Is the Surge Working? Posted by Michael Cohen

I really like Matt Yglesias's blog so I feel kind of bad picking on him twice in one week, but he strikes me as the kind of guy who is not such a fragile flower that he can't handle a little push back.

Yesterday Matt cited a new Pew Center poll, which indicates that a) press coverage of Iraq has declined and b) American's knowledge of the number of troops killed these has also fallen, From these initially depressing statistics Yglesias draws the conclusion that the surge is working.

Controlling the information landscape is key, because the public continues to have mixed feelings about the underlying issue. People think the war was a mistake, and think it hasn't been worth the costs. But rather than quit right now, the median voter seems to want to let things play out for a little while longer. The challenge for people who want to end the war is to make people see that that's not a viable option -- that the real policy choices are between leaving in as quickly a way as is safe and practical or else staying for many years. The challenge for those who want to see the war continue indefinitely is to obscure the length of commitment they're talking about, and to obscure the ongoing costs of an open-ended U.S. military presence in Iraq. Judged by those standards, the surge is working pretty well.

That strikes me as a pretty rational way to view the situation, but I'm not convinced - and I hark back to some poll numbers I posted on last month.

In February, CNN asked Americans whether they favor or oppose the war in Iraq – 34% favor, 64% oppose. The same question was asked in June 2007, well before the security situation began to improve – and the numbers are exactly the same. Indeed, they have been remarkably consistent from month to month. One would imagine that with stories of improved security in Iraq and the conservative meme that success in Iraq is just around the corner these numbers would have seen a bump – but it simply hasn’t happened.

How about President Bush’s approval on Iraq. It was 28% in January 2007 when the surge was announced. Today, it has risen a statistically insignificant blip to 33%. Was it worth going into Iraq? According to an ABC/Washington Poll taken in January 2007, 40% said yes; today the number stands at 34%. And in probably the most important question as it relates to the 2008 election – should the US withdraw troops right away, within a year or should we stay in Iraq as long it takes to win the war.  Again, unchanged. Overwhelmingly, the American people want the troops either out now or out within a year.

What’s even more interesting is that Americans are quite aware of the improved security situation. According to a Newsweek poll, since August, the number of Americans who think that things are getting better in Iraq has nearly doubled -- but they don’t really seem to care. Their basic opinions on the war remain unchanged. The American people have made up their minds. They think the war in Iraq was a mistake; they disapprove of the current policy and they want the troops to come home.

With the public's mind largely made up about the war this most recent Pew poll should hardly seem surprising. In fact, you can lump me in with the great American body politic. I find myself spending less and less time reading the daily reports out of Iraq. It's not because I don't care, but it's because I view the war as a lost cause. My focus is far less on what is happening in Iraq, but how we get the troops home. In my view, the fundamental narrative of the war is unchanged and I can't imagine anything that I will read on a daily basis is going to change my mind. Now I can't get inside the heads of every American, but I wouldn't be shocked if many of them feel the exact same way.

Victory on FISA Posted by Moira Whelan

The House just passed the FISA bill, and then members of Congress will go back to their districts. The House did a great job of pushing for strong oversight, and yet, the Bush Administration continues to think that their actions should go unchecked…shocker. Many members are facing ads and criticism for their support of strong oversight of the terrorist surveillance systems. Jane Harman’s statement today is the best argument out there that Democrats are working to make America safe in the most responsible way possible, while Bush and Congressional Republicans are simply out to distort the truth:

First, the world is increasingly dangerous – and the threats from al Qaeda, Hezbollah and copy cat terror cells are real.  We must do everything possible to intercept the communications and plans of bad guys and prevent or disrupt their plots to harm us.

Second, the actions we take can and must be consistent with the rule of law.  FISA has served us well for 30 years – its framework is sound and, even in it present form, it permits us to secure emergency warrants in a matter of minutes to intercept communications between suspected foreign terrorists and Americans.

Third, FISA does need some tweaking – but the technical changes are not controversial.  All Democrats on the Intelligence Committee proposed them almost three years ago in the LISTEN Act.

Fourth, FISA has always provided immunity for telecom firms which act pursuant to its provisions. Telecoms seeking relief from Congress now did not comply between 2001 and 2005.  Nor did the Administration.  That was wrong, and they must be accountable.

Fifth, telecoms are now complying with FISA and have immunity for all of their activities.

And sixth, press accounts – especially Monday’s story in the Wall Street Journal – make clear that there are up to five ongoing surveillance programs.  Congress is not fully informed, and it would be reckless to grant retroactive immunity without knowing the scope of programs out there.

Surprised? Posted by Michael Cohen

Below Ilan expresses wonderment at the President’s most recent divorced-from-reality statements on the war in Afghanistan. But really Ilan, how are you possibly surprised by this?

Just consider for a moment what’s happened in the past week or so; the President vetoed a bill banning torture, he personally intervened in a EPA decision that loosened the regulations guiding the Clean Air Act – a move that was strong opposed by EPA scientists – he fired his CENTCOM chief for asserting a more rational course for American foreign policy in the Middle East, he saw his Pentagon clumsily try to cover up a report that demonstrated the baselessness of one of the Administration’s central cases for war in Iraq and just a few days ago, he basically accused Congressional Democrats of treason if they pass their version of the FISA bill. And I also understand that the other day he cackled with glee as Dick Cheney waterboarded kittens in the Oval Office. Ok, I made the last one up.

But the larger point here is that none of this should even seem surprising. After seven years, of utter incompetence, venality, arrogance and a chronic inability to take responsibility for anything, what would truly be surprising is if George Bush didn’t do or say things like this . . .

Buried in a Buried Report Posted by Adam Blickstein

  Hey Rummy, is that the "smoking gun" connecting al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq you got 
  there?

The Institute for Defense Analyses Report (now presumably discreetly stashed away in some undisclosed location away from the meddling gaze of the media) Moira discussed Wedneday has quite a few provocative nuggets. Besides providing an interesting and over-arching examination of how pan-Islamism supplanted pan-Arabism as the regional ideology du jour during the past decade, thus diminishing Saddam Hussein's stature and magnifying bin Laden's regional influence, it also supplies insights into the extent of the non-connection between bin Laden and Saddam's Iraq. A somewhat major point being that the report concludes there was no direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Major refutations of Republican talking points notwithstanding, NSN did an analysis of the report, extracting a few choice nuggets. One interesting was that Saddam himself feared the internal threat from radical Islamic groups in Iraq. From the report:

"Whether attempting to overthow the Egyptian government or the Kuwait royal family, the vision was always about the centrality of Saddam and his pan-Arab vision - and never about the glory of Islam or some modem-day caliphate. To the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the worst kind o f "apostate" regime - a secular police state well practiced in suppressing internal challenges...The Saddam regime was very concerned about the internal threat posed by various Islamist movements. Crackdowns, arrests, and monitoring of Islamic radical movements were common in Iraq."

He still finds ways to surprise me Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Seriously, I can't believe that after seven years George Bush still manages to do things that just leave me stunned.  I thought I'd seen it all, but...

In a video conference with military personnel in Afghanistan Bush stated:

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

Instead he's going to retire and go back to his ranch, while our troops keep dealing with this.

Quick Hits: Petraeus, Pentagon and Hiatt Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Unfortunately, don't have time to blog these things today, but too many interesting stories to not do a quick post.

• Apparently General Petraeus doesn't think things are going as well as Mike O'Hanlon  and John McCain do.  Iraqis are not making "sufficient progress" 
• ABC posts the entire report (PDF) that the Pentagon essentially decided not to post online, regarding the lack of connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.  I guess it's pretty stupid to think that you could actually keep something off the Internet in this day and age.
• Fred Hiatt and Co. have a silly silly piece about Admiral Fallon this morning.  Apparently Fallon endangered our national security by stating that we weren't going to imminently bomb Iran.  They argue that this reduces U.S. leverage.  It's true that threatening to use the military as leverage in negotiations can be helpful.  But it's much more productive when done subtly or by the simple fact that everyone knows the U.S. has the strongest military in the world.  You don't get much in negotiation by blatantly and brazenly threaten war.  All that does is make diplomatic negotiations impossible (Not really a good trust building exercise).   The WaPo and the Administration should take a lesson from Teddy Roosevelt:  "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

Spend More on Defense but Purchase less Security Posted by Lorelei Kelly

That seems to be our national strategy these days.

I'm going to start an internet campaign of putting the words "defense budget" in quotations because -- according to my unscientific survey out around the country -- Americans are feeling pretty uneasy about their security and our leadership priorities. In other words, just whose defense are they talking about? It seems that really only a handful of people, Members of Congress, the president, commercial "defense" interests, those who benefit from the military's revolving door (where defense public servants walk through and, like Cinderella, end up in a castle in Fairfax County). The following random bits of information showed up in my in box recently, and they each make me wonder if there's much difference between a conspiracy theory and organized, collaborative intent. I don't believe in conspiracy theories -- but in this case it seems that our leaders are almost intentionally not paying attention anymore when it comes to real security threats. Truth be told, our problem is simply that we're stuck in the past -- fighting some phantom USSR and hoping that China explodes another rusty old weather satellite so we can rationalize our faith in the the really expensive technology gods to save us. We're spending upwards of 500 billion this year, more when you add in the war costs (then the numbers make my head explode Wheeeeeee!) A pittance of this money is dedicated to funding the direction that our whole ship of state needs to go (away from the bully principle and toward the persuasion one) But the skeptic in me thinks that the USA never will right itself with all the gold-plated barnacles on its hull. We must engage in a discussion about our nation's security, abandon old rhetoric and cite specifics. We have a wide open window right now to do so, while simultaneously championing core military values like public service and real post-9/11 needs. How might this happen? Here are few examples of public sector plunder and how to respond to them without being accused of criticizing the military.

Example One: Bribing Poland to take missile defense. This boondoggle spectacular formerly known as "Star Wars" is costing American taxpayers nearly $9 billion dollars this coming year (after more than a hundred billion spent). Its industry makers have cleverly internationalized it -- an expansion on the strategy of making sure that some component of your weapon is made in multiple congressional districts. So we're telling Poland that we will buff up their military if they will just please just cooperate and put part of this non-working jalopy of a weapon on their soil. I went to see missile defense in Alaska as part of a congressional delegation a few years back. Words fail me. But farce will do. Let me just say that it was like going from drinking the Kool Aid to mixing the kool aid, to being in the kool aid jacuzzi. The trip came with a defense contractor Dr. Strangelove type.

You've Seen One Veteran Chilean Diplomat... Posted by David Shorr

I am having a heaping helping of humble pie for lunch today. A few weeks ago I took David Frum to task for his condescension toward other nations. In doing so, I managed to confuse two distinguished Chilean ambassadors whom I've had the pleasure of knowing.

So to set the record straight, current Chilean Permanent Representative to the UN H.E. Heraldo Munoz is the author of the excellent diplomatic memoir of the run-up to Iraq, A Solitary War. I read the manuscript when Amb. Munoz was submitting it to publishers, and it is a compelling behind-the-scenes account of the high-level wrangling surrounding the fateful UN Security Council resolution. Heraldo was a close advisor to former President Ricardo Lagos and, to make things more interesting, a longtime friend of Condoleezza Rice.

I only hope he will accept my red-faced apology. With friends like me...

New Public Report on Al Qaeda and Iraq…not so public Posted by Moira Whelan

Sometimes I feel bad for civil servants and today, that is especially so. Some poor souls in DoD have been working their fingers to the bone writing a 600 page report about the fact that a relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq does not exist….and no one will ever see it.

To add insult to their obvious injury of having to spend your career proving a negative in an office full of people that desperately want you to be wrong...the Pentagon announced today that this long awaited report…paid for by tax payer dollars…will NOT be made available on the internets, but can be acquired only by mail. It will be sent from an office in Norfolk, Virginia to your home or work via the US postal service.

Why? A Pentagon official said it was because the report was “too politically sensitive.” What…like we might know that you’ve been lying about this for years? You’re pulling a fast one with this one boys! Next time you want to delay a report, try to be more creative--think 8-track or beta. It's more creative at least. This is just lame.

Admitting You Have a Problem Posted by David Shorr

Hat tip to Adam for highlighting a recent Gallup poll on the American public's concern over our international image. Since this is my very favorite topic, I have to chime in. Adam takes ambivalent comfort in the public's sober and clear-eyed assessment. I actually view it as grounds for substantial hope and representing a huge opportunity.

In a nutshell, the general challenge of regaining international trust and goodwill should be a prominent, top-level, high-priority, front-burner, must-do, steady-drumbeat item on the US foreign policy agenda. We should look at this as America having hit bottom with unilateralism and being ready to admit we have a problem. But above all, we should all be talking about this. All of us, each and every one.

Why? Because this situation is the crux of the entire matter -- it's simply untenable that a global power like the US, especially one that is supposed to represent principles and progress in the world, should be so out of step with others. Because so many issues can be linked to this problem: global warming, poverty, nonproliferation, the Middle East, detainee treatment, cooperation on counterterrorism, the UN... And because it will resonate with the public, where Gallup's findings are reinforced by a recent Public Opinion Strategies / Hart Research poll for the UN Foundation. If you look at slide 21, you'll see that 76% of the public sees diminished international respect for the United States AS A MAJOR PROBLEM.

Let me quickly add that I'm not claiming the election will hinge on this issue. I'm not even saying that it will be in the top three issues on voters' minds. But as I've said before, voters are capable of being concerned about more than two or three issues. This is already on their minds enough for us to seize the opportunity. Adam is right that having a new president in the White House won't solve this; we have a major project on our hands. The first step is to solidify Americans' sense of how important it is.

The Real Skinny on PMCs Posted by Michael Cohen

Earlier I referenced Michael Walzer's most recent article in the New Republic about "mercenaries." Then I praised it . . . now, not so much.  Consider this opening paragraph:

There can't be an effective Iraqi state until these militias are disarmed or incorporated into the Iraqi army and subjected to its chain of command. It is exceedingly strange, then, that we have brought private militias of our own into Iraq.

It would indeed be strange . . . if the equivalency Walzer is hinting at here is accurate. It's not. The notion that the United States has brought private militias into Iraq is simply incorrect. It's not as if Blackwater or any contractor operates on their own - indeed they are contracted by the US government to be in Iraq If Walzer wants to point fingers at their lack of oversight of private contractors - and he does at great length -- I'll be happy to jump on the bandwagon. But to tar them all with the Blackwater stain, aka, gunhappy Rambos doesn't provide a full measure of how contractors are used in national security operations.

But, if you really want to see how stunningly off-base Walzer really is, consider this little nugget of info buried in yesterday's Washington Post:

In Senate testimony late last month, administration officials said that 163,590 contractor personnel were working in Iraq under Defense contracts, slightly more than the number of U.S. troops there. Of those, 6,467 are armed security personnel, about 1,500 of them American citizens. State Department security contractors total 1,518, about half of them Americans. The officials said that many of the rest are British and South African.

For those of you keeping score at home the ratio of non-armed to armed contractors is an extraordinary 24 to 1. What these figures demonstrate is that the notion of mercenaries or private armies in Iraq, to which Walzer refers, is simply a myth. The vast, vast majority of contractors in Iraq don't carry guns and in fact perform largely support functions.

Right-minded folks can certainly quibble with the notion that contractors (armed or not armed) should be used in combat zones. If you think they have a role to play, identifying areas of expertise or potential roles for private groups in US national security operations is an important debate and frankly one that is long overdue.

But, if we are going to have a serious discussion about the use of private security contractors in US national security operations, understanding what they actually do is fairly essential. Over the years, the level of misinformation or simple hyperbole on the role of contractors has largely come to define this debate, as Walzer's piece dramatize. Hopefully, these figures can offer a pretty good starting point for beginning a fuller and more informed conversation.

Why Partition Sucks Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

The Washington Post reminds us why trying to split a country up by oversimplified ethnic lines and not taking into account the more complex demographic realities can be a very very very bad idea.  Folks should keep this in mind when they talk about partitioning Iraq into three countries - an idea that fortunately has lost a great deal of steam in recent months.

A Sad Day for America Posted by Michael Cohen

For those of you who might have missed it, today the House of Representatives failed to override President Bush's veto of a bill banning enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding and induced hypothermia. The final tally was 225 - 188 and only 5 Republicans voted in support of the override. But don't worry, "we do not torture!" Somewhere Abraham Lincoln is rolling over in his grave.

At one point in our nation's history (in fact probably not so long ago) the President of the United States vetoing a bill that banned waterboarding and other forms of torture -- and all but 5 House Republicans supporting this stance -- would have been kind of a big deal. Not anymore it appears.

Ladies and Gentlemen the Bush years! Makes you pine for the days when Warren Harding was considered the our worst president ever.

Fallon Resigns Posted by Shawn Brimley

Admiral Fallon, the Combatant Commander of U.S. Central Command, has resigned today after his portrayal by Thomas Barnett in the current issue of Esquire.  The piece was titled "The Man Between War and Peace," and framed Fallon as basically the only person standing between the Bush administration and war with Iran. The piece ends with: "And time will tell whether being reasonable will cost Admiral William Fallon his command."  Well, we certainly didn't have to wait long.

More below the fold:

Mercenaries or Peacekeepers? Posted by Michael Cohen

I've been meaning for a few days to respond to Michael Walzer's recent article in the New Republic about Blackwater and private military contractors, but Matt Yglesias has beaten me to the punch . . . sort of. Walzer's piece is not perfect but he is right in arguing that sending private security contractors is an option worth considering - for somewhat obvious reasons:

Whatever Blackwater's motives, I won't join the "moral giants" who would rather do nothing at all than send mercenaries to Darfur. If the Comintern could field an army and stop the killing, that would be all right with me, too.

Yglesias though is not impressed:

I highly doubt that introducing a bunch of heavily armed unaccountable mercenaries into the situation would actually make things better.

I do think it's worth asking if we can come up with mechanisms of control and accountability that would make dispatching mercenaries into situations where troops are needed but nation-states are unwilling to send their national militaries into an attractive option. It's clear, however, that we do not in fact have any such mechanisms in place. Under the circumstances, you don't just unleash a plague of mercenaries somewhere in order to demonstrate your good intentions.

This is simply incorrect. Ignoring for a moment the pejorative use of the word mercenaries, which doesn't even come close to describing modern private contractors, there are in fact such mechanisms in place. Private military contractors already work with the UN in battle-scarred regions around the world - including Darfur.

In Kenya, ArmorGroup guards protect UNHCR refugee camps; PAE and AYR Aviation are working with the UN and African Union in Sudan; in Liberia, Dyncorp is training that country's new military. Moreover, no one, including the contractors themselves, are advocating that Blackwater or any other private group should go into Darfur with guns blazing. I have yet to come across any serious player in the industry who is advocating a combat role for private contractors. In fact, quite the opposite.

Indeed, in last week's WSJ, Peter Charles Choharis, a former UNICEF relief worker called for the use of private contractors in Darfur, operating under the following criteria:

The Security Council should consider employing contract armed forces to protect civilians and relief workers. These forces would have a very limited mandate to create safe havens for civilians, and would operate only until traditional U.N. peacekeepers can takeover. Because they would be authorized by the Security Council, would not directly take part in hostilities, and would use force only when necessary to protect innocent civilians and relief workers, they would not be mercenaries, which are prohibited by international law.

Private forces could also act as a humanitarian force-multiplier. Protected by these forces, NGOs will be able to provide food, water, medical treatment and shelter much more quickly, thereby saving countless more lives. Beyond supplies, providing security to vulnerable civilians can help avert traumas like rape and mutilation that can scar entire societies and make national reconciliation more difficult.

Granted this isn't as sexy as force protection or combat, but it's a mission that many private contractors are well prepared to provide - and most would leap at the opportunity, if only to erase the terrible pall that Blackwater has cast over the the entire industry.  Surely it would be better if national armies could be recruited for this effort, but as we've seen for years now the international community seems to have little interest in expending even the slightest political will to end the suffering in Darfur.

Yet, the reality of the situation in Darfur almost seems an abstraction to those who criticize even the thought of using contractors to stop the killing there. Here is Crooked Timber's response to the idea that contractors should not be sent to Darfur:

One of Walzer’s commenters sums up the view of those paragraphs eminently well, saying:'doing something is better than doing nothing' here’s an idea to engage with; no it’s not.

Really? As many as 400,000 Darfuris have been killed, often in a brutal manner; more than 2.5 million have been displaced; the UN peacekeeping effort there is badly underfunded and undermanned. Yet, apparently, the idea of sending private contractors to assist the peacekeepers is so abhorrent it's not even an idea worth engaging with.  That's a level of moral obtuseness that I find difficult to fathom. Private contractors are not a panacea, but if they are able to work constructively to stop the killing in Darfur shouldn’t the notion at least be entertained? Our ultimate focus should be saving lives and ending the genocidal slaughter in Darfur. If contractors are capable of doing the job then it’s an idea that the United Nations must consider.

 

O'Hanlon and the Op-Ed Pages Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

OK!  So Mike O’Hanlon has another piece in the USA Today.  Ackerman and Yglesias have the breakdown of what is wrong with his latest piece.  But I think there is a broader point here about responsible journalism.  Major op-ed pages such as the NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today and Wall Street Journal seem to have informal policies regarding how often one person should be represented in an op-ed page.  That’s because these pieces of journalistic real estate are very valuable and they don’t want to over-represent any one individual.  Yet these rules apparently don’t apply to Mike O’Hanlon.  Here are his pieces in the four major op-ed pages since he published the notorious piece with Ken Pollack in the NY Times back on July 30, 2007.

NY Times:  3/9/08, 12/22/08, 11/18/07, 9/4/07, 7/30/07

Washington Post: 2/9/08, 1/20/08, 8/25/07

USA Today:  3/11/08, 12/5/07, 10/3/07

WSJ:  2/14/08, 1/7/08

That would be 13 pieces in four of the most influential op-ed pages in the country over the past 7 months.  Basically once every two weeks.  That doesn't even include the fact that he is a regular contributor to the Washington Times.  Unless you are a cabinet level position or higher, nobody deserves this type of representation.  There is nothing special about Michael O’Hanlon.  He has no unique expertise on this issue.  There is no shortage of fantastic Iraq experts, who quite frankly are much more qualified and expert on Iraq, and have a variety of views on the issue (And this applies to both conservatives and progressives).  It’s time for these op-ed page editors to exercise some editorial responsibility and stop over-representing O’Hanlon. There needs to be a diverse set of views appearing on their pages, from a diverse crowd of experts.

More on O'Hanlongate Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Some intrepid reporting from Spencer Ackerman has turned up more detail as O'Hanlon responds to the pressure and puts up more "transparent" version.

On a scale of 0 to 1 for each category, we accord a 1 for the pensions law, and for the 2008 budget.

We then estimate half points for six categories: passing of the reformed de-Baathification law (which may or may not work out as well as intended in the actual implementation), purging extremists from the government (which is going fairly well but largely at U.S. insistence and cajoling), hiring Sons of Iraq into the security forces (again, going well, but there is some interest from the Shia-led government in limiting the number of Sons of Iraq who can join security forces as opposed to gaining other types of government jobs), passing of the amnesty law (again, the law is promising, but implementation is key), central government sharing of money with the provinces (far better than before, but still needing to progress further), and passing of the provincial powers act (recently passed, but also recently vetoed, leaving it in some limbo).

We accord the Iraqis 0 for resolving Kirkuk, for creating a permanent hydrocarbons law, and for passing a provincial election law.

This is one of the dumber things I’ve seen in a while.  Can someone please explain what any of this means?  There are certain things that just don’t translate into numerical analysis.  Everyone of these benchmarks requires at least 2-3 paragraphs just to explain the situation.  Half a sentence and a number ranking just doesn’t do it.  O’Hanlon might consider taking a look at some of Brian Katulis’s work and actually build a coherent argument. 

America's Ugly Self-Portrait Posted by Adam Blickstein

America clearly has a despondent yet accurately reflexive view of its place in the world, this according to new polls out from Gallup last week.  And while the distortions along partisan lines are what you might expect, with Republicans having a rosier view of America's position in the world (60%) than Democrats (18%), the take away is that American opinion seem to be in line with  the opinion from abroad: that our strategic failures overseas have wounded our international image and tarnished America's standing in the world.  The 68% dissatisfaction rating is the highest in Gallup's history, even higher than during the Vietnam Era.  While it's nearly impossible to be optimistic while reading the poll, at least its comforting to know that the nation as a whole —sans the partisan disparity—has at least a realistic notion of America's diminished international prestige. By simply electing a new President in November, these numbers should begin to improve, but undoing the damage the Bush Administration has wrought on our image abroad, including our own impressions of America's place in the world, will take more than just superficial power transition to fix.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That Wacky Wacky Doug Feith Posted by Michael Cohen

Thanks to Ilan for posting Thomas Ricks preview piece on Doug Feith's 900-page bitchfest on the war in Iraq. It's astounding that with everything that has gone wrong in Iraq and with the fact that the Pentagon basically ran the post-war occupation, Feith sees fit to blame State, the CIA and Paul Bremer for everything.

You'd think when one is talking about the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history that the people actually responsible for that blunder (the Pentagon, the White House etc) might bear some of the blame as well. But then being a Bushie means never having to say you're sorry.

It really does beg the question: is the Bush Administration more allergic to competence or responsibility? Commenters feel free to weigh in . . .

Five Out of Eleven Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Oh, I love it when Mike O’Hanlon is in the NY Times

The most intriguing area of late is the sphere of politics. To track progress, we have established “Brookings benchmarks” — a set of goals on the political front similar to the broader benchmarks set for Baghdad by Congress last year. Our 11 benchmarks include establishing provincial election laws, reaching an oil-revenue sharing accord, enacting pension and amnesty laws, passing annual federal budgets, hiring Sunni volunteers into the security forces, holding a fair referendum on the disputed northern oil city of Kirkuk, and purging extremists from government ministries and security forces.

At the moment, we give the Iraqis a score of 5 out of 11 (our system allows a score of 0, 0.5, or 1 for each category, and is dynamic, meaning we can subtract points for backsliding). It is far too soon to predict that Iraq is headed for stability or sectarian reconciliation. But it is also clear that those who assert that its politics are totally broken have not kept up with the news.

Here’s the best thing about this.  There is no way to refute it because his scoring isn’t up anywhere.  It’s not in the Iraq Index and the closest thing he has is an A, B, C grading system from a month and a half ago.  So, five out of eleven it is because that’s what Mike O’Hanlon tells me it is. 

On another note.  If I was reading the news I’d probably know that: there has been some terrible violence in Baghdad over the past week; Sunni leaders of the Awakening are still threatening the Sunni Green zone politicians; the Iraqi national government is still not integrating enough Sunnis into the Shi’a security forces; and right now we are sitting on a tenuous set of ceasefires that at some point or another is likely to explode. 

But again.  5 out of 11.  Because that’s what Michael O’Hanlon says.

Update: Ackerman and Yglesias have more.  And it's funny.

Unintentional Comedy Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

If you are going to buy a book on Iraq - buy Alex Rossmiller's Still Broken. 

If you're going to buy another book and are looking for something sick twisted and tragic, written by someone who has no sense of either self awareness or irony, I have a feeling that Doug Feith's new tell all may be it.  It turns out - shockingly enough - that Feith's basic thesis is...  Drum roll please....   IT WAS EVERYBODY ELSE'S FAULT.  Here are my favorite pieces of the preview article.

Feith depicts former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld with almost complete admiration, questioning only his rough handling of subordinates...

In his book, Feith defends the intelligence activities on grounds that the CIA was "politicizing" intelligence by ignoring evidence in its own reports of ties between Hussein and international terrorists...

Seriously?  This from the man who ran the Office of Special Plans.  Probably the worst case of intelligence cooking during the war.

Despite its bulk, the book does not address some of the basic facts of the war, such as the widespread skepticism inside the top of the U.S. military about invading Iraq, with some generals arguing that doing so would distract attention from the war against global terrorists. Nor does Feith touch on the assertion of his fellow war architect, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, that Iraq would be able to pay for its reconstruction with oil revenue.

Funny how he forgot to mention that little detail in the 900 page manuscript!

He blames both the CIA and Powell, who outlined the weapons case in a February 2003 speech at the United Nations, for overemphasizing the threat. But Feith appears to ignore the crucial role that statements from Cheney and Rice, about the imminence of "mushroom clouds" emanating from Iraqi nuclear weapons, played in the case the administration made for war.

I gotta say.  I don't always agree with Tommy Franks.  But his assessment of Feith as "the f'ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth," has some merit.   

While We're Renegotiating NAFTA Posted by David Shorr

Could we please put up a trade barrier against Canadian cold fronts? It's not just for my behalf; I'm thinking about my black lab too. When it's 5F here in Central Wisconsin, I can only walk him for 10-15 min. If it gets up into the 20s, I can give him a nice long walk. [Readers in North Dakota, Northern Minnesota, or the U.P. go ahead and be smug.]