Flagging Military Recruitment Efforts: D.  Bush flat-out denied that we need more troops, claiming that the generals don't want 'em.  He did appealed for people to enlist; but why should they when we've got all the boots we need?

# 7 - A Plan to Win:  F.  I am surprised and concerned that Bush didn't have more to offer.  The 3 steps he outlined are all retreads.  Moreover, the first two are essentially the same.  He said nothing about attracting foreign troops, denying that this is even a problem (for the sobering facts about everyone from Spain to the Kingdom of Tonga pulling out on us, see here).  There was nothing significant about bolstering the training effort, the reconstruction progress, or the political process.  He simply urged the country to stay what a growing number of Americans believe is a failing course.

#8 - An Honest Assessment of Why Iraq Matters: D.  Bush gave some legitimate rationales for staying in Iraq, including that we need to show we're prepared to see things through and that a stable Middle East - if achievable - will have deep and broad benefits.  But he recycled the long-discredited claim of a link between 9/11 and Iraq and sought to sidestep the fact that it is our war that has made Iraq a terrorist hotbed.  Very misleading claims that the public is highly dubious about.

We also published a Top 10 List of Things To Do and Not To Do in Iraq:

On the list of "To Do's" its apparent there are 3 Bush doing little or none of:  1) Finding ways to get other countries a lot more involved; 2) Expanding the UN's role; and 4) Rethinking the risk-reward calculus for our military.  The picture is better when it comes to 2) Investing in long-term training of the Iraqi military.  On 5) Investing in understanding the insurgency there's reason for skepticism given Bush's insistence on lumping all terrorists together with al Qaeda.

On the list of "Not To Do's" Bush is right on in terms of 1) Refusing to announce a timetable for withdrawal.  He's unaccountably failed to 2) Announce that the U.S. does not seek permanent bases in Iraq.  Though he claims that increasing the # of U.S. troops would send a troublesome signal in terms of our intent to remain, he won't do the obvious and make it clear that we plan to ultimately leave Iraq to the Iraqis. 

On 3) misleading the public about how the war effort is going Bush gets mixed marks, though somewhat improved after tonight.  On 4) letting money be an obstacle one wonders why nothing new for our troops was announced tonight.  On 5) overstating prospects for Iraqification, the absence of a plan to draw in further foreign commitments does suggest just this.

The Vietnam Analogy Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I can't help it -- did anyone else have chills during the description of US advisers (sorry, I've forgotten the term Bush used, which wasn't advisers) living, working and fighting with Iraqi troops?

I yield to those who remember Vietnam...

Utterly Predictable Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Well, President Bush should get a little bump from his speech tonight -- or maybe not if everyone is watching dating shows instead -- but I can't see his remarks turning anything around absent better news on the ground.

After reminding progressives not to be surprised by the Administration's continued willingness to politicize 9-11, I confess to being surprised that a 9-11 scare spiel was used as the opener instead of a list of good news.  Were I writing such a speech, I'd have led with the good news -- of which there is some -- to encourage Americans that there is a light at the end of this tunnel, even if I'm not willing to put a timetable to it.

Instead we got determined gloom, doom, and sacrifice -- for armed forces members and their families, that is.

Which brings me to my other bit of surprise -- that Bush made little effort to milk his military setting, except at the end.  That he got 27 minutes in without a round of applause from the military audience really surprised me.  The remarks were written more like an Oval Office address, with few applause lines.  I listened on the radio, so perhaps I missed the visuals.  But then, with limited tv coverage, most Americans did too.

In sum, again, I don't think this turns the page or changes the subject.

Live Blogging Post V Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Equating weakness on Iraq with weakness in the face of 9/11.  See Derek's point below.

Asking Americans to fly flag on Independence Day, send letter to a soldier, etc. on americasupportsyou.mil - I do think its important to find a way to give the public more active in demonstrating support.

He's thanking military families and soldiers.  Will he commit to do anything more for veterans in terms of benefits, etc.? 

He's urging people to enlist - - let's watch the recruitment numbers after the speech.  One interesting measure of how all this is going down.

Rather abrupt ending saying god bless the military.

My gut feeling/initial response?  A powerful speech, but nothing really new on how we're gonna win this or what the plan is.  Conflation of 9/11 and Iraq will be greeted with skepticism.  I don't think it will yield a sustained shift in public opinion if results don't improve on the ground.

Tears? Posted by Michael Signer

Wow.  He almost cried there at the end.  Did anyone else see the corners of his mouth turn down repeatedly?  Don't know what to make of that -- except he's probably less cool and collected about this than we think.  I bet he's torn up.  I bet this has been a hell of a lot harder than he thought it would be and he's desperately concerned about his Presidency.  As he should be.

Fatal Flaw Posted by Michael Signer

The entire speech treats terrorists in Iraq as something that existed before the war, that motivated the war, not as something that's resulted from the war.  This is just crazy.  It doesn't acknowledge any forward threats -- only looks backward.  What's the vision, if we believe the terrorists in Iraq were why we went there??? 

Incredible, the fog of war. 

Live Blogging IV Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Acknowledging that we want our troops to come home.

Rejects artificial timetable, which I agree with, largely for the reasons he cites.  But he should go on and say we have no intention of maintaining permanent bases in Iraq.

He's saying the commanders on the ground don't need/want more troops.  Reports suggest this is not true. 

He's claiming sending more Americans would imply that we don't intend to turn this over to the Iraqis and we don't intend to stay permanently . . . but why doesn't he just state unequivocally that we don't intend to stay permanently.  A clear statement would clear it up, yet Bush leaves this deliberately ambiguous.

He's saying that Iraq's progress is being felt across Middle East.  Libya, Palestinian territories, Lebanon.  No reference to Iran, of course.

Bring 'Em On II? Posted by Michael Signer

Live-blogging now...

Anyone else feel uncomfortable with the repeated "They failed to do X," "They failed to do Y"? 

I understand the President is talking about their "strategic objectives."

But, ironically, it comes off not as understanding the terrorists' strategy, but rather as an over-emotional formulation, like a taunt, like the Bush team has personalized the threat of Iraq a little too much, formulating the enemy as personal enemies...

The risk is that by making the challenge so personal and fraught with anger, it becomes a challenge, not a cool statement of superiority. 

How would you feel as a terrorist watching right now?  Like you'd been defeated?  Or like you'd just been given a new standard to meet?  (And that's NOT "therapy" for them  -- that's cool, tough strategy, thank you very much).

Live Blogging III Posted by Suzanne Nossel

He references 30 countries in the coalition, the UN's role and the international pledges for aid and rebuilding.   If only all these elements were truly solid.

Training of the Iraqi forces comes fairly late on the list of accomplishments, which seems to reflect some sense of reality . . . he acknowledges they're not fully capable or independent, which is good.

To complete mission, we'll:

- hunt down insurgents

- keep Iraq from being a safe haven for terrorists

- help Iraq to build freestanding nation that can defend itself

He talked of the influx of foreign fighters - - tacit admission that Iraq has become a terrorist proving ground under our watch.

NATO military academy near Baghdad.

He's emphasizing foreign contributions to the training effort . . . today Kerry referenced some contributions we've turned down.

3 new steps

- partnering coalition and Iraqi units - this does not sound new at all since the Iraqis haven't been able to operate effectively on their own

- embedding coalition "transition teams" inside Iraqi units - sounds a lot like #1

- working with interior and defense ministries on anti-terror operations - we've been in the ministries (essentially running many of them) since the occupation began.  again, curious what's new here.

Live Blogging Post II Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Foreign fighters are aligned with remnants of Saddam's regime.

He quotes Bin Laden saying "whole world is watching war" and it will end with victory or defeat.  I think there's some truth to that portrayal - Bush seems to agree too.

I think it is important to characterize the enemy in the way he does - not just as ordinary Iraqi civilians turned sour on the U.S.

He says they've failed to force a mass withdrawal by our allies - unfortunately, they've come far too close for comfort on that score with Spain, Ukraine, etc. withdrawing from the mission.

Now he's touting all the things he promised to do a year ago  . . . clear he's about to claim victory on all those goals.  This will ring false.

He's calling elections free and fair . . .

Congratulating himself on the rebuilding effort . . .

He did at least characterize progress as "uneven" - kinda like the Fonz admitting to a mistake.

President Bush's Speech - Live Blogging Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Already conflating 9/11 terrorists with Iraqi insurgents . . .

References post 9/11 commitment to "take the fight to the enemy" and describes Iraq as the latest battlefield.  This is precariously close to saying 9/11 was the rationale for invading Iraq

There he said it - defeating them there before they attack us here.  He's quoting General Vines, who clearly got the talking points.

No acknowledgement yet that all is not going swimmingly  . . . oh, there it is - mission is difficult and dangerous.  He "sees pictures" of the bloodshed (shouldn't he see more than pix - victims, etc.)?

A Big Speech -- For Bush, and for Us Posted by Derek Chollet

A few weeks ago we were calling for a serious discussion about what do to next in Iraq, and for progressives to, ahem, MoveOn from the sole obsession with what happened three years ago and the Downing Street memo, etc. Well, we wanted a debate, and thanks to the American people -- whose concerns have been expressed during the past few weeks in poll after poll – we got one.  That’s why the White House had to scramble to get the President on the airwaves tonight.  This will be right up there with January’s State of the Union as one of the most important speeches of Bush’s second term so far.

Obviously the President’s performance this evening will shape the contours of what comes next (just as an aside, I think it is absolutely appalling that the networks are balking at giving him the airtime – we are at war, and they worry about interrupting some episode of Survivor or Dancing with the Stars?).  He’ll likely make a strong presentation for how difficult things are and call for toughness and patience in the days ahead – and saying so in front of hundreds of cheering troops from Ft. Bragg, it will make for a powerful image.  Remember, it may seem amazing to those of us who do nothing more than sit behind desks all day, but morale among the troops in Iraq is quite high.  My guess is that we’ll hear a lot less “last throes” happy talk, but also get a more toned-down version of what Rove said last week in New York: basically the going is tough and it’s time for the tough to get going -- and we’re tough, they’re not.

As for the progressive response in this debate, by and large I think it has been extremely smart and effective.  Biden’s speech last week was a tour de force --outlining a strong critique as well as showing that there can be an effective, and bipartisan, way forward -- and so far Democrats on the Hill (mainly in the Senate caucus) have resisted the temptation to call for anything resembling a pullout.

But my concern is that what we won’t hear from Bush tonight – a timetable for turning things over to the Iraqis (in fact, we’ll hear the opposite, a full-throated argument for why this is a bad idea) – will only increase the pressure within progressive circles and their among leaders to outline a real alternative to Bush, and let’s face it, the only thing that does not look like just tweaks on his policy is a timetable for withdrawal.

Pressure for this has been burbling for awhile, especially among the activist crowd and even in policy circles.  We see this idea embedded in John Kerry’s otherwise fine oped in the New York Times today.  Buried in the middle of the piece, he writes:

“The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.”

Bush is not going to do that tonight.  Now there’s a lot of nuance and caveats in what Kerry writes, and the general thrust of it is sensible: the more capable the Iraqis become, the less we need to be there.  But I fear that what progressives will rally around is the first sentence only – to set a timetable for withdrawal.  There is already work being done among some serious folks in our leading think tanks to outline a plan to do just that. 

On policy grounds, I am genuinely torn about this idea, but on political grounds I have a clear conclusion.  It seems to me that whatever these efforts to establish a timetable come up with, all their nuance and serious thinking will get lost in translation, and what the public will hear (and what the Republicans will promote) is one simple headline: “Democrats Outline Plan to Withdraw from Iraq.” 

Is that what we want?  We have to think long and hard about this one. 

Iraq - 8 Things to Listen for During Bush's Iraq Address Posted by Suzanne Nossel

This week President Bush will launch a PR offensive to rebuild public support for the war in Iraq with a speech during primetime on Tuesday night.  As misleading and disengenous as I have found most of the Administration's efforts to influence public opinion (think WMD, Social Security,  etc.) I actually think this is important. That's because, given the choices, achieving a stable Iraq in the next couple of years, if it's possible, would be a better outcome than withdrawing now, seeing that country descend to chaos, and having America's credibility as a military force undercut. 

But to succeed, the war will need higher levels of public support.  And any PR bounce achieved through a whitewash of the facts will be short-lived and will ultimately boomerang.  As discussed on Belgravia Dispatch and as Ivo Daalder points out at America Abroad, a major reason that support for the war is eroding is precisely because people feel misled about why we got in, how it's going, and how we're gonna get out.

Accordingly, there are a bunch things we all ought to be listening for when Bush addresses the nation on Tuesday night.  These will signal not just whether the PR push will work but may also reveal how the war effort is being handled and whether the Administration has what it takes to put us on a path to succeed.  If the subterfuge and misrepresentations continue, public backing for the war effort will slip, and we'll need to look again at whether a pull-out may be the best of a handful of unappealing options. 

What to listen for on Tuesday:

1.  Willingness to Face Reality about Conditions on the Ground. Will Bush admit how tough things are right now in Iraq, or does he continue to pretend he knows something that the global media, our commanders on the ground, and the cold hard stats on casualties don't? 

2. Honest Appraisal of the Iraqi Security Forces. If Bush argues that this is a short-term push before we turn things over to a rebuilt Iraqi security apparatus that will itself defeat the insurgency and let us go home, he is not being realistic. The numbers so far make this a Pollyanna scenario, at least for the next few years.  Bush needs to talk frankly about the challenges of building up Iraqi forces.

3.  A Characterization of the Insurgency. One difficulty in sustaining support for the war is the opacity of the insurgents.  Are these hardened terrorists who loathe America? Nationalists who want political power? Ordinary citizens frustrated by the occupation? Foreign provocateurs? All of the above? Is the insurgency in its last throes or likely to last for years (Rumsfeld has said both in recent weeks).  Particularly now that we're apparently in talks with the insurgent leadership, Bush needs to say something about who these people are.

4. A Rejection of Partisanship. Karl Rove's craven attempt to divert attention from dwindling support for the botched Iraqi operation revealed just how panicked conservatives have become.  That kind of desperation will not make for sound leadership on Iraq or anything else (as Kos points out, the attempt at diversion through random finger-pointing is no longer even confined to Democrats).

5.  A Commitment to Stronger Support for U.S. Troops. Bush needs to address how he is going to ensure that members of the armed services do not get shortchanged on the length and frequency of their deployments or the benefits they receive.

6.  A Plan to Buttress Flagging Military Recruitment Efforts. Staying, much less strengthening, the course in Iraq depends on being able to continue to recruit enough troops.  This has become a huge problem.  It also affects the military's long-term effectiveness, and its real and perceived ability to handle another crisis (never mind problems like forest fires).  Americans are worried about recruitment and a possible draft. Bush needs to confront this real concern.

7.  A Plan for Victory. Bush has to explain how we get from here (mounting attacks, a vigorous insurgency, too few boots on the ground and no prospect for more) to an Iraq that's stable (never mind democratic) enough to allow the Americans go home. Will we attract foreign troops? Put more Americans on the ground (and if so who and how)? Expedite the training effort somehow? He needs to outline this vision step by step, explaining why his plans are realistic.

8.  An Honest Assessment of Why Iraq Matters. The notion that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq to avoid fighting them at home was spurious when Bush first said it. Now, given the value of the American invasion and occupation as a recruitment tool for terrorists, that claim has lost all credibility. If Bush repeats this meaningless mantra, his message will fall flat. Even worse would be to revert, as Bush has in recent days, to the assertion of a link between Saddam and 9/11 -- claim so thoroughly discredited that even Bush himself disavowed it. Bush needs to explain why Iraq now matters on its own terms.

Iraq Hits the Blogfront Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Philip Carter at Intel-Dump has been an occasional sparring partner for us here (e.g. here).  I don't know Philip but this afternoon I received an email from him saying he's been transferred from the ready reserve to the 101st Airborne Division and is headed to Iraq.  His post announcing this is here. 

Philip's not the first person I know who has since 9/11 been yanked out of what I consider to be total normalcy and deployed to a frightening frontline.  Every time it happens it evokes a nervous, unsettled feeling both for the individuals involved and their families, and in relation to what it means for America to be at war. 

As you know I am not of the view that the Iraq Operation is an irrecoverable failure.  But it is a daunting and dangerous challenge and right now its tough to say whether we will be able to succeed, or whether the best option may ultimately be to leave even without some assurance that Iraq will be stable.  May thoughts of Philip's redouble the efforts being made in the blogosphere to make sure our troops have the support they deserve, that U.S. policy is sound and smart.

I wish Philip a safe and successful tour of duty and a swift return home.  He will be on my mind whenever we talk about Iraq.

War Spending vs. Safety at Home Posted by Lorelei Kelly

It's hard to talk about government priorities these days without falling into the old Cold War framework of Guns versus Butter....This framework is indeed obsolete.  Just helping our military services to build back basic and elementary equipment is going to be very expensive over the coming years. You can support a healthy and strong defense however, and still decry the amount we're spending on President Bush's vanity war. The war supplementals are fair game for a priorities debate.  Especially when Halliburton contiues its gargantuan and non competitive contract rip-offs of our soldiers and our taxpayers. (keep your eye on that link for more hearings on Iraq contracting)

The cost of the war in Iraq is creeping into all of our domestic budgets. These budets are political documents (and moral documents as Jim Wallis of Sojourners has pointed out). I would argue that some of the items cut relate directly to our ability as a nation to protect ourselves over the long term in a post-9/11 security environment.

Let's have a look at this week's H.R. 3010 - Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education Appropriations Act for FY06.  These figures reflect the budget that came to the floor of the House of Representatives the week of June 20th.

International Labor Affairs (86.7% cut);  These are the public servants who care about things like child labor and corporate social responsibility.  Such nags!

For hospital emergency preparedness grants (3% cut) ; Duct tape and plastic sheets, people!

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (4.6% cut); West Nile what?

Education: No Child Left Behind (3.3% cut / $13.2 billion below its FY06 authorization level and a $40 billion cumulative shortfall since the enactment of NCLB);   They should be home-schooled anyway.

Education Technology grants (39.5% cut); Because our future competitiveness is SO important.

Give me a break.