Iraq Catch-22: the Insanity

“The incoming Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats are ruling out any effort by members of their party to have Congress cut off funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq. Proponents of such a move say any funds lawmakers approve when Democrats assume control of Congress in January should be used to bring U.S. troops home." Dan Robinson VOA News 12/06/06

“The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. [Alexander] Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting ‘in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.’” Adam Cohen NYTimes 7/23/07

"To date, there has been absolutely no concerted campaign by Democrats or even by the major media-focused antiwar organizations in Washington to educate the public on why Congress using its power of the purse is the responsible way to end the war. No, everyone inside the 50-square mile radius of Washington, D.C. - politicians, activists, reporters, pundits, everyone - wants us to believe that Democrats are just Innocent Bystanders, that they have no power to do anything, and that, in fact, the Constitution does not include Article 1, Section 9 specifically stating 'No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'" David Sirota 9/26/07

“Specifically, Senate Democrats whine about not having 60 votes to pass Iraq-related legislation. They pretend they are innocent bystanders with no means to act, and some anti-war groups give the charade credence by echoing these excuses. Yet, if properly pressured, those Democrats might be able to muster 41 votes to stop war funding bills.” David Sirota 9/29/07

In my last post I talked about how the Minority in the Senate is usually the party that instigates filibusters. I was thinking later that was probably because the Majority party typically tries not to allow any legislation to reach the floor of the Senate that they aren't interested in voting for. I believe the Republicans were notorious for doing this while they held the Congressional majority they recently lost and the Democrats complained bitterly -- for good reason. The party in power sets the calendar for what matters get heard on the Senate floor and legislation only finds its way before the Senate if the Majority allows it. The Democrats have claimed that in a spirit of bipartisanship they will not play the same kind of hardball in this regard as the Republicans did when they were in power.

Sirota brings up the point that even if the Democrats are going to allow Iraq funding to be voted on they could still filibuster it. With 41 votes the Democrats could threaten to filibuster any Iraq legislation and stop a cloture vote from passing in the Senate. Cloture is typically invoked when one party threatens to filibuster. Once invoked cloture requires 60 votes to pass. If the Democrats could manage to vote as a block (as the Republicans seem to be able to do pretty well) 41 votes would prevent the remaining 59 from passing cloture.

One of the excuses some Democrats, most notably Sen. Biden, have used for not voting against Iraq spending is that they are afraid that the lack of funding might endanger the troops. The problem with that argument is is that not removing U.S. troops from Iraq also endangers them. This "catch-22" situation creates a stalemate between the Democrats who are for immediate or quick redeployment of the troops, like Sen. Byrd and Sen. Feingold, for example, and those who seem to be backing away from redeployment in the near future most notably, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama. Unfortunately, for those of us who believe that redeploying the troops out of Iraq sooner rather than later is the better option, this stalemate prevents that from happening any time soon.

According to Joseph Heller's 1961 novel of the same name “'Catch-22' is a provision in army regulations; it stipulates that a soldier's request to be relieved from active duty can be accepted only if he is mentally unfit to fight. Any soldier, however, who has the sense to ask to be spared the horrors of war is obviously mentally sound, and therefore must stay to fight." (The American Heritage New Dictionary)

People have applied the Catch-22 reference to Iraq for a variety of issues including: Abu Ghraib, the 2002 Iraq War resolution, financial support for Iraqis.

But I think it is most aptly applied to the war itself as Ada Calhoun said in her 09/21/07 blog:

"Is pulling out of Iraq the right thing to do? Well, no. Is staying a good idea? Certainly not. All that's left is to pick the lesser of two great evils, and to never forget that George "What Me, Worry?" Bush got us into this hideous Catch-22. He has the blood of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and thousands of American troops on his hands. May he go down in history as the worst president we've ever had and may someday we be forgiven for allowing him to take power and wreak havoc."

And if I may add, referring back to the origin of the term Catch-22 the fact that the Bush-Cheney group seems so intent on fighting the war in Iraq for the sake of fighting in Iraq with no believable reason given is an example of their insanity. The current reasons (forget WMD) include the usual: we have to support the troops (by forcing them to fight an apparently unnecessary war), or we have to protect the Iraqi people (by helping to destroy their country), or that we are fighting al Qaeda (who or what is exactly al Qaeda in Iraq?). Or the latest because we need to attack Iran, meaning we need to legitimize the current Proxy War: U.S. for the Sunni (who are also al Qaeda in Iraq?); Iran for the Shi'a (who are also the current Iraqi government?). For these bizarre and contradictory excuses alone their sanity should be called into question.

At the recent Dartmouth debate at least a couple of the Democratic Presidential candidates seemed to get the faintest glint of a deer caught in the headlights stare in their eyes when they were asked about their plans to end the war. Obama began by saying he planned to "drastically" reduce the number of troops and ended by saying "I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out." And Clinton said "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting. You know, we do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we're going to find."

I couldn't help wondering if this hesitation has anything to do with the reports in a recent book that a high-level aide for President Bush has been advising or at least attempting to advise Democratic candidates on the Iraq War?

Bush said in an interview included in this new book, The Evangelical President, “If I were a candidate running for president in a complex world that we’re in, I would be asking my national security team to touch base with the White House just to at least listen about plans, thoughts,” he said.

Isn't that interesting. It has been widely reported that Bush, Cheney, their cabinet members and staff had very little regard for any advice they received from their outgoing Clinton counterparts. Too bad that when Bush himself was running for President or that when he became President, before and after 9/11 he didn't listen more carefully to the warnings and advice of the Clinton administration, especially those of then counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, regarding Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Bush at the U.N.: Human Rights, Burma, and Iraq

President Bush addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations on Tuesday of this week:

"Sixty years ago, representatives from 16 nations gathered to begin deliberations on a new international bill of rights. The document they produced is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- and it stands as a landmark achievement in the history of human liberty. It opens by recognizing 'the inherent dignity' and the 'equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family' as 'the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.' And as we gather for this 62nd General Assembly, the standards of the Declaration must guide our work in this world.

Achieving the promise of the Declaration requires confronting long-term threats; it also requires answering the immediate needs of today. The nations in this chamber have our differences, yet there are some areas where we can all agree. When innocent people are trapped in a life of murder and fear, the Declaration is not being upheld."

Got that? “When innocent people are trapped in a life of murder and fear, the Declaration is not being upheld.”

This was his only reference to Iraq:

"Brave citizens in Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have made the choice for democracy -- yet the extremists have responded by targeting them for murder. This is not a show of strength -- it is evidence of fear. And the extremists are doing everything in their power to bring down these young democracies. The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help. And every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them."

The President also referred to some U.S. policies and programs regarding HIV/AIDS, hunger, malaria and other causes around the world that are generally accepted to be beneficial and he should be credited for his role in those programs.

But he also criticized the countries of Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Burma [Myanmar], Cuba, Zimbabwe, Sudan and Venezuela [he mentioned Caracas, the capital] for their abuse of human rights, tyranny, repression, etc.

He said that the government of Zimbabwe has forced "millions to flee their homeland" but he failed to mentioned the more than 2 million Iraqis who have had to leave their country because of the war we started. Kenneth Bacon president of Refugees International said that the "United States and its allies sparked the current chaos in Iraq, but they are doing little to ease the humanitarian crisis caused by the current exodus..."

Referring to Burma Bush stated that the "regime is holding more than 1,000 political prisoners -- including Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party was elected overwhelmingly by the Burmese people in 1990." He did not mention the abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad or the fact that app. 25,000 Iraqis are now being "detained" by U.S.-Iraqi forces, including 800 juveniles as young as 11. He also failed to mention that this week Iraq was cited in the Corruption Perceptions Index as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, along with Myanmar (Burma) and Somalia.

Schools, utilities, etc. in Baghdad, Fallujah and other parts of Iraq are barely functioning and the general quality of life is barely tolerable.

I could go on but you get the idea.

How can he, someone who was at least partially responsible for the chaos and humanitarian crisis in Iraq, accuse other countries of human rights abuses? Does he think that just because it isn't happening here in the U.S. but on the other side of the world that it doesn't count? That no one is paying attention?

Is this just another example of a Republican accusing others of what he himself is doing to draw attention away from his bad acts? If he accuses someone else of being against human rights it means that he must be as concerned about human rights as he claims to be? Or is he just pointing out that there are countries whose policies he thinks are worse than his policy in Iraq?

He also said in this address: "The truth is denied by terrorists and extremists who kill the innocent with the aim of imposing their hateful vision on humanity." Isn't he also denying the truth?

Cloture, Payback and the Power of the Purse

"cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. "

There's been alot of talk about cloture since the Democrats took over in the Senate. In fact, as of September 19, 2007, there have been 56 cloture votes, 2 less than the previous record of 58, and the number is expected to more than double by the end of this Congressional term in 2008. So what exactly is this cloture? While the 60 votes required to pass cloture are often mentioned in the media, an explanation of what exactly it is have not been. I'm going to attempt to explain briefly the basics of cloture and, in addition, discuss a little bit about how the Democrats can use the "Power of the Purse" to play hardball with the Republicans.

For an example of cloture look at the Reed-Levin amendment which is (was?) a proposed amendment to the Department of Defense spending bill that sets a deadline/timeline for bringing the troops home from Iraq. Back in July of this year the Democrats hoped to vote on the amendment in the Senate. The majority of the Senate Republicans did not want the amendment to pass or to even be voted on so they threatened to filibuster. But they didn't actually filibuster, they just threatened to.

In order to prevent the usual "up or down" Senate vote which requires a simple majority (51 votes if all 100 Senators are voting) the Republicans have been habitually threatening to filibuster in order to block the vote on any bill that they see as being the least bit partisan. As many people have pointed out, anyone who has seen the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, knows that the traditional filibuster is when Senators, usually those of the minority party, stage endless debate on a bill, amendment etc. in order to block the majority party from voting and passing it.

That was the old-school filibuster. It was used in the 1960's by Southern Democrats to stall the passing of Civil Rights Legislation. A filibuster could last for days or weeks and prevent not only the passing of bills, etc. but also prevent the Senate from conducting any other business.

Over the past thirty years or so there has been a shift towards "procedural agreements" that allow the minority party to just threaten a filibuster to have the same effect as if they actually did filibuster: the filibuster is now more of a virtual concept than an actual event.

How it works is that once the minority party, in this case the Republicans, threaten to filibuster an item up for debate, in this case the Reed-Levin amendment, the majority party, the Democrats, in an effort to not only save themselves from possible round-the-clock sessions but also to allow the Senate to work on other matters, automatically invoke cloture, the Senate procedure that limits debate on an item being considered. If it passes cloture the item can continue through the Senate process, if it doesn't it can be shelved and reconsidered at a later time.

During an old-school filibuster cloture was usually invoked when the majority party thought it had the 60 votes for it to pass. (This is a supermajority of votes meaning that no matter how many senators are voting , 60 votes are required, not just a percentage of the total Senators present.) If they did not have the 60 votes the debate could continue as long as the opponents of the item had the will to keep it going. However, because of the relatively recent procedural agreements that have streamlined the process and also because of the tenuous majority held by the Democrats in the Senate of the 110th Congress, cloture has evolved into a slightly different, largely defensive procedure. For the Democrats cloture has become a routine method of responding to what they view as the Republicans' obstructionist use of the "virtual" filibuster .

So the Republicans threatened to filibuster and Sen. Harry Reid automatically invokes cloture. No fuss no muss: the old-school filibuster is averted and the cloture procedure goes into affect. For one full day after cloture is invoked the matter is set aside. Then on the second day up to 30 hours of debate are conducted and then the cloture vote is held. However, according to a Congressional Research Service report titled "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate" while there are various standard rules to follow once one a party invokes cloture these rules can be bent to a certain extent if agreed to by mutual consent.

Republicans are threatening to filibuster practically any bill that the Democrats introduce. As a result Sen. Reid has been forced to use cloture as a way to conduct the day-to-day business of the Senate. Most bills introduced by the Democrats are requiring 60 votes instead of a simple majority to be passed. For instance, the Reed-Levin amendment had a chance of passing and becoming part of the defense spending bill with a simple majority (it had 52 of the 60 votes needed for cloture) in which case it could have been sent to President Bush. He would have been forced to veto it if he didn't want it to become law. But rather than have the President be forced to publicly veto a bill that would effectively end the war, and give more publicity to his unwillingness to compromise, the Republicans forced the Democrats to have to get 60 votes for a bill that with 52 possible votes had a chance of passing if it had only needed the usual majority vote of 51%.

However, Republican efforts have no real effect beyond obstructing the business of the Senate since for any Democratic backed-bill to over-ride a Presidential Veto and actually pass into law, it would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress which is very unlikely to happen with or without filibustering or cloture. So in effect the Republicans are trying to make the Democrats look as bad as possible: "Those Democrats can't even get a bill passed let alone send one to the President", etc.

And even if there is a possibility that the Democrats might manage to get a bill passed, the Bush Administration complains. Over the weekend, in his radio address, the President complained about the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Congress will be having final votes on this week, saying that the "Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed". What he doesn't say is that the only reason the bill made it past a cloture vote earlier this year was because Republicans contributed to the necessary 60 votes.

However, the Democrats do have at least one possible way of getting around the Republican filibuster roadblock. The so-called, "power of the purse". Wolf Blitzer asked Hilary Clinton about it yesterday on this Sunday show. She very conveniently was able to say that she had voted against the Iraq spending bill last May. That's true but she voted against it knowing that it was going to pass.

There was no Republican threat to filibuster that bill. But it was the Democrats who allowed it to come up for a vote in the first place. They didn't have to. That is what is behind the power of the purse. The Democrats are in power in Congress. And because they are in power they control which bills are put on the calendar and sent to the floor for debate and possible vote. They don't even have to put the bills that fund the Iraq War on the calendar.

Senator Biden and other Democratic members of the House and Senate have said that they do not want to halt funding because they feel it might endanger the troops. Haven't they heard of negotiation? Isn't that what they do in Congress? Threatening to cut off funding doesn't mean they actually have to cut off all funding (though to be honest alot of us would prefer they did). The Republicans might be a little more agreeable to reducing troop strength if the Democrats threatened to not allow any funding at all.

Also the next time the Republicans threaten to filibuster an Iraq spending bill. Let them. And I don't mean the 30 hour filibuster on the Reed-Levin amendment that Reid forced back in July after he had invoked cloture. I mean, forget the cloture vote and force the Republicans to hold an old-school filibuster. If they feel so strongly about the Iraq War force them to fight for it on the floor of the Senate.

In my last post I discussed a little bit about how the Republicans play a kind of hardball that the Democrats are maybe too principled to get into. But maybe this is their chance to play. Sure the Republicans are going to accuse the Democrats of endangering the troops. But aren't they already doing that? Whatever the Democrats do the Republicans are going to spin it to make the Democrats look bad. They might as well do exactly what they promised to do to get elected and to hell with how the Republicans spin it. As for the press, they are criticizing the Democrats more for not delivering on their campaign promises than for anything else.

Let the Republicans cry foul. So what! What have Democrats got to lose? Are they afraid of some kind of Republican retribution down the line? What could the Republicans do that they haven't already? Remember how they went after the Clintons before, during and after Bill was President? Come on, isn't it time that maybe the Democrats indulged in a little payback? And it wouldn't be the kind of self-serving payback that the Republicans are known for, it would be payback in service of a very good cause.

Bush Betrayed Us; Has Petraeus?

Gen. Petraeus is one of the few in the military establishment who really seems to get the idea that might is not always right. Like retired Gen. Wesley Clark I really do think that Petraeus understands the military adage by Karl von Clausewitz that war is an extension of politics. (I interpret this to mean that war should not be an end in and of itself but used in conjunction with diplomacy and employed only when diplomacy and peaceful forms of politics fail.) I think that Petraeus is a very capable person and has a very clear idea of the political role he is playing but he is only as good as the policy he is required to implement. I get the feeling that he sincerely believes he can improve the situation in Iraq but on the whole his assessment of the threat of al Qaeda in Iraq doesn't really add up. There continues to be obvious political motivation for our military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq that cannot be overlooked.

Judging from Petraeus’ testimony in Congress, he believes as the Bush Administration has stated that his primary goal is leading the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq [AQI]. However according to a U.S. intelligence report that came out in July 2007: "al Qaeda in Iraq is responsible for 15 percent of the attacks in the country, often the most deadly. Sunni insurgents are blamed for 70 percent of attacks, and Shiite militias 15 percent. Shiite attacks, however, have sharply increased and are now probably higher than 15 percent." Other government sources have indicated that AQI is responsible for 8 percent or less of the the violent attacks in the county.

It seems unreasonable that we are expending so much effort in an attempt to contain what amounts to a fraction of the problem which is mostly Shia and Sunni sectarian violence and infighting -- not AQI terrorism. And it lends credence to the argument that AQI is not the huge threat to the security of the U.S. homeland" as has been claimed by Bush ("We are fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here”). And currently, as Petraeus himself has outlined in the hearings, many of the Sunni factions in Iraq dislike AQI and are fighting against them effectively. Why do they need us? It's obvious that AQI is only an excuse for our continued presence in Iraq.

As I wrote in my post of September 9, Petraeus has said that he felt that Fallujah was an example of U.S. success, this despite it being largely destroyed in our attempts to get "al Qaeda" out of the city. And in fact only when local Sunni militias decided to rout al Qaeda from the city in late 2006 was there any real success in fighting AQI there. And in today's hearing Petraeus cited the successful tactics of local Sunnis in continuing to secure the city including using gated communities secured by concrete barriers and armed guards. While Fallujah may be more peaceful that it was in past months it still sounds like a city under siege.

Petraeus seemed to be using Fallujah as an example of what could be done elsewhere. Unfortunately, this type of success is very temporary and in no way takes the place of real stability.

During yesterday's hearing Ambassador Crocker outlined his program to try to reach out to the radical elements of both Sunni and Shia who he thought might be open to reconciliation. And Petraeus added that "you reconcile with your enemies not your friends." It all sounds great in a hearing room, but as one senator said he wished Petraeus had been in charge after the war ended in 2003 but that now in 2007 it might be too late for these diplomatic efforts to be effective.

It is too late especially when the State Department and even the Department of Defense seem to be continuing their hands off approach in regards to Iraq at least in public. It would be another blunder in a series of horrendous blunders to actually expect these two men to clean up Iraq on their own without more public support from Secretaries Rice and Gates.

Is the Bush Administration purposefully trying to minimize it's involvement with the decisions made on the ground in Iraq? Or is it a result of a lame duck government that is in chaos? Both. There is chaos in the government: Rumsfled, Gonzales , Rove, Libby, and other lesser figures have been forced to resign and there have been reports of infighting between the Cheney and the non-Cheney factions in the Bush Administration that have hampered decision-making within the administration. And as outlined in several books (Hubris, Emerald City, etc.) the Iraq War was bungled in part because Washington sent to Iraq people like J. Paul Bremer who were given "a free hand" in doing whatever they felt was necessary to run Iraq without having to answer to the State Department or DOD.

On the other hand, despite the chaos in the White House and the continued appearance of ambivalence regarding what Petraeus and Crocker actually do in Iraq, I get the sense that the White House now has an over-arching political purpose in Iraq that was missing in the past. While Petraeus and Crocker are more honest than past bosses in Iraq they are still toeing the Bush party line. They would not have been put in charge if their loyalty was in question. As a result I do not believe that they have introduced any real change in how the Iraq War is being fought. Are they being set up as scapegoats? I don't think so.

The feeling I get from the past couple days of hearings is that the military and diplomatic information is not the real story. The real story is purely political. This was discussed to some extent last night on Keith Olbermann. Olbermann also speculated reluctantly that some Senate Democrats might be prolonging the war so that it would still be a viable issue for the 2008 elections. That is a horrible possibility. But similarly on the Republican side I think what is going on is that Petraeus has been employed to portray the war in the most positive light possible to allow the U.S., as many have been speculating for months, to slowly leave Iraq and claim success in the process. He's planning on a troop reduction that will be completed just in time for the Democratic and Republican Conventions in late summer 2008. This good news might allow the Republicans to claim that they are in the process of leaving Iraq and minimize to an extent the Democrats ability to use the war as an election issue.

Also on Olbermann last night, John Dean stated that the Democrats are not able to play political hard ball as well as the Republicans and that is one reason why they are having difficulty in getting their way, especially in the Senate. I think that is probably true. Playing hard ball like the Republicans usually involves lying, obfuscating, misrepresenting reality, throwing friends under the bus and worst of all sacrificing innocent lives for their political agenda. One reason why many of us are Democrats is because we don't want to play that kind of hard ball.

I Love Code Pink!

Not that I always agree with them, but I love seeing and/or hearing their noisy anti-war protests on global TV. Today Code Pinkers are out in force at the Petraeus-Crocker Senate Hearings. Code Pink Rules!

And as I think I mentioned in an earlier post, with the Democrats now in charge of the Senate protesters are actually allowed into the hearings. And so far today, only the noisy protesters are being hauled out. They are allowing the quiet but obviously Code Pink members to stay in the room. Looks like the plan is to have a series of disruptions throughout the hearing. Great tactic!

Let me repeat, I Love Code Pink!

Let Iran Fight al Qaeda in Iraq So We Don't Have To

"Don't try to storm the doors, wait until they open." The 9/11 hijackers took recognizance flights on commercial airlines prior to 9/11/2001 and determined that about 15 minutes into each flight the cockpit door was opened either by one of the cockpit crew or by a stewardess. So the plan was to get into the cockpit when one of the crew opened the door. (from History Channel show re 9/11 Commission report)

In a way, the same strategy of taking full advantage of its enemy's weakness is being employed in Iraq on a much larger scale. When the U.S. bungled their occupation of Iraq and allowed the country to unravel and deteriorate into chaos, "al Qaeda" saw their chance to get a foothold in the country. And now the Bush administration in a classic example of turning one's failure into an asset, is using the "al Qaeda" presence in Iraq as an excuse to remain there indefinitely. And also seemingly an excuse to ignore the real problems and issues that are helping to prolong the chaos. “Al Qaeda” is only a small part of the problem in Iraq.

The Republicans are still talking about winning in Iraq. Today on FOX News Newt Gringrich said: "If we were to lose in Iraq it would be a disaster." Well we have lost and it is a disaster. And I think the main reason we lost was because not only did we not have a plan for the occupation, we did not have a plan for the real war. Bush kept saying that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism. But obviously the war in Iraq for the United States and it's coalition from the beginning was a war against Iraqis who did not want us in Iraq. What was our real reason for invading Iraq? Were we fighting in hopes of controlling Iraqi oil? Were we fighting in hopes of creating a U.S. satellite state that we could use as a base to invade Iran? (Didn't they think that the Shi'as in Iraq might not like us invading another Shi'a country?) Or maybe just preventing Iran from exerting influence over Iraq? Whatever it was, the excuse that we were fighting the war on terror, Saddam and WMD now seems catastrophically pitiful.

We need to begin to interpret the war in Iraq in a more realistic context. One problem is that like Vietnam the U.S. cannot always tell who is on their side and who is the enemy. And the problem is even worse in Iraq because there is more than one side. In Vietnam there was just the North Vietnamese. In Iraq there are the radical Sunnis, the radical Shi'a and to a lesser extent "Al Qaeda" and various factions of those groups who are not only fighting us but one another.

The Bush Admin is still using the excuse that they are fighting "al Qaeda" in Iraq and once they get "al Qaeda" under control then it will be safe environment for the Iraqi's to develop their government. "Al Qaeda" is not the problem! The problem is the Sunni and Shia don't get along and don't trust one another primarily because under Saddam the Sunnis oppressed the Shi'a. To put it simplistically the Shi'a are afraid the Sunnis and their Ba'ath party will once again take control of Iraq and the Sunnis are afraid that they might be victims of retribution if the Shi'a are in power. This is the main reason for the current political stalemate and inaction of the elected government in Iraq. This stalemate is not going to be affected by our fighting a war on terror in Iraq. Terrorism is not the real issue in Iraq, the issue now is how to bring the warring factions together. I don't think the U.S. has enough (or any) good will left with the people of Iraq to be of any use in making this reconciliation occur.

We have lost in our attempt to bring Iraq under our influence. We have to accept that it is not going to happen. I think that at least we need to redeploy as John Murtha suggested almost 2 years ago, to bases outside Iraq and only intervene if it becomes necessary. Necessary, at this point, to do what I'm not sure. I could say to prevent ethnic cleansing but that's already happened. I could say to protect the country's infrastructure but that has already been severely compromised if not destroyed in Baghdad, Fallujah and elsewhere. I'm not sure that there's much left to save the Iraqi's from that we haven't already allowed to happen. The excuse often used for our remaining is to prevent the chaos that will occur if we leave. Chaos has already happened. We have not only been unable to stop chaos we have caused chaos.

Fallujah is a sad example of our not only ignoring the chaos we have caused but also having the gall to call it an example of our "success". In 2004 the U.S. bombed Fallujah destroying at least 10,000 of the city's 39,000 homes and at least two-thirds of the city's 300,000 inhabitants were forced to leave. Last week General Petraeus walked through Fallujah with CBS' Katie Couric and she asked him: "You say Fallujah is a real success story. What turned it around?" How could a city of app. 300,000 people roughly the size of Cincinnati being bombed to the point where half the city was left without electricity and running water and one quarter of homes destroyed be deemed a success? After the war officially "ended" in March of 2003 Fallujah was largely unscathed. If we had managed to secure the town before we destroyed it in our quest to rout out "al Qaeda" and in the process kill thousands of its residents I think we might have been allowed to call it a success story. I respect General Petraeus but I think the glare of TV lights and camera have compromised his ability to access reality honestly.

On CNN today Rick Barton of the Center for Strategic & International Studies who assisted the Iraq Study Group said in regard to the Iraq War that we need to acknowledge the "stalemate in Washington and the dead end in Iraq." Or it works vice versa just as well -- the stalemate in Iraq and the dead end in Washington.

We need to accept the fact that we have lost in Iraq and that our continued involvement there is not going to make the situation better. We invaded Iraq and managed to destabilize the country. We are not going to be able to re-stabilize the country without destroying it as we destroyed Fallujah. At this point I'm not sure that any chaos that is created by our leaving can be that much worse than the chaos that we have already created.

Newt Gringrich also said today that "Iraq is less dangerous than in 2001." I'm not sure how in any way Iraq is less dangerous now. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have been killed since we invaded their country in 2003, many more than would have died if Saddam were allowed to remain in power. Shi'as may be in some ways better off politically but they are in more danger now than when Saddam was in power.

Will our leaving force the government of Iraq to turn to Iran for support? Probably. But then they can fight "al Qaeda" in Iraq so we don't have to.