A True Assessment

The picture of Iraq, as a whole, can be seen through a report published by the Washington Post (Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks Nov. 28th 2007):

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.

The Marines recently filed an updated version of that assessment that stood by its conclusions and stated that, as of mid-November, the problems in troubled Anbar province have not improved, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. "The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality" remain the same, the official said.

The Marines' August memo, a copy of which was shared with The Washington Post, is far bleaker than some officials suggested when they described it in late summer. The report describes Iraq's Sunni minority as "embroiled in a daily fight for survival," fearful of "pogroms" by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance across the capital.

True or not, the memo says, "from the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized." Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability.

Between al-Qaeda's violence, Iran's influence and an expected U.S. drawdown, "the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point" that U.S. and Iraqi troops "are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar," the assessment found. In Anbar province alone, at least 90 U.S. troops have died since Sept. 1. The Post first reported on the memo's existence in September, as it was being circulated among military and national security officials. Several officials who read the report described its conclusions as grim.

But the contents have not previously been made public. Read as a complete assessment, it paints a stark portrait of a failed province and of the country's Sunnis -- once dominant under Saddam Hussein -- now desperate, fearful and impoverished. They have been increasingly abandoned by religious and political leaders who have fled to neighboring countries, and other leaders have been assassinated. And unlike Iraq's Shiite majority, or Kurdish groups in the north, the Sunnis are without oil and other natural resources. The report notes that illicit oil trading is providing millions of dollars to al-Qaeda while "official profits appear to feed Shiite cronyism in Baghdad."

As a result, "the potential for economic revival appears to be nonexistent" in Anbar, the report says. The Iraqi government, dominated by Iranian-backed Shiites, has not paid salaries for Anbar officials and Iraqi forces stationed there. Anbar's resources and its ability to impose order are depicted as limited at best. "Despite the success of the December elections, nearly all government institutions from the village to provincial levels have disintegrated or have been thoroughly corrupted and infiltrated by Al Qaeda in Iraq," or a smattering of other insurgent groups, the report says.

The five-page report -- written by Col. Peter Devlin, a senior and seasoned military intelligence officer with the Marine Expeditionary Force -- is marked secret, for dissemination to U.S. and allied troops in Iraq only. It does not appear to have been made available to Iraqi national forces fighting alongside Americans.

The report, "State of the Insurgency in Al-Anbar," focuses on conditions in the province that is home to 1.25 million Iraqis, most of whom live in violence-ridden towns such as Fallujah, Haditha, Hit, Qaim and Ramadi.
Devlin wrote that attacks on civilians rose 57 percent between February and August of this year. "Although it is likely that attack levels have peaked, the steady rise in attacks from mid-2003 to 2006 indicates a clear failure to defeat the insurgency in al-Anbar."

Devlin suggested that without the deployment of an additional U.S. military division -- 15,000 to 20,000 troops -- plus billions of dollars in aid to the province, "there is nothing" U.S. troops "can do to influence" the insurgency.
He described al-Qaeda in Iraq as the "dominate organization of influence in al-Anbar," surpassing all other groups, the Iraqi government and U.S. troops "in its ability to control the day-to-day life of the average Sunni."

Al-Qaeda itself, now an "integral part of the social fabric of western Iraq," has become so entrenched, autonomous and financially independent that U.S. forces no longer have the option "for a decapitating strike that would cripple the organization," the report says. That is why, it says, the death of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June "had so little impact on the structure and capabilities of al-Qaeda," especially in Anbar province.
The senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of his work, said yesterday that he largely agrees with Devlin's assessment, except that he thinks it overstates the role of al-Qaeda in the province. "We argue that it is a major element in Anbar, but it is not the largest or most dominant group," he said.
In a final section of the report, titled "Way Ahead," Devlin outlined several possibilities for bringing stability to the area, including establishing a Sunni state in Anbar, creating a local paramilitary force to protect Sunnis and to offset Iranian influence, shifting local budget controls, and strengthening a committed Iraqi police force that has "proven remarkably resilient in most areas."

Devlin ended the assessment by saying that while violence has surged, the presence of U.S. troops in Anbar has had "a real suppressive effect on the insurgency." He said the suffering of "Anbar's citizens undoubtedly would be far worse now if it was not for the very effective efforts" of U.S. forces.
The Marine Corps headquarters had no comment on the August report or the updated assessment, Lt. Col. Scott J. Fazekas, a spokesman, said yesterday.

A Circular Solution

What a catastrophic blunder this administration has made of Iraq. It is as if the keystone cops have taken over the White House. We now have President Jalal Talabani going to Iran for help stating, “I think given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact we are almost there," Unbelievable! Iran is now the best choice for security in Iraq. Iran pledging help is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Or is it a blatant attempt by the Iraqi leadership to dismiss Bush? Thus due to Bush's pure ideological ignorance the Middle East is imploding (I know some of you can't stand it when Bush's little feet are held to the fire but enough is enough)

Bush declared Iran part of the axis of evil and now Iraq meets with Ahmadinejad before meeting with Bush? What about Pre-emptive war? Nation building? Axis of evil? Complete Victory? The foreign policy compass is spinning out of control. The administration is waiting for a report from The Baker commission, before acting? What if Bush doesn’t like what he sees? Will he ask for another draft? Moreover, I thought Bush was the president and commander and chief and I thought this all knowing commission was created 6 months ago? Lost is he in the wilderness.

So one must find a solution. And a solution is needed.
1. Don’t leave Iraq
2. Move all forces out of Baghdad
3. Create a perimeter around the Sunni triangle and Baghdad
4. Fall back within the country and take the troops out of the civil war, i.e. move to Kurdish northern as Carl Conetta reveals in his PDA report, “Did the war liberate or humiliate Iraq? The March 2004 ABC poll found 82 percent of Kurds saying "liberate". Among Sunnis, only 21 percent held this view. Among Southern Shiites, 49 percent said liberate, while among Shiites elsewhere "liberate" was affirmed by 34 percent. (The mid-point between Kurdish and Sunni views would be 52 percent.)” and quiet southern provinces, create a bulwark and send in fast moving strike teams into Baghdad when needed, instead of large Army battalions
5. This circle approach will enable US troops to analyze the field of battle from an objective point of view, effectively letting the civil war rage without the deaths of US troops
6. A civil war is horrific however this is a war between factions within Iraqi society and not between Iraqi’s and the US soldiers
7. This will force the hand of the Iraqi government
8. Lastly, the circle approach can prevent foreign fighters from joining the war
9. Will civilians be killed? Yes, Will massacres be committed? Yes, Are these going to happen regardless of US troop presence? Yes
10. Special note: this will not be seen as cut and run or a sign of weakness, it will enable US troops to reenergize and help the Generals reassess the situation in Iraq, additionally, we will always have the ability to move back into Baghdad.

This solution will be criticized because Iraqi civilians will be killed, militias will run rough-shot through the streets, and the video images out of Iraq will be coated with innocent blood. However, this is a civil war and in a civil war everyone is a target, it is time to move our troops out of the target range and let the Shi’as and Sunnis fight it out. We must remove ourselves from the civil war and refocus our efforts. A winner will be declared in this civil war and then and only then will we have a clear objective.

A Union Parable

To unionize or not to unionize: as a first year teacher I decided to join the National Teachers Union. I thought that this would grant me the opportunity to see the real issues in education and listen to seasoned teachers' thoughts about teaching and instruction. Dues were paid and meetings were made. The first meeting was postponed which I thought was a fluke but after the union found a new time, I made my first appearance at a union meeting. The meeting was packed and teachers bustled in and out of the small community center. I found a place in the front row and waited.

Order was finally found and union business began. However, to my dismay, the entire meeting focused on…money and duties for teachers. The words education, instruction or students were not uttered during the entire hour-long session. Instead, a few very vocal older teachers dominated the meeting, with talks of FCAT and low-test scores. They pointed the finger at anyone and everyone, and neglected their own responsibility. I was confused and disheartened. I thought the union was created to better the situation for teachers as well as students. I was wrong.

During the school year these same teachers became known to me through informal student conversations and teacher comments. I was informed through the administration that some of the older teachers had had their certification lapse and the county was at a loss because of the union approach to these 'veteran' teachers. I also took it upon myself to watch their classroom. As a first year teacher I had two hard and fast rules: 1) don't eat in the teachers lounge, 2) take everything with a grain of salt.

I ate alone for over 20 months and I also found out information first hand. This included observing these seasoned teachers. I asked permission, during my planning, to sit in on their class. I brought paper and pen and began to observe. It was startling. Students running around, teacher behind a desk with check book open, textbooks open to random pages, students asleep or listening to music, and to my utter surprise the instructor saw no reason to explain what was going on to me or the students. The only semblance of instructional plans was a vague instruction on the white board, which read: 'pg. 130-145 odd problems only'. This math class was disjointed and collectively absent of any real instruction. During the 90 minutes of classroom time most interaction between pupil and teacher consisted of failed classroom management. I got the feeling that I was the only one learning anything that day: what not to do.

It seemed that this 'teacher' had become complacent. Even down right pessimistic in the face of her students. Her attitude was one of blame the student first and then the parents second. "Those children just don't know how to act." "I'm not their mother or father". "I remember when they were respectful and cared about education". These were the comments I heard after class and her need to explain the situation to me. I quietly nodded and left for my 6th block class, having learned a valuable lesson: some teachers need to leave the profession.

With unions as a shield against extermination, I think that unions should start vetting their own members. Unions have a stake in teachers that are incompetent. It gives Unions a bad name and influences the perception of all teachers. Unions should observe their own members and take calls from administrators when teachers are not performing well. Also tenure should be done away with, give teachers' incentive to be innovative and creative, even if they have been teaching for many years. I understand many feel that tenure is a right; it is not it is a 19th century construct and a privilege. Schools need to be more flexible and viable. Teachers must expect, like all other professionals, to be held accountable for their work or lack there of. Teachers need to be evaluated every year, but most importantly for veteran teachers, they must also be observed on a regular basis.

Ideology v. Philosophy

Robert Fisk’s article Civil War in Lebanon published in The Independent (Nov. 22, 2006) is a clear and concise understanding of the dismal state of affairs in Lebanon. After the assassination of Pierre Gemayel and the subsequent world response to this tragedy, he poses a very interesting question:

And why did America's UN ambassador, John Bolton, weep crocodile tears for Lebanon's democracy - which he cared so little about when Israel smashed into Lebanon this summer - without mentioning Syria?

This question strikes at the heart of international perceptions over US foreign policy. Bush, as Morton Abramowitz explains, is ‘neutered’ by his ‘blunders in foreign policy’. Thus, making Bush a lame duck diplomat as well as a lame duck domestic figure. This is also clearly seen in Bush’s decision not to stay over night in Indonesia and holding talks with Al-Maliki in Jordan instead of Iraq. As a result, Bolton, whether he realizes it or not, has become the face of foreign policy in the international square. Bush is seen as either a cowboy or has lost his window of opportunity to engage with other countries. Thus, the actions of Bolton are more relevant now than ever before. Consequently, Fisk’s question is both timely and critical for international perception. Bolton must drop the ideology, which drives the administration, and convert to a more philosophical approach. The difference being that ideology knows all the answers - pre and post facts - while philosophy is searching for the right answer – contingent on facts and logic. Hard times and deviant actions by nations call for calm logic not provincial ideology. Bolton needs to step back from the fire and analyze the facts on the ground and first ask, “Who benefits”? Who benefits from Gemayel’s assassination? Who benefits from the turmoil in Lebanon? Who benefits from a strong Lebanese democracy? Who benefits from the destruction of the nascent democracy in Lebanon? These questions do not have built in answers and need a philosophical approach. An approach built on logic which when honed will create a viable and actionable form of foreign policy, instead of a reactionary system of comments and ‘we regret the actions of …” briefings.

Pass the sturgeon…

First, it must be said that the Cuban embargo was an asinine idea to begin with, for if we take the mold of the Cold War and understand that communism is not a valid form of government, then dealing with that government validates its existence. This was Reagan’s contribution to foreign policy, something Carter didn’t understand. Following this logic communism will implode on itself. And has imploded in every case since Das Capital. However, when a nation deals with a country, even in a negative way, that country will benefit. Castro is a dictator and has policies have crippled his nation. He has been a ruler by force and rhetoric and we have played his tune for over 40 years. However, news that millions of dollars have been spent on ‘Democracy Funds’ which according to the Guardian Unlimited Nov 15th 2006:

Cuban dissidents who were given millions of dollars by the US government to support democracy in their homeland instead blew money on computer games, cashmere sweaters, crabmeat and expensive chocolates, which were then sent to the island.

It is clear that we should not be in the democracy business. Contrary to popular belief democracy is not the most stable form of government; in fact it is last form of government in a long chain of social contracted mechanisms. Starting with monarchy. Moreover, throughout the entire span of human history democracy has NEVER been given to a people. The people must take it. The people must want it and only the people can give it legitimacy. Now the agency in charge of this waste blames the bureaucratic oversight:

He also defended the purchase of a chainsaw he said he needed to cut a tree that had blocked access to his office in a hurricane, and said that the leather jackets and cashmere sweaters were bought in a sale. “They [the auditors] think it’s not cold there,” Mr Acosta said. “At $30 [£16] it’s a bargain because cashmere is expensive. They were asking for sweaters.”
The audit analysed $65m of spending by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) from 1996 to 2005 and concluded that poor management was to blame for the waste. “There were weaknesses in agency policies and in programme office oversight, and internal control deficiencies,” the report states.

That may be so, but the fact still remains that these programs are historically flawed. If one wants to see real democratic change look no further than the EU and its ability to hamstring countries economically and politically until they meet criteria which will give them excess to EU markets: see Turkey and the Baltic states. Countries must change from within. Even though Democracy is the most favored form of government it is also the most fragile. People must take action themselves and wasting millions doesn’t help the huddled masses.

Maybe just the appearance of objectivity?

Now I know it is sacrilege to say anything disparaging about Israel and its relationship within United States foreign policy. Even well informed realists such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are thrown under the bus after revealing the extent of Israeli’s influence over US foreign policy. Both were attacked and condemned for their informative work entitled The Israel Lobby. If their research is not enough then please find either of Scott Ritter’s books Iraq Confidential or Target Iran to get an in-depth view of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) influence on US foreign policy. However, if one reads the information, they make a startling revelation: Israeli interests and US interests are not always the same. And from a realist’s point of view (zero-sum game and balance of power) following another countries goals will ultimately lead to disaster.

However, even mentioning this truth will lead to Anti-Semitic cries. And calls of racism or Islamo-fascism will be tossed toward anyone even hinting at an objective view concerning Israel. This objectivity has once again been lost at the UN; a place where sanctions and resolutions are spun off like cotton candy at the local fair. However, the UN sanction and more unlikely resolution is a sign of international faith and fairness. Countries are part of the UN so that they can have a voice and if apparent wrongs occur, such as civilian deaths due to warplanes, some recourse can be developed. This is now lost. With the veto power held by the US, it has seen fit not to investigate civilian deaths of Palestinians in Gaza. As the BBC reports:

The US has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning an Israeli attack in Gaza that killed 18 civilians, including women and children. The draft, which also condemned Israeli military operations in Gaza, followed Wednesday's attack in Beit Hanoun. The US ambassador at the UN, John Bolton, described the text as unbalanced and politically motivated. Ten of 15 Security Council members backed the resolution. Four abstained - Denmark, Japan, Slovakia and the UK. This was the second time this year the US used its veto on a draft resolution on Israeli military operations in Gaza. The US has a history of vetoing resolutions condemning Israel which it feels are biased against the country, says the BBC's Laura Trevelyan at the UN in New York.

Is this rational? In a realist sense this is irrational. A country must at the very least appear to be objective. The US lost another golden opportunity to reenergize her legitimacy as an honest broker in the Middle East. With Iraq as a lost cause and Iran moving towards pure hegemonic rule in the region, we need all the friends or the appearance of friends we can get. A resolution would go far in the international space as a shift in rhetoric. It would, at the very least give the appearance of impartiality. Something the US desperately needs. Just another out for the Bush White House; at least we’ve hit the 7th inning stretch.

Article II Section IV:

Loose lips sink ships and the SS Walker Bush has all hands at their respective muster stations awaiting orders. The great purge has begun and with this mass exodus is the enviable mix of hard feelings and disappointment. Each of these feelings can manifest into either hatred or revenge. Revenge is just hatred in action. So action it will be. Revenge in Washington is a rite of passage for most in the halls of power, for everyone at one time or another gets purged, dumped, fired or jailed; however when the stakes are this high heads are going to roll. Take the head of the RNC, yes Ken was just a party leader but don’t think for a minute that he was unaware of the malfeasance in Florida (2000) or Ohio (2004). Rove will not be fired, he will be reassigned. Karl is the link between Bush and high crimes and misdemeanors, he was the conduct of corruption if you will. Karl with the help of Cheney has dealt Bush a hand he must play. Bush cannot release these wolves out onto the population, because even the moronic Bush understandings that crime is only a crime if: A) there is proof or B) you get caught. The proof is wedged between Rove’s ears and Cheney’s laptop. I understand that these astute political figures are erasing hard drives and burning the midnight oil via paper reams, but there is no such thing as a perfect crime.

If it's Red then it's Dead

I was wrong. Two years ago I opined that the GOP would still hold the majority in both the house and the Senate. I guess even the GOP can’t withstand pedophiles, corruption, special interest monies, genocide, losses in real wages, interest rate hikes and war. Through in fault of their own the DEMS will win majorities. This does not bode well for the DEMS that still have not caught on to the dirty nuances of national politics and have not established the wherewithal to develop a cohesive strategy. The DEM party itself is run by Howard Dean who when pressed to give a policy adjustment about Iraq, could only come up with, “we will need a new course.” Talk about lack of a backbone. The DEMS will bask in their short-lived glory only to wake up to a country, which is hungry for sustentative change, real policy shifts and a new revival of cooperation. To put it bluntly they lucked out. Their message was mute and their goals were vague. However, they did win. I guess they will have 2 years of hearings and our young men and women will still be in Iraq. The theme for the GOP is RIP. No matter how moderate or central thinking you were, (See Rhode Island) if you had an R in front of your name you were dead in the water. The sharks of change were out in full force. A force dare I say even Diebold could not overcome. I hope the DEMS use this opportunity to move to the center where most Americans are and give the people a real voice instead of the blame’em and hate’em game, which has been the norm in Washington. Don’t worry GOP you will hold on to the executive branch in 2008.