Sanction This Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Rarely does a newspaper as good as the Washington Post manage to have three stories about one subject in one day and absolutely completely blow all of them.  But today they hit the trifecta with the Iran sanctions story.

First, the ed board piece.  This isn't shocking.  Fred Hiatt is often off the mark, but calling these sanctions part of a "diplomatic offensive" and saying they are a "welcome boost" is simply ridiculous.  I am not opposed to the sanctions on principle, but they need to be part of a broader diplomatic strategy.  The United States should be ratcheting up the pressure on Iran, but at the same time it should be maximizing the opportunities for agreement by offering more financial carrots or at the very least sitting down to talk with the Iranians about common interests and disagreements.  Instead, the administration sticks to its pigheaded approach of making bilateral talks conditional on the suspension of uranium enrichment activities.  It's been  five years people!  That policy has failed.  The sanctions would make a lot more sense if we knew exactly what we wanted to get out of them, or if the Iranians had a clear idea of what they would need to do to get rid of them.  But neither of those points are clear.  So the sanctions aren't going to do anything other than just escalate tensions.

Second, is a story talking about how the President is using sanctions as a way to prevent war and provide more flexibility for the next President.  I think he's doing just the opposite and inevitably locking the next President into a choice of accepting an Iran with nuclear weapons or trying air strikes.  The U.S. continues to twiddle its thumbs and refuses to talk to the Iranians as they build up their nuclear capabilities.  Everyday that the U.S. waits it loses leverage.  These sanctions only make the situation more complicated. Sanctions are very easy to slap on.  However, removing them will require the next President to get a major concession from the Iranians or face significant political heat at home. 

Finally, the Post dedicates an above the fold front page story to the fact that oil prices will rise if the U.S. attacks Iran.  In other news, humans walk on two legs and mint chocolate chip ice cream tastes both minty and chocolaty.

Homeland Insecurity: DHS prevented firefighting seaplane from entering US Posted by Max Bergmann

In some of the more shocking news of the day, NPR reports that...

A giant firefighting seaplane that was supposed to arrive from Canada Wednesday was temporarily held up by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Hmm... I guess that's what happens when you have too many liquids on board. Great work keeping America safe DHS.

2004 all over again? Petraeus abandons strategy to keep casulaties down Posted by Max Bergmann

Fred Kaplan in his war stories column connects the dots...

So, what accounts for the decline in American deaths since the summer? It's hard to say for sure, but one little-reported cause is almost certainly a shift in U.S. tactics from fighting on the ground to bombing from the air.

An illustration of this shift occurred on Sunday, when U.S. soldiers were searching for a leader of a kidnapping ring in Baghdad's Sadr City. The soldiers came under fire from a building. Rather than engage in dangerous door-to-door conflict, they called in air support. American planes flew overhead and simply bombed the building, killing several of the fighters but also at least six innocent civilians. (The bad guy got away.)

In other words, though the shift means greater safety for our ground troops, it also generates more local hostility.

As I wrote yesterday, the quadrupling of airstrikes, along with the continued use of overly aggressive security contractors, totally undermines a counter-insurgency approach that emphasizes "protecting Iraqis." It seems that Petraeus has quietly abandoned his strategy in favor of the 2004 focus on force protection that got us nowhere.

So what exactly is Petraeus doing? Is this just another example of a sycophant General so concerned with public opinion that he is abandoning his stated strategy? At the very least he should explain why airstrikes have quadrupled.

Strategic Solvency Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

When I was at Columbia Richard Betts was one of the most popular professors there (And my personal favorite).   His piece on military spending in this month's issue of Foreign Affairs is simply superb and another example of his ability to take conventional wisdom and turn it on its head with simple rational arguments. 

Betts argues that military spending has gotten completely out of control because of overinflated fears. 

In recent years, U.S. national security policy has responded to a visceral sense of threat spawned by the frightening intentions of the country's enemies rather than to a sober estimate of those enemies' capabilities and what it would take to counter them effectively.

He also argues that a strategy based on benevolent American hegemony is a silly idea that would realistically cost trillions. 

The last two U.S. presidents, finally, have embraced ambitious goals of reshaping the world according to American values but without considering the full costs and consequences of their grandiose visions. The result has been a defense budget caught between two stools: higher than needed for basic national security but far lower than required to eliminate all villainous governments and groups everywhere.

His take on what terorrism means for military spending

With rare exceptions, the war against terrorists cannot be fought with army tank battalions, air force wings, or naval fleets -- the large conventional forces that drive the defense budget. The main challenge is not killing the terrorists but finding them...It does not require half a trillion dollars' worth of conventional and nuclear forces.

Betts also has a great response for those who argue that we need to prepare for China.

Although military rivalry with China is more likely than not, it is not inevitable, and it is not in U.S. interests to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy -- something that premature or immoderate military initiatives targeted at China could achieve. There will be time to prepare before such conflict begins in earnest...The correct way to hedge against the long-term China threat is by adopting a mobilization strategy: developing plans and organizing resources now so that military capabilities can be expanded quickly later if necessary. This means carefully designing a system of readiness to get ready -- emphasizing research and development, professional training, and organizational planning.  Deferring a surge in military production and expansion until then would avoid sinking trillions of dollars into weaponry that may be technologically obsolete before a threat actually materializes. (The United States waited too long -- until 1940 -- to mobilize against Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. But starting to mobilize in 1930 would have been no wiser; a crash program in aircraft production back then would have yielded thousands of ultimately useless biplanes.)

Read the whole thing.  But if you are too lazy.  There are more excerpts below the fold

(Executive) Power Grab Posted by Moira Whelan

I’m with Matt and Ezra on this one. Nothing in this piece makes me think that HRC would give up the power Cheney has grabbed for the Executive branch.

Here’s what really bothered me about HRC’s answer to these questions: She said she’d “review everything they’ve done” and MAY change Bush’s Constitutional violations where appropriate. That’s just not good enough for me. Why should I trust the subjective review of ANY person who walks into that office?

I think the bolder step for a candidate would be to say you’d appoint a task force of 5 or so people at some independent think tank and implement their plan to retract powers on which the Bush Administration has overstepped on January 20, 2009. Sure, we’re talking the weeds here: putting stuff in the Federal Register, signing statements, agency IGs, leak investigations, NIE writing, access of the Joint Chiefs to the Oval, but all of those things have impacted big stuff like torture, surveillance, and…um….WAR. So this is really not too much to ask.

Also, why does Clinton have to wait until she’s President to review this stuff? She wants America to elect her based on how much she already knows about the job, right? That, coupled with the time in the Senate on the receiving end of this stuff, should be enough “experience” to commit to specifics in rolling back abuses of power. There’s just no good reason for her not to be consistent and detailed based on the platform on which she’s running.

It’s also responsible foreign policy, but the Foreign Policy Community (VSPs) has hardly been demanding on any candidates when it comes to this stuff. This crowd knows well the impact of the little things the Bush Administration has done, and they know how to use the same tools to push a different agenda. In spirit, VSPs know and respect US rule of law and will play by the rules if made to do so. If the rules are stretched, however, they will take full opportunity to hide things under the “Executive Office of the President” or keep the Office of Legal Council a political tool rather than a Constitutional check, because it’s irresponsible NOT to use the tools you have to get the job done. They will sleep well at night knowing they have used these forces for good, not evil, but the certainly won’t give them back if they don’t have to. The only think to stop them is if the boss says NO.

Armitage: invasion of Iran "would be the worst of all worlds" Posted by Max Bergmann

Last night on PBS' Frontline, Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, explained that an impending invasion of Iran “would be the worst of all worlds, unless it was absolutely necessary for the safety and welfare of this nation, for an outgoing administration to start a conflict.”

Armitage added that “We need to speak with our enemies perhaps even more than we need to speak with our friends, so we took the point of view that no matter how difficult relations are with any one country, we should not cut ourselves off from them, and we ought to talk them.”

Watch the whole episode here.

Red Sox vs. Yankees (Good vs. Evil) Posted by Michael Cohen

Below my blog-mate Heather Hurlburt has made an incendiary claim:

I do believe Red Sox and Yankees fans can live in harmony.

I like Heather, she's a wonderful person, but no more absurd statement has ever been made on Democracy Arsenal! Red Sox and Yankees can live in some sort of detente-like situation, but harmony - NEVER!

This is the root of the problem with Rudy saying he is supporting the Red Sox - no true Yankees fan would ever support the Red Sox, just as I, a Red Sox fan, would rather stick sharp pencils in my eyes then root for the Yankees.  I hate the Yankees more than I hated Communism. The only thing that makes me happier then seeing the Red Sox win is seeing an unhappy Yankees fan (and some of my best friends are Yankees fans).

If the Yankees were playing the Al Qaeda All-Stars I still couldn't root for the Yankees.

After September 11th, when everyone rallied around the Yankees, I rooted for the Diamondbacks. To do otherwise would have meant the terrorists had won.

And I'm quite sure that every Yankees fan who is reading this site feels the exact same way I do about the Red Sox. That's the nature sports, we shouldn't have it any other way - which pretty much makes Rudy Guiliani the most inauthentic person running for President. Except of course for Hillary Clinton who said if the Yanks and Cubs were in the World Series she would alternate who she would root for. Sheesh, that's awful! Sorry, but there are some things that no politician should try to spin.

Bombing ourselves in the foot Posted by Max Bergmann

Last week I wrote about how Blackwater and aggressive private security firms were undermining Petraeus' counter-insurgency strategy - an argument recently supported by a State Department panel reviewing its use of contractors. The basic premise was that violent action that causes civilian deaths is bad, really bad, especially when you are attempting to uproot an insurgency.

So news that the U.S. military has increased airstrikes four fold this year should raise some serious questions about what Petraeus is doing in Iraq. From USA Today,

Coalition forces launched 1,140 airstrikes in the first nine months of this year compared with 229 in all of last year, according to military statistics...

However, increased use of air power raises the chances of killing innocent civilians, said Mark Clodfelter, a professor at the National War College. Winning over the population is key to defeating insurgents.

"You don't want bombing to be a recruiting method for the insurgents," Clodfelter said.

As Juan Cole notes "You can't drop a bomb on an urban apartment building without killing lots of people, not only inside the building but also all around it." Airstrikes, while in some cases may be necessary against a concentration of enemy forces, but stories like this clearly undermine any efforts to win back "hearts and minds":

Iraqis voiced outrage Friday over a U.S. military airstrike that killed an estimated 15 civilians -- nine children and six women, one of the highest reported civilian death tolls from an American bombing in months.

All this talk about a new counter-insurgency strategy - adopting less kinetic approaches, emphasizing the security of Iraqis, the need for U.S. Soldiers to take more risk and operate under stricter rules of engagement, etc., etc. - seems really hollow if at the same time, we are lobbing four times as many bombs from the air then we were before.

A strategy needs to be coherent. And Petraeus' clearly isn't.

The Definition of Chutzpah Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Does Rudy Giuliani really think he can go to Boston, announce he's rooting for the Red Sox in the World Series, and not get called on it?

That would be the sports equivalent of, say, wrapping yourself in a major national tragedy for purely political reasons?  Getting married three times and then discovering that other people's behavior puts our social fabric at risk?

Oh, yeah.  Same guy.

I wouldn't take Colorado (the purple-turning-blue state or the streaking baseball team) for granted myself.  And I do believe Red Sox and Yankees fans can live in harmony.  It just requires a little class.

    

Responding to Robert Kaplan, Reach for the Civics, Not Psychology, Text Posted by David Shorr

With all due respect to both Shadi and Heather, the issue at the heart of Robert Kaplan's "Modern Heroes" piece really boils down to the basic concept a military mission, and how a small 'd' democratic nation sends its sons, daughters, wives, fathers into battle. It's not, as Kaplan claims, Americans' discomfort with traditional warrior virtues that is troubling us; it's our slowly dawning sense of responsibility They are there on our behalf. Yes, the choice to serve was (is) theirs, but the choice of the fight, this fight, is ours. Through the lens of the civics book, the duality of heroism and victimization is clear. This isn't cultural ambivalence, it's the political system righting itself.

Kaplan is correct that respect for skill and professionalism in the art of war, rather than appreciation for sacrifice, is in some ways a more appropriate form of honor. But if, as the old saying goes, "theirs is not to reason why," then whose is it? Who decides the tasks to which these skills are applied? We do. Ultimately, we're the deciders. [Just to avoid confusion, let me be clear that I mean the nation as a whole. In one sense, the war is fought 'not in our name' for the war's opponents -- in another sense it's in all of our name (about which more below).]

Kaplan resists the sentimentality that seems to pity the troops, but gets so wrapped up in his own romantic notion of valor that he misses the central issue: have we sent the troops into a battle that's winnable, no matter how great their professionalism? At root, the public's reaction isn't pity; it's buyer's remorse. The point isn't the hardship the troops are enduring. The point is that we put them there, and does what we've asked them to do make any sense??

A few last words about civilian casualties and detainee abuse. Again, there are important issues regarding the relationship of the nation and its people to such misdeeds. National Journal last week had an excellent Sydney Freedberg cover story about rules of engagement and proper use of force. We cannot absolve fighting men and women of their duty to conform to the rules of engagement and obey the laws of war (I suspect Robert Kaplan would agree, on the grounds of respecting rather than pitying). But it must also be said that there are heightened stresses associated with being an occupying force surrounded by guerrillas and militias -- again the issue of the situation in which we have placed our troops. Finally, I am perplexed that Kaplan is perplexed by the focus put on the detainee abuse committed by US troops. Here there is the added issue of the ramifications for the United States' standing in the world. We believe in individual rather than collective guilt, but again, the troops represent the country (and maybe even official policy). I didn't think it needed pointing out, but, to put it mildly, this is a really big deal. Do we really think the media has overplayed this? Really?

Still waiting for Admiral Fallon... Posted by Max Bergmann

Back in September many pointed out that it was odd that Admiral Fallon - Petraeus' direct superior and the man in charge of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan - was not called to testify as well.

This was a significant departure from Fallon's predecessor General John Abizaid and Petraeus' predecessor General George Casey. When Abizaid was CENTCOM commander and Casey was commander of operations in Iraq the two almost never appeared separately and Abizaid as CENTCOM commander was clearly Casey's superior (examples here, here).

One explanation for Fallon's absence was because him and Petraeus didn't get along and weren't on the same page, as the Washington Post and Think Progress noted in September. The Post even quoted an administration official saying:

Bad relations?... That's the understatement of the century... If you think Armageddon was a riot, that's one way of looking at it.

These reports and the sycophant performance by Petraeus prompted Senator Webb to say:

So I'm going to be recommending to Senator Levin that we get Admiral Fallon in and get his views on the region.

But it has been more than six weeks since Petraeus testified and still Admiral Fallon has not been called to testify before the House or Senate Armed Services Committees. As far as I can tell, Fallon hasn't testified since last Spring.

Shouldn't the top military commander in charge of running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be called in to testify? We have heard from Petraeus his underling, it is time we hear from him.

Political Psychology's Uses and Abuses Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I'm a little ambivalent about Shadi's call for more political psychologists, for two reasons.  One is that a lot of work is being done on whether our political orientation is somehow genetic, which seems to remove from us as individuals the responsibility to think and make our own choices; and from us as progressives the responsibility to reach out to people who don't think like we do.

I'm also ambivalent because Democrats have a bad history of latching onto the analyst of the moment and using his/her insights to excess; and because political psychologists, like most armchair observers, are much better at describing the problem than fixing it.  Exhibit a) is George Lakoff; exhibit b) is the latter half of Drew Westen's book The Political Brain.

But the analysis sections of Westen's book are fascinating, and include this insight into Shadi's question about how we think:

In matters of morality, as in every other realm of life, what drives people are their emotions, and the moral emotions of the left tend to be very different from those of the far right.... "self-conscious" emotions -- shame, embarrassment and especially guilt -- often lead us to do the right thing even when we might want to do otherwise.  "Other-suffering" emotions, such as compassion and empathy, lead us to feel for others and try to help them.  Along with... "other-praising" emotions, such as admiration for those who behave in ways we consider morally courageous or worthy of our respect or exaltation, these are the primary emotions that define the morality of the left.

A Neo-con Shows His Moderate Side Posted by Shadi Hamid

In this interview (via Matt) with Chris Matthews, AEI resident scholar and bomb-Iran-now advocate Josh Muravchik says "we don't have to bomb Iran this minute." Muravchik is, apparently, getting soft. I'm worried. Because if we wait even a day, then it becomes another day, then a month, then a year...when does it end? It's a slippery slope, and then Ahmedinijad will invade America and end Western civilization as we know it, because, well, they hate our freedom. This isn't about our policies; this is about who we are, and our values. Dick Cheney's the only guy around who understands this, even if means suspending our constitution until we win the Eternal War on Terror (EWOT). Because they're evildoers, and they prefer death over life, like that fake prophet of theirs, what's his name??. Oh, and by the way, the Muslims are invading Europe, which is what happens when you have these Multicultural hippie leftists in power, who all got high at Woodstock in 1969. Anyway, those Muslims, don't forget the Muslims...But we have our own bunch and they're trying to make English into the second language! More immigration controls now! Cubans are okay, though, because they hate Castro, unlike that guy Oliver Stone who loves gays and hates his own country. Damn Hollywood, corrupting our kids with Will & Grace and that Logo channel. Abstinence now!

Iraqis For a Timeline Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

So even though the President doesn't want a timeline.  Looks like the Iraqi Parliament might.

Leaders in parliament are to meet Oct. 31 to consider forming a committee, to be made up of representatives from various parties, to make recommendations on limitations Iraq should seek in the U.N. resolution. Factions are already squaring off, with some Sunni Arab moderates saying that the continued U.S. presence is crucial to Iraq's future and Shiite leaders angry over the U.S. incursions into their neighborhoods seeking to curtail the American presence.

It is not clear what recommendations the committee might ultimately make, but members of parliament speculated Monday that they could include limiting the U.S. presence to certain areas in Iraq. The committee also could express a desire for a mission statement that the primary goal of American troops should be to train Iraqi forces, while establishing a timeline for U.S. withdrawal.

Also interesting here is the fact that the Sunnis are now the ones supporting the U.S. staying while the Shi'a are calling for the U.S. to go.  Two years ago you would have heard the opposite rhetoric, but since we've switched sides in the Civil War and are now supporting Sunni interests and putting the screws to the Shi'a you've had a reversal.  Just reinforces the fact that these various factions are using U.S. forces to achieve their own sectarian agendas.

Boiling Point Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

It seems like the administration is finally starting to respond to the situation on the Iraqi-Turkish border.  Too bad that one of the reasons we are in this mess is that despite warnings by a number of experts and a clear escalation of tensions, the Bush Administration did very little to address the situation before it spiraled out of control.   Four and a half months ago:

The Turks accuse Iraqi Kurds of supporting the separatist PKK rebels, who are fighting for independence in Turkey's heavily Kurdish southeast. Since the fall of Baghdad, the Turks have worried that the Iraq war could lead to the country's disintegration and the creation of a Kurdish state in the north.

There are suggestions that the US military may be simply turning a blind eye toward a conflict it does not want to plunge into, in an effort not to alienate its few remaining friends in the region. But diplomatic efforts to calm the situation have stumbled, and the Turkish military has ratcheted up its warnings that a larger-scale incursion may be coming.

"People are basically looking at this as a matter of Turkey defending its sovereignty," said Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

He said that as long as there is not a large number of Turkish troops in Iraq on a more permanent basis, the US is likely to continue to have a muted response.

As Turkey prepares for a national election, there also is growing pressure within the country to strike back at the PKK as well as the Iraqi Kurds who may be quietly allowing the rebels to operate.

"Turkey is about to reach its boiling point." Cagaptay said. "The arguments of rationality will be trumped by popular anger over the PKK."

Let's just hope that it's not too late.  That the recent tensions have finally lit a fire under the U.S. and Iraqi governments and that they will take substantive steps to address Turkish concerns.  The one good sign is that the U.S. government , Iraqi government, Kurdish government, and Turkish government all have an interest in avoiding an all out
confrontation.  The bad news is that nationalism often trumps interests, especially when a conflict is allowed to simmer.

Wanted: Political Psychologists Posted by Shadi Hamid

I have come to the sad, but perhaps inevitable, conclusion that political science does not have the tools to understand the current incarnation of the Republican party. Most of mainstream political science is based around the assumption that political actors are (at least partly) rational. When actors are not rational, then, well...

It really hit me today, after I spent a good 20 minutes sifting through the Corner, the National Review's group blog). I've often read the Corner, although more for amusement than information. But, this morning, I came out of it with the weird sense that I had been transported to a parallel universe that, try as I might, I didn't - and couldn't - really understand. Concepts like institutionalism, median-voter theory, and the inclusion-moderation hypothesis really have little to say about the bizarre ideas that have increasingly come out of the Republican nexus. How to explain, for example, what happened during last night's debate, where the crowd gave John McCain a standing ovation for making a joke about Woodstock concertgoers using drugs nearly four decades ago. It's one thing to laugh, but I honestly didn't understand why a standing ovation was necessary, especially considering that half the crowd were probably smoking pot in 1969.

More important, though, is trying to understand the visceral need that some conservatives seem to have for making the fight against terrorists into a civilizational struggle, to the point of finding new (and rather creative) ways to provoke conflicts and foment actual and metaphorical civil wars between opponents and ideologies. They want to fight. It's as if they long for a cause, preferably a bloody one (as long as it isn't their blood), with which to devote themselves, regardless of whether the cause is based on a problem that has anything to do with reality. It is a craving, and it is manifested in a very personal, and emotional away, as if they have been spurned by a lover. Perhaps, then, it is no surprise that Sayyid Qutb, someone who also longed for epic, eternal conflict, was, in what was a key turning point in his life, spurned by a woman - perhaps the only woman - he loved.

In some cases, there are those on the Right who seem to long for another day like 9/11. After all, war requires sacrifice, especially wars upon which the future of civilization depend. Robert Kaplan, in a recent op-ed, said something that I couldn't quite believe anyone would be willing to say (publicly). And it's even worse in the context of the rest of the article:

The media is but one example of the slow crumbling of the nation-state at the upper layers of the social crust--a process that because it is so gradual, is also deniable by those in the midst of it. It will take another event on the order of 9/11 or greater to change the direction we are headed.

"What planet are we on?" Posted by Max Bergmann

Zakaria calls a crazy a crazy in today's Washington Post,

The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality...

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

            

Strategery Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Buried in the Washington Post today was a great synopsis of the backwards thinking of the President. 

In contrast, "Centcom [Fallon] , the Joint Staff [Mullen] and OSD [Gates] would be happier with more forces coming out, and if they could order us to redeploy forces more quickly they would do it," said a senior official familiar with the plan. "But the president is on the CG's [Petraeus's] side."

All of the key people in charge of the broader strategy of keeping the United States safer - Defense Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) and Admiral Falon (CENTCOM commander) - agree that to keep us safer we need to redeploy more quickly out of Iraq.  But the President  is listening to the guy who is only in charge of Iraq and whose job is not to think more broadly about our national security.

Overheard at Your Local Starbucks Posted by Shadi Hamid

They’re sitting pretty close by, having a somewhat animated conversation. The first person is a regular. He asks the guy sitting next to him, “should I subscribe to the Weekly Standard?” Blank Stare. “They’re not too conservative, are they?" Blank stare, turning into look of incredulity.

The conversation then turns into more weighty matters, like Chekhov and Tolstoy. Person one, whose name is apparently Charlie, seems to be distressed about something. “Why is it that Chekhov’s short stories are so much better than his plays?”
    The second guy responds impatiently, and I can tell his eyes are wondering: “Do you read the plays or watch them?” This appears to be a rhetorical question (when was the last time you watched Chekhov? For the Republicans, aka people who don’t go to Starbucks: Chekhov is/was a Russian writer of great stature).
    “I read them.”
    “Plays aren’t made to be read; they’re meant to be watched.” This would seem obvious, but coming out of the mouth of this man, already oozing gravitas because of his above-the-fray blank stares, it sounded utterly profound. I had never actually heard someone say it; I had only thought it.   
    “Hmm, that may be the problem." Problem solved.     
    Person two sees his opening, and moves for the kill: “Would you want to read a TV script?” I ponder this punt for a moment, and then think to myself “why, no!”

The conversation then turns to more practical matters. Charlie appears to have bought a Honda Civic, but luckily for us (and the future of the universe as we know it), a hybrid Honda Civic. He marvels that he gets “49 miles per gallon.” Good for you, I thought. I watched his face carefully, and it occurred to me that he looked, and sounded, slightly like Al Gore probably did when he lost the 2000 election.

It's the occupation, stupid. Posted by Moira Whelan

This is a great new NYT Video Op-ed that outlines perspectives on the war as presented by Iraqis: insurgents, Imams, etc. You'll see one clear conclusion: The occupation of Iraq is at the root of the problem faced by US troops.