Good Versus Evil Is Not A Strategy

Madeleine Albright has three foreign policy suggestions for Bush.

Although this is not an administration known for taking advice, I offer three suggestions. The first is to understand that although we all want to 'end tyranny in this world,' that is a fantasy unless we begin to solve hard problems. Iraq is increasingly a gang war that can be solved in one of two ways: by one side imposing its will or by all the legitimate players having a piece of the power. The U.S. is no longer able to control events in Iraq, but it can be useful as a referee.

Second, the Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran — not because the regime should not be changed but because U.S. endorsement of that goal only makes it less likely. In today's warped political environment, nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington's overt antagonism. It also is common sense to presume that Iran will be less willing to cooperate in Iraq and to compromise on nuclear issues if it is being threatened with destruction. As for Iran's choleric and anti-Semitic new president, he will be swallowed up by internal rivals if he is not unwittingly propped up by external foes.

Third, the administration must stop playing solitaire while Middle East and Persian Gulf leaders play poker. Bush's 'march of freedom' is not the big story in the Muslim world, where Shiite Muslims suddenly have more power than they have had in 1,000 years; it is not the big story in Lebanon, where Iran is filling the vacuum left by Syria; it is not the story among Palestinians, who voted — in Western eyes — freely, and wrongly; it is not even the big story in Iraq, where the top three factions in the recent elections were all supported by decidedly undemocratic militias.

In the long term, the future of the Middle East may well be determined by those in the region dedicated to the hard work of building democracy. I certainly hope so. But hope is not a policy. In the short term, we must recognize that the region will be shaped primarily by fairly ruthless power politics in which the clash between good and evil will be swamped by differences between Sunni and Shiite, Arab and Persian, Arab and Kurd, Kurd and Turk, Hashemite and Saudi, secular and religious and, of course, Arab and Jew. This is the world, the president pledges in his National Security Strategy, that 'America must continue to lead.' Actually, it is the world he must begin to address — before it is too late.

Free Falling

Click to enlarge.
Juan Cole over at Informed Comment reports the latest "good news" from Iraq.

Guerrilla Violence Kills 58

A suicide bomber detonated his payload outside the major crime unit of the Ministry of the Interior on Thursday, killing 15 policemen and 10 civilians and wounding 35 others.

Then guerrillas blew up a market outside a Shiite mosque, killing 6 and wounding 20, with women and children among the victims.

Six bodies were found in Baghdad, and 8 were found in Fallujah, victims of night-time raids, kidnappings and killings.

There were other bombings of and firefights with Iraqi police in Baghdad that killed several people.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Iraq - The Cost So Far

On The Lehrer Report last night Zbigniew Brzezinski was clear on the few benefits, the huge costs and a four step plan for moving forward.

GWEN IFILL: If it were possible to do a cost-benefit analysis on whether it's been worth it to be in Iraq, as increasingly so many Americans say, 'No,' what would you say were the costs and what were the benefits?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I think the benefits have been, in fact, very few, beyond the obvious one: the removal of Saddam Hussein. But we have undermined our international legitimacy. That's a very high cost to a superpower.

We have destroyed our credibility; no one believes anything the president says anymore. We have tarnished our morality with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. These are phenomenal costs. And there's, of course, blood and money and tens of thousands of Iraqi killed.

So, in my view, the time has come to face all of this, to realize that staying for a prolonged period of time until some ephemeral victory is not the solution. It is time to leave.

Zbigniew BrzezinskiAnd I think a four-point program could be implemented that would permit us to leave in a fashion that would not be a debacle: Ask the Iraqi government to ask us to leave, first of all. And some would ask us. Some have already asked us, in fact.

Secondly, concert with the Iraqi government on the date of our departure, so it's a joint decision, I would think in about a year.

Third, the Iraqi government then convenes a conference of neighbors, Muslim neighbors, who are interested in continued stability in Iraq and in helping to prevent a civil war from exploding.

And fourth, arrange a donors conference for the recovery of Iraq. We could do that. I think we'd be better off if we did it; otherwise we're stuck, and this is getting worse and worse. The region is becoming more destabilized and hostile to us.

Emphasis mine.

Rumsfeld Is Not Competent

The CS Monitor underscores the mounting criticism of Rumsfeld in an article entitled: Increasingly, Rumsfeld a lightning rod for Iraq criticism.

On a day that saw sharply divided opinions over the war in Iraq, and its aftermath three years later, one of the Bush administration officials who faced the strongest criticisms was US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Retired US Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was responsible for training Iraqi troops until 2004, said Mr. Rumsfeld should resign. And top officials from two past administrations disputed his analogy that if the US pulled out of Iraq, it would be like the US handing Germany back to the Nazis after World War II.

Peace Is Possible

Check out the Peace March in Walnut Creek on Saturday March 18, 2006.
Click on Headline for Details

No leadership, No Strategy, No Coordination

From the Guardian. More early reports of Bush Administration incompetence in Iraq.

Senior British diplomatic and military staff gave Tony Blair explicit warnings three years ago that the US was disastrously mishandling the occupation of Iraq, according to leaked memos.

John Sawers, Mr Blair's envoy in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion, sent a series of confidential memos to Downing Street in May and June 2003 cataloguing US failures. With unusual frankness, he described the US postwar administration, led by the retired general Jay Garner, as 'an unbelievable mess' and said 'Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired generals' were 'well-meaning but out of their depth'.

That assessment is reinforced by Major General Albert Whitley, the most senior British officer with the US land forces. Gen Whitley, in another memo later that summer, expressed alarm that the US-British coalition was in danger of losing the peace. 'We may have been seduced into something we might be inclined to regret. Is strategic failure a possibility? The answer has to be 'yes',' he concluded.

The memos were obtained by Michael Gordon, author, along with General Bernard Trainor, of Cobra II: the Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, published to coincide with the third anniversary of the invasion.

The British memos identified a series of US failures that contained the seeds of the present insurgency and anarchy.

The mistakes include:

A lack of interest by the US commander, General Tommy Franks, in the post-invasion phase.

The presence in the capital of the US Third Infantry Division, which took a heavyhanded approach to security.

Squandering the initial sympathy of Iraqis.

Bechtel, the main US civilian contractor, moving too slowly to reconnect basic services, such as electricity and water.

Failure to deal with health hazards, such as 40% of Baghdad's sewage pouring into the Tigris and rubbish piling up in the streets.

Sacking of many of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, even though many of them held relatively junior posts.

Mr Sawers, in a memo titled Iraq: What's Going Wrong, written on May 11, four days after he had arrived in Baghdad, is uncompromising about the US administration in Baghdad. He wrote: 'No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis.

Enough of the D.C. Dems

Molly Ivins comes out swinging.

Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don’t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater.

I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight.

Look at their reaction to this Abramoff scandal. They’re talking about “a lobby reform package.” We don’t need a lobby reform package, you dimwits, we need full public financing of campaigns, and every single one of you who spends half your time whoring after special interest contributions knows it. The Abramoff scandal is a once in a lifetime gift—a perfect lesson on what’s wrong with the system being laid out for people to see. Run with it, don’t mess around with little patches, and fix the system.

As usual, the Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them. Here are three they should stick to:

1. Iraq is making terrorism worse; it’s a breeding ground. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying.
2. Full public financing of campaigns so as to drive the moneylenders from the halls of Washington.
3. Single-payer health insurance.

Don't hold back Molly. Tell us how your really feel.

Defense Spending vs. Social Spending

Click to enlarge.

Kudos to Clay Bennett