Cobra II

If you give damn about what most Americans care about these days above all else--the Iraq War--then get a hold of Cobra II: The Inside Story of The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.

I wouldn't normally provide free advertising but I found this an exceptional and well researched book. Not only is it intellectually stimulating (and often depressing) it is also viscerally exciting.

The first third of the book substantially corrobarates Woodward's "Plan Of Attack" regarding Rumsfeld's influence and relationship with General Tommy Franks and how the invasion was concieved and prosecuted. Personally I learned little more than I already knew about the reasons and planning of the Iraq invasion which is covered in the first third of the book so that aspectof it can be read as a prologue for those of us who have been paying attention.

What particulary struck me about the book was its representation of the experiences of the Army 3rd Infantry Division. the Marines and the Special Forces as depicted by personal testimony and official record woven into a narrative by the authors.

For all the high tech-gadgetry that promised so much, the testimony in this book suggests it didn't live up to it's hype. And as for Frank's and Rumsfeld's planning, those schemes were not as solid as they represented either. Indeed my impression from this book, which in its narrative it does not explicitly iterate , is that that the best laid plans of mice and men are often thwarted--yet it is the men on the gorind who have to carry out the plans who make the plan succeed, not the planners themselves.

The descriptions of combat are uttely clinical with no drama added. Yet in the cold prose the pain and chaos of warfare is stark and disturbing. As much as this book is a critique of the politicians that chose to conduct the war and upper miltary echolons who enabled it, it is also a testament to those who were given no choice but to conduct it, to fight it and to die or be injured in it.

Beyond the exemplay research of the authors what impressed me most was the actions of the soldiers as they were described--mostly importantly the frequent conflict they experienced in trying to balance the orders they were given with the realiteies on the grounf, their own respective perceptions, knowledge and experience and the demands of their superiors, the mission and the "cause".

COBRA II is not a diatribe with a political bent. It is as honest an account as you will find of the Iraq war. And as comprehensive as it is, it is not comprehensive enough.
Nonetheless it provides an exceptional insight into why and how this war was conducted. Given such a contemporsary example
I would urge every reader of this book to then delve into the political and military histories of past wars and then compare--I'd suggest you will find the similarites with seemingly ancient conflicts shockingly familiar.

War is war, it is bloody and cruel no matter the century in which it occurs. But what truly distinguishes one war from another is not so much the military victories but the aftermath. And the aftermath and thus ultimate victory is not determined by the will and might of the military, but that of the politicians.

Sadly this book makes it clear that no great public cause served this war, only the fantasies of delusional power-players, politicians and generals alike, egoists of the highest order who paid lip service to the root of their power, the will of the people.
Certainly a majority of the US agreed to war against Iraq by a slim margin, and of that majority there was a belief in the the leaders pronouncemnts of legitmacy for the cause and the competence of those on high and in charge.

So much for that.

For a dose of reality and a real perspective read Cobra II, and compare to "Plan Of Attack", amongst other available books. It illuminates in it's own right, and will help illuminate other perspectives of your choice.

Substitute For Another Guy

Scott McLellan at a 2006 press conference indicating the direction of Bush's latest approval ratings.
Note the placard behind his head that reads "whitewashing".



Once Scott McLellan actually leaves the press-gaggle podium for good, he will leave behind an empty, cavernous void; a space where for the past 2 years and 9 months there has always been (excuse me--getting a little choked-up here), Scott.

Of course, he was an empty cavernous void when he took the job in the first place.

But how shall we remember him?
Will it be for the tightness of his shirt-collar that made his pudgy head look like it was constantly on the verge of exploding?
Will it be for the robotic monotony of invented facts and talking points? Or that when challenged one could actually hear the cogs in his head protesting as he tried to move from “drive” through “neutral” to “park” via an improbable “sideways” gear?

For myself I think I’ll remember him most for his pioneering work in communications, wherein he steadfastly refused to actually answer questions and challenged the conventions of logic and history and what it is that constitutes a “discussion”.

Perhaps nothing sums up Scott McLellan as well as how he responded to questions of his own departure.

After he had made the formal announcement on April the 19th he was asked when he’d made the decision to resign. Scott said it was on the 14th. And when had he informed Bush? In the morning of the 17th.

And yet in the afternoon of the 17th when asked “Do you plan to stay on?”, with his resignation already settled and a matter of fact, Scott replied: “Look, I never speculate about personnel matters”.

WTF?!!!

The Press Secretary isn't supposed to overshadow the President himself, so a lack of personality is an important qualification for the job. But McLellan lacks so much more...he has no spine, no thoughts, no charm, no wit, no....well you name it and he doesn't have it.

McLellan was simply too good at channelling Bush's psychoses, lies, illogic and stupidity, and so his competence of course eventually did him in.

What might the future hold for the man who substituted for a substitute president? He might still be able to 'serve the public'--perhaps by being cemented into part of a New Orleans levee wall?

Of course a book deal with Regnery is possible; what might it be called?
My Stuffed Pet Goat?
Another Million Little Pieces?
I Think We've Discussed That Already?

McLellan has only offered one clue to his immediate future--he's thinking of helping his mommy's political campaign (which is how he got started in the first place). Of course the fact that mommy doesn't want his help because even she is pissed-off with Bush is neither here nor there.

Poor little Scott, I'm afraid, was, is and will remain the ultimate substitute for another guy. And there will never be a substitute for Scott.

Brain Damage

I'm not happy with this post but I'm trying to "get back on the horse" so to speak. I'm hoping commenters will better articulate or expand upon the theme as they see fit (because I've done a lousy job of it)

Coincidental with a recent bout of “blogger’s block” my internet connection went AWOL for about a week. The combination seemed like a “no-harm, no foul” situation—if I couldn’t come up with anything entertaining or thoughtful I had no reason to post, so being without the internet for a while seemed no big deal.

But then I had to rely on broadcast TV, the radio and newspapers for my news. And it dawned on me how important the internet was to me so that I might stay informed.
ABC, NBC and CBS are near identical-devoting the same amount of time to the same stories in the same slots. NPR is about the only choice of radio news service. AAR is informative but hard to listen to all day due to the occasional excess of personality and especially the constant interruption of truly execrable adverts. Newspapers are incredibly inconvenient.

With the internet however news and information is available at any time. One can not only pick and choose one can absorb information at one’s own pace, compare, investigate and most importantly participate.

Now that I’m back online the only brain damage I’m prepared to accept will come from a can or a bottle.

Robots Are People Too!

Apparently Scott McClellan may soon be given a pink slip (according to CNN).

Faced with an increasingly entrenched national dissatisfaction over foreign and domestic policy it makes perfect sense for the Bush Administration to play to its strengths of rearranging the deckchairs and blaming the messengers but I can’t help feeling that this is beyond the pale.

More than a just a Grima Wormtongue or an Igor, Scott McClellan has been nothing less than Bush’s personal robot—devoid of personality and self awareness, capable only of mimicking speech and following simple programming.

Nonetheless doesn’t he deserve something better than the scrapheap? Has he not faithfully followed Republican Robot Law?

1. A Republican Robot may not injure George Bush or, through inaction, allow a George Bush to come to harm.
2. A Republican Robot must obey orders given it by George Bush or Republicans except where such orders would conflict with the First Law
3. A Republican Robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

I can’t think of a single instance where Scott McClellan has ever short-circuited.
One only has to look at the transcripts of his many press conferences to recognize his steadfast inability to deviate from his internal logic.
Such responses as “I think we’ve discussed that already”, “I think the President made it very clear”, “I’m not willing to conjecture” and of course “I’ll get back to you on that” are testaments to his spokesbot efficiency.

Without direct and simultaneous criticism of McClellan from press and public alike, I just don’t see how he deserves the Michael Brown/Jack Abramoff treatment.

Scott has been more than competent in that not only has he faithfully re-iterated and even reinforced the White House message he has done so without any self-promotion (unlike say Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ridge, Chertoff, Brown, Harris etc.). Perhaps only Elaine Chao (Secretary of Labor) has been less visible.

I put it to you that getting rid of RoboScott at this stage would be just like “cutting and running” and I’m shocked that our Great Leader might even contemplate such an action. Unless….he’s actually going to be promoted to Director of FEMA!

I’ll bet that’s it! You read it here first!

(Disclaimer: the opinions expressed are not necessarily my own and I reserve “out of context” rights in perpetuity as well as post facto historicus revisionum)

And Iraq's Next Prime Minister Is.....???

From a CBS/AP report entitled Rice: Iraqis Must End Power Vacuum

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that the next Iraqi prime minister must be a “strong leader” capable of unifying the people of this fractured country
Rice said the Iraqi people and the international community “need to see that process of government formation come to an end.”
“You have to have the state with a monopoly of power,” Rice said.

Let’s see now; “strong leader”, “uniter”, “end of government formation” and “monopoly of power”.

Who could possibly qualify?

Suggestions anyone?

You Don't Know Jack!

Anyone who thinks they know Jack Abramoff (and everyone who is now pretending they don’t know him) better think again!

The man is a fucking saint, I tell ya!

Don’t believe me? !!!!

Just take a butcher’s at some of these testimonials sent to the judge who is poised to sentence “Casino Jack” today in Florida.

National Hockey League referee David Jackson stated "Jack is a good person, who in his quest to be successful lost sight of the rules."

Apparently Abramoff once took 14 kids to Jackson’s dressing room before a game and welcomed kids into the skybox to help teach them sportsmanship.

Who knows more about rules and sportsmanship than a hockey referee and hockey players?

And speaking of sports, Abramoff’s racquetball partner describes Jack as “someone who always acts honorably, and will call himself on infractions."

Yup, it’s a tragedy how rules, sportsmanship and honor, not to mention infractions, never made it past the locker rooms of exclusive sports enclaves—but that’s Saint Jack for you, never thinking of his own actions, only the actions of others.

Abramoff also has friends on Capitol Hill springing to his defense.
Well; one friend anyway.
Sort of:

"Over many years, I've known a far different Jack than the profit-seeking megalomaniac portrayed in the press," wrote California Republican Dana Rohrabacher. "Jack was a selfless patriot for most of the time I knew him."

But if none of these heartwarming affidavits convince you that Abramoff actually deserves our sympathy, not to mention a Nobel prize and a sainthood consider Dr. Gene Colice’s heartwarming anecdote of the time Abramoff spent his valuable time ($300 per hour—not including the 50% ‘finder’s fees’ he was entitled to) to "find a lost hamster on a Friday night."

(John Kerry you’ll remember actually resuscitated a hamster but a) it was his daughter’s and b) it wasn’t on a Friday night).

But don’t listen to me; get the real scoop from the AP/Yahoo news item here or the AP/NewsMax report (which appears now to have been scrubbed—I have their original text from earlier today only in a cut/pasted Word doc)—both are much funnier “in the raw” than my pathetic post.
Given AP’s recent confusion over attribution and in light of the WaPo Domenech debacle the AP might want to consider the issues of “fair use”, plagiarism and the blogosphere—not to mention their own standards of reporting.

Update: Jack just got six years instead of 7+, so 'lesson learned', people!
One hamster = one less year in jail!

Invest in hamsters before George Bush scoops the market!

No More Mister Nice-God!

Back in the good old days when God thought people weren’t paying attention he’d whip ‘em back into shape with a good old-fashioned smiting, a plague, a wandering in the desert or making 90-year-old women pregnant. Now that’s the way to get a message out!

But if recent events are anything to go by, the strategy no longer works.
Despite Pat Robertson’s astute observation that the destruction of 9-11 was due to God’s anger with liberals and fags, the majority seemed to think it had something to do with Arab terrorists and Iraq.
When God visited Hurricane Katrina upon the Gulf Coast to punish those who defied him by eating crawfish and playing jazz (NOT a joyful sound unto the Lord by a long shot) the lesson learned was not that God was in charge but that one Michael Brown was.

Now it looks like God is going to be kickin’ it, old school! Having jump-started a global conflict, he’s now dialing up the holy thermostat AND turning on the flood taps to boot. Looks like it’s going to be a 24/7 wrath-athon.

But what about the faithful, you ask? Well being faithful they’re all looking forward to the End Times. And whilst they are waiting they get to stare at a miraculous stain on the I-74 bridge support in Moline, Illinois. As one observer said “Too many things are happening in the world and people are losing their faith and that’s why she’s appearing [The Virgin Mary], she wants people to get their faith back.”

So, if YOU want to be saved from hell on earth just find yourself a stain, stare at it and after a while you won’t notice a thing.

In Allah We Trust

No doubt Afghani Abdul Rachman must feel very comforted by the outcry and concern of western governments and fellow Christians who are petitioning to save him from being sentenced to death as a result of his insulting and humiliating Allah by having converted to Christianity sixteen years ago.

On the other hand, he might be feeling a tad miffed at the fact that these same governments (and many American Christians) encouraged, ratified and praised the Afghan constitution that may well seal his fate wherein it is stated in Article Three:

“In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.”

Damn! Never saw that coming! Dang it!

Oh well, never mind. The Afghan constitution was just a practice run anyway.
The Iraq constitution is way better! Just look at the Iraqi’s Article 3:

“Iraq is a multiethnic, multi-religious and multi-sect country. It is part of the Islamic world and its Arab people are part of the Arab nation.”

See? Nothing to worry about there! If that doesn’t sound democratic then I…hang on a sec…ummmm

Article (2): 1st – “Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.”

Double dang it! Shoot! Darn!

Maybe the third time’s a charm? What about the Palestinian constitution?

Article 7: “The principles of Islamic Shari’a are a major source for legislation. Civil and religious matters of the followers of monotheistic religions shall be organized in accordance with their religious teachings and denominations within the framework of law, while preserving the unity and independence of the Palestinian people.”

What the…!?
Is everyone cribbing off each other?
Don’t these people understand that religion and democracy don’t mix?
Have they learned nothing from George Bush?

IRAQ: Ship Out, or Shape Up?

The Iraqi government can’t govern, the Iraqi security forces can’t secure, and public services can’t serve the public.
The occupation forces occupy only enclaves from which they raid and to which they retreat.
The citizens are left to fend for themselves, trapped in a no-man's land between the local militias and the U.S. military.

Majorities in the U.S. and Iraq (including the U.S. troops) are keen for an American exit for a variety of reasons but are these wishes sensible, reasonable or just emotional?
With Iraq nearly or already in a state of civil war would a U.S. departure help stabilize or improve the situation or would it accelerate a descent into further chaos?

If the US were to leave “immediately” then there will indeed be a full blown civil war as each interested group will seek to gain control and establish their own order and primacy. These groups will probably seek, and will certainly be offered, support from foreign neighbors who will also likely attempt to influence the situation regardless. The US would be politically emasculated (as if it weren’t already).

If the US “stays the course” the sectarian violence will continue. The US will have the options of supporting one group and destroying another, or trying to destroy all militants. The latter option might actually force the rivals into a coalition against the US forces, so the former choice might be “preferable”.

If successful the supported victors will have to be magnanimous to the beaten rival to mitigate inevitable resentment and concomitant problems. It’s anyone’s guess whether that would actually happen. There is also the possibility that the general Iraqi population, sick of war, sick of the occupation, sick of the government and sick of the sectarianism might create a popular uprising; but with no particular authority to rebel against or negotiate with, such an effort would be long and bloody too.

There are two options that have yet to be discussed publicly:

One is to abandon the rest of the country to civil war and redeploy and consolidate US forces to the South where a concerted effort to rebuild infrastructure, order and good governance might provide a working example desirable enough to be adopted or demanded by the rest of the country in time.

The other option is to get serious. Deploy far more forces to provide sufficient security and control to allow political and physical infrastructure to develop and take root. Such an effort might even elicit support from other countries after a while.

Both of these latter options would require a complete change of attitude, management and leadership in the U.S. Such a change cannot realistically occur before 2008. In the meantime the violence and resentment will continue. Should such a change occur it would take time to organize and years to implement.

These are the options as I see them.

The last option is of course what should have happened in the first place had the U.S. administration been sincere in its declared aims and reasons. It is now the most difficult of the options to undertake. I’m inclined to think it would be the “best”. But whether it is really possible, I’ve no idea.

There are particulars to each of these options that I've chosen to ignore for the sake of brevity but which could significantly alter the possible outcome of any course of action (such as how and in what manner would the US forces leave, or what would happen to all the prisoners in US custody?).

But in broad terms that's the view from my armchair. What's yours?

So....Tired!

According to Washington Post staffer Peter Baker the good folks in the White House are plumb tuckered-out from all the hard work that they do.

"Of all the reasons that President Bush is in trouble these days, not to be overlooked are inadequate REM cycles."



Of course! It’s the long hours and lack of sleep that have been causing all the problems, not the other way round!
No wonder Bush has taken more days off than any other President in history; like he said, "it’s hard work."
The administration is probably skipping breakfast too!

So now we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for Bush constantly falling of his bike and the country being driven into a ditch every other week, what’s to be done?

Guzzling handfuls of No-Doz is one option, but I’d suggest a long vacation instead.

Maybe then I could get a decent night's sleep. too.
And come to think of it