The Iraq War Has Now Lasted Six Years

From Andrew Sullivan:

You realize again from this speech just how utterly different the rationale was for the war at the start than it is now: to "defend the world from grave danger." There was no grave danger. How the US government could have been so incompetent in making such a serious charge remains bewildering to me. How I was so credulous still shames me.

I feel Sullivan's pain because I supported the war in the beginning as well. But I was a foolish 20-year-old undergrad at the time--not an excuse, just an explanation. Never again will I be so easily duped.

Science Saturday: Robots Of War

(http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/18348)

Topics covered:

Peter’s latest book, “Wired for War”... How robots helped make the Iraq surge a success... Do America’s high-tech weapons do more harm than good?... The DARPA Grand Challenge as 21st century Manhattan Project... Will you someday have to give up your bus seat to a cyborg?... Why the robotics revolution won’t end war...

Only "Several Dozen Thousands Of Soldiers"

Jon Stewart continues to adapt well to mocking the Obama administration:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mess O'Potamia - The Iraq War Is Over

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

(http://www.thedailyshow.com/video)

Barney Frank Gets Halfway There On Spending

(Via Think Progress.)

The occupation of Iraq has indeed been a disastrous waste of resources. But so is a substantial quantity of domestic spending. If Frank were to recognize that, he'd be one of my favorite politicians. Just imagine if he were to speak out in favor of economic liberty with the same fire he summons when discussing civil rights. But, of course, that would make him a libertarian.

David Gregory No Better Than Tim Russert

Glenn Greenwald writes:

Several months before he was named as moderator of Meet the Press, David Gregory went on MSNBC to categorically reject Scott McClellan's accusations that the American media failed to scrutinize the Bush administration's pre-war claims. Gregory vigorously praised the job which he and his "journalistic" colleagues did in the run-up to the Iraq War -- the period which Salon's Gary Kamiya called "one of the greatest collapses in the history of the American media." Proclaimed Gregory, with a straight face: "Questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the President. Not only those of us in the White House Press Corps did that, but others in the media landscape did that." Most revealingly of all, Gregory said:

I think there are a lot of critics who think that...if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn't do our job. I respectfully disagree. It's not our role.

Indeed. Perish the thought that a reporter should point out when government officials are making "bogus" claims and are lying a country into a war. That is "not their role," says the New Tim Russert (and, unsurprisingly, the Old Tim Russert wholeheartedly agreed). I don't know whether Gregory's public advocacy for a meek and polite press corps that would never be so rude as to point out when government leaders are lying is what sealed the deal for his new promotion to Meet the Press -- a show which centrally depends on having powerful politicians know that they can come on and, as Dick Cheney's top communications aide put it, "control the message." But I'm quite sure that it didn't hurt.

Continue reading.

Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop

Okay, this was about the best break from studying I have ever had. Forget walking around the block, grabbing coffee with friends, enjoying a shot of whiskey, or shooting stick. I looked up from my frantic final paper writing routine to see reports of a man chucking shoes at Bush's head. Size 10 shoes to be precise. Also hilarious is what the man screamed at Bush, which roughly translated amounts to: "this is a farewell kiss, dog."

In my head, it is said in the raspy voice of a mafia godfather with a dash of urban slang. (this-a is a fare-a-well kiss, dawg). Clearly the caffeine and lack of sleep are having their way with my mental processes. Interestingly enough in Arab culture, shoe throwing is a sign of great disrespect. As in, I will throw my shoe at them, which is a disgrace them, if they bear it.

So Bush sneaks in to Iraq all covertly for what amounts to his farewell tour of the region, plays through his greatest hits of democracy, freedom, courage, and victory and just when it seems like a very typical Bush in Iraq moment he avoids a size 10 loafer to the cranium. So lovely.

Editorial update:

Here's the video:


(Via Towleroad.)

Obama Slams McCain on Iraq (With Video Footnotes)

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG1aOORf8Pc)

(Via Slog.)

Regarding Iraq's New-Found Stability

It seems to be alarmingly fragile:

The Iraqi government is taking over responsibility for the local militias that helped break the back of the country's Sunni insurgency. But these fighters -- known as "Awakening Councils" and "Sons of Iraq" -- are largely hostile to the Shi'ite-dominated administration in Baghdad. So what happens next? No one is really quite sure.

Over the past eighteen months, U.S. forces in Iraq have put on the payroll more than 100,000 militiamen -- many of whom are former insurgents themselves. That's the main reason why American troops were able on Monday to hand off control of Anbar Province to the Iraqis.

How to Get Out (and Stay Out) of Iraq

Thomas Barnett lays out the best strategy for leaving Iraq such that we are least likely to ever feel pressured to return:

With American combat troops now slated to depart Iraq by 2011, our intervention moves into its final phase, with the crucial goal being the expansion of economic opportunity for ordinary citizens.

Our - and Iraq's - success here will determine the likelihood of our military's return down the road under less favorable circumstances.

Much is made of Iraq's seeming unwillingness to spend its oil profits on infrastructure, the assumption being that Baghdad is milking American taxpayers. Let me offer another explanation: Iraq lacks sufficient "counterparty" capacity to negotiate, conclude and manage the necessary deals with the outside world.

He goes on to argue that helping Iraq develop that ability over the next two years is key to the success of our withdrawal.

Barnett's new book, in which he lays out his vision for America's role in the world after George Bush's ignoble rule ends, comes out early next year.

McCain, the Media, and Iraq

John McCain's campaign has been complaining quite a bit recently about what they see as media bias in Obama's favor.

But are most journalists really out to get McCain? The evidence says no:

In an interview with John McCain, CBS scrubbed an erroneous statement by the candidate about the Iraq surge and replaced it with a soundbyte criticizing Obama's position on the war in Iraq.

If the mainstream media were actually out to get McCain, news shows would be playing this clip nonstop:


(Video via Reason.)

Those of us in the media should stop fretting about being neutral and focus instead on being objective. Fair and balanced are not synonyms and they're not both equally important to journalistic integrity. Sometimes one side of an argument is simply much stronger than the other side. Sweeping such differences in important policy positions under the rug is a disservice to the American people.

At this point the so-called Fourth Estate is more of a toy poodle than a watchdog. And many journalists actually expression confusion as to why people who are really interested in what's going on in the world are abandoning the mainstream media in record numbers. Isn't the reason obvious? The media is in fact biased, but not in favor of any particular candidate. Rather, it's biased in favor of all of them because most journalists refuse to persistently call any of them on the prodigious quantities of bullshit they all spew on a daily basis.

"Winning" the "War" in Iraq

According to Joe Klein, John McCain said the following yesterday in New Hampshire:

This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

Klein dismisses the comment as "unpresidential" and "sad."

I won't quibble with that, but I have some more basic questions. Would someone please define the words "win" and "war" for me in the context of the current situation in Iraq? Because it's just not clear to me what McCain means when he says those words.

If the American occupation of Iraq is still a war, then who are exactly are we fighting it against? And how will we know when we have won?

I could understand it if McCain would argue that we have to stay in Iraq until its government is capable of maintaining at least the level of security currently in place. But all this talk of winning and losing obscures that goal. Stabilizing Iraq isn't a war and it isn't a game--and it's too complex of a process to lend itself to such simplistic rhetoric about winning or losing.

Given Bush's scandalously low approval ratings, one would think McCain and his campaign staff would be more careful to avoid sounding as simplistic and binary as the current president is known for sounding. However, it seems to be increasingly an open question as to how in touch with the situation in Iraq McCain is anyway. Trying to dumb down your talking points to score cheap political points with unsophisticated voters is bad enough, but actually believing such statements is outright frightening.