President Barack Obama, February 27, 2009: “To the Iraqi people, let me be clear about America’s intentions — the United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources.”
After, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, having exhausted all alternatives.
Separated at birth? Jonathan Krohn & Damien
Step aside, Rush Limpboy & Flobby Jindal, the Repugs have gotta new spiritual leader: 13-year old Jonathan Krohn! The good news for them is that little Krohn is none other than Damien, the Son of Satan. Now they’ve got their candidate for 2030, who is guaranteed to win, what with the backing of Hell and all!
Little Krohn/Damien embraced his birthright at a tender young age of 8, and has been prepping to take over the US and the world ever since.
Spencer Ackerman, among others, has posted the details on President Obama’s announcement today of his planned timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
This morning’s New York Times, though, had an ominous background description of the plan, attributed to “administration officials”:
The plan would maintain relatively high troop levels through Iraq’s parliamentary elections, to be held in December, before beginning in earnest to meet the August 2010 target for removing combat forces, the officials said.
. . . The withdrawal would start slowly, with 2 of the 14 American combat brigades now in Iraq pulling out before the December elections, officials said. After the transition to a new government, the withdrawal would accelerate early next year.
“The commanders are concerned about maximizing their numbers on the ground for as long as possible, at least until we get to the other side of the elections,” another senior official said.
Marc Lynch (neé Abu Aardvark) explains the problem with this plan:
Iraq’s Parliamentary elections have not yet been scheduled and don’t even have an electoral law, and according to a number of senior Iraqi politicians probably will not be held until March 2010 (not December 2009). That would then give the U.S. about five months to withdraw the bulk of the dozen combat brigades which would reportedly remain. And then, keep in mind that U.S. officials generally agree (correctly) that the most dangerous period of elections is actually in their aftermath, when disgruntled losers might turn to violence or other destabilizing measures. So the following month will likely not seem a good time either. So that would leave four months to move, what — 9 brigades? Did someone say precipitous? Good luck with that.
I’ve never been too worked up over debates about the size of a “residual force” after the U.S. withdraws the bulk of its troops from Iraq — in my view, that’s the last 25-30% of a process that will take on a logic of its own once it has begun. The important thing has been to begin the process.
For that exact reason, I’m worried now. As Lynch notes, this slow-starting withdrawal plan originated among folks (in the military and elsewhere) who were perfectly comfortable with not withdrawing from Iraq at all.
President Obama may think that he’s worked a compromise that has gotten those skeptics/opponents to buy into accepting a withdrawal. But when I see that John McCain is “cautiously optimistic” about Obama’s plan, I fear that they think they’ve lured him into a trap. Which means that someone is in for an unpleasant surprise.
(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)
It seems like every news story involving global warming involves the phrase “faster than previously expected,” and this latest bleak update on the accelerating loss of Antarctic ice is no exception. Too lazy to read the article? Here is the bleak bit:
A 2007 IPCC report predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches (18 to 58 centimeters) by the end of the century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee. The group said an additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) rise was possible if the recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.
Summerhayes said the rise could be much higher.
“If the west Antarctica sheet collapses, then we’re looking at a sea level rise of between 1 meter and 1.5 meters (3 feet, 4 inches to nearly 5 feet),” Summerhayes said.
Last month I argued against Obama’s emerging broke-ass Afghanistan policy. It looks like he is going forward with an escalation of 17,000 additional US soldiers. This, is in the face of our increasingly strangled and expensive supply lines.
And as I argued before, if we are dead set on an Afghanistan escalation (that we will eventually lose), we need to first complete the exit from Iraq. What could possibly go wrong? How about the existing tensions between the Kurds and Arabs in Northern Iraq flaring up into a full-on war? And it sure doesn’t help matters when our tactics involve the accidental, but continual slaughter of civilians from aerial bombardment - instead of winning hearts and minds, you need to pick them up from around the target.
Obama has been variously compared to JFK and Lincoln. Could we in fact be looking at the Reincarnation of LBJ?
Sad, really.
The New York Times reports today on “the first day of the trial of the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President Bush at a news conference in Baghdad two months ago”:
As the journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, was escorted into the courtroom on Thursday morning, the crowd — family members, politicians, lawyers, even some Iraqi reporters — erupted into applause, shouting, weeping and ululating, drawing a rebuke from the judge.
That has to be awkward for the Maliki government — which, despite impertinent questions about how much the prime minister really minded the shoe toss, undoubtedly feels pressured obligated to punish al-Zaidi severely (the de riguer jailhouse beatings and other torture in the newly democratic and “free” Iraq notwithstanding).
Then again, this passage from the Associated Press account of yesterday’s events is intriguing:
The defense argued Thursday that the current charge is not applicable because Bush was not in Baghdad on an official visit, having arrived unannounced and without an invitation.
“The visit was not formal because Bush is an occupier and he was received by the commander of the U.S. Army and it was an undeclared visit,” lawyer Ghalib al-Rubaie said. . . .
Judge Abdul-Amir al-Rubaie recessed the trial until next month, saying the court needed time to ask the Iraqi Cabinet whether Bush’s visit was “formal or informal.”
Is this a serious legal question (which, if upheld, would give a whole new meaning to the term “casual day”)… or just a chance to look for a way out of sentencing a popular hero? Either way, it’s hard not to sympathize with the shoe-thrower’s explanation of his motive while watching Shrubya’s self-congratulation during the press conference:
“I was seeing a whole country in calamity while Bush was giving a cold and spiritless smile,” al-Zeidi testified.
Yep. We’ve all been there, haven’t we?
(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)
You’d think that about 10 years after Kyoto, Al Gore’s award-winning powerpoints, and a European Carbon market, carbon dioxide emissions should be decreasing. You’d be wrong.
Tip of the ‘Nose to Game Buddy:
Ben & Jerry have created “Yes Pecan!” ice cream
flavor for Obama.
For George W. they asked for suggestions from
the public.
Here are some of their favorite responses:
Grape Depression
The Housing Crunch
Abu Grape
Cluster Fudge
Nut’n Accomplished
Iraqi Road
Chock ‘n Awe
WireTapioca
Impeach Cobbler
Guantanmallow
imPeachmint
Heck of a Job, Brownie!
Neocon Politan
RockyRoad to Fascism
The Reese’s-cession
Cookie D’oh!
Nougalar Proliferation
Death by Chocolate… and Torture
Freedom Vanilla Ice Cream
Chocolate Chip On My Shoulder
Credit Crunch
Mission Pecanplished
Country Pumpkin
Chunky Monkey in Chief
WMDelicious
Chocolate Chimp
Bloody Sundae
Caramel Preemptive Stripe
and…
I broke the law and am responsible for the deaths of
thousands . . .with nuts
The Associated Press reports today from Iraq:
Iraqi officials acknowledged Sunday that there was some fraud in last month’s provincial elections but not enough to force a new vote in any province.
Faraj al-Haidari, chairman of the election commission, said final results of the Jan. 31 voting would be certified and announced this week. Voters chose members of ruling provincial councils in an election seen as a dress rehearsal for parliamentary balloting by the end of the year.
. . . Al-Haidari told The Associated Press that ballots in more than 30 polling stations nationwide were nullified because of fraud but that was not enough to declare the election a failure.
He gave no further details. But one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not supposed to talk about the vote to media, said the most widespread fraud appeared to have occurred in Diyala province, which has large Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish communities and an ongoing insurgency.
A coalition including the Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni political group, led in Diyala with 21.1 percent of the vote followed by a Kurdish alliance with 17.2 percent, according to preliminary results.
Al-Maliki’s coalition finished fourth in Diyala with 9.5 percent.
I have to admit, I’m impressed with the fragmented voting results, which really do suggest a lack of voting fraud (especially contrasted with the frequent 90%-plus provincial majorities common in the national parliamentary elections). If the worst fraud led to a 21%-to-17% victory, that’s progress.
At the same time, things could easily revert to form in the next national elections, which are scheduled to come at the end of this year (but could be postponed, as the provincial voting was). This round of voting featured Shiite parties competing against one another in Shiite-dominated provinces, and the same in predominantly Sunni provinces.
When the ability to form a national government is on the line again, the incentives to build sectarian coalitions — and manipulate the vote for maximum “support” — will be back.
From Reuters a couple of days ago (via Salam Pax):
Before leaving Washington last week to deliver a major foreign policy speech in Germany, [Vice President Joseph] Biden chided Baghdad for failing to settle disputes over the city of Kirkuk and to enact a law dividing oil revenue, among other issues.
“I think our administration is going to have to be very deeply involved. We are going to have to get in there and be much more aggressive in forcing them to deal with these issues,” Biden said.
Asked about Biden’s remarks on Tuesday, [Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-]Maliki, an increasingly assertive leader whose followers won surprise victories in provincial elections last month, fired back.
“I believe talk about applying pressure on the Iraqi government or taking hard measures against it no longer works,” he said at a news conference in Baghdad with visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
The New York Times version is even more blunt:
“The time for putting pressure on Iraq is over,” Mr. Maliki said in answer to a reporter’s question about Mr. Biden’s remarks. “The Iraqi government knows what its responsibilities are.” [. . .]
According to political advisers, Mr. Maliki is intent on changing the nature of Baghdad’s relationship with Washington, shifting Iraq’s role from a client state to a more equal partner.
This is a point I kept trying to make last year, when I wrote that Maliki & Co. had every reason to sincerely push for U.S. concessions in the SOFA negotiations – including endorsing Obama’s proposed withdrawal timeline. Rather than begging for a neocon occupation to prop them up, I wrote last July, the Shiite clerical powers who put Maliki and his allies in office wanted to
… use the American military as a contractor of sorts to help cement a Shiite-led government’s power, then nudge us aside when the task was more or less complete. Maliki’s newfound spine, if anything, just means that they think that time is drawing closer.
And it’s drawing closer still now. Anyone on the U.S. side who imagines we’re still in a position to impose our will on Iraq, whether it’s Biden, Obama, or Gen. Petraeus and his cronies, is likely to spend the coming months finding out how irrelevant their plans are.
(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)