With Friends Like These...

Crossposted from our new home blog,They gave us a republic...
It's not a huge deal, but it will complicate things for a more simple-minded crowd:

A secret deal between Britain and the notorious al-Mahdi militia prevented British Forces from coming to the aid of their US and Iraqi allies for nearly a week during the battle for Basra this year, The Times has learnt.

Four thousand British troops – including elements of the SAS and an entire mechanised brigade – watched from the sidelines for six days because of an “accommodation” with the Iranian-backed group, according to American and Iraqi officers who took part in the assault.

US Marines and soldiers had to be rushed in to fill the void, fighting bitter street battles and facing mortar fire, rockets and roadside bombs with their Iraqi counterparts.

There have, no doubt, been many "secret deals" between various factions in Iraq. You cannot blame the British for setting up a deal with the Mahdi Army--they had to find a way to operate in Basra. What you can point out is that the US did the exact same thing with Sunni elements. Both deals reduced violence against British and US troops. Both could be interpreted to mean that we're all just kicking the can down the road until we can all leave.

Britain's accomodation--and the revelation that part of the deal was the release of detained individuals--came about because of the siege that took place at the fortified palace in Basra.

Britain’s main base at an airport just outside the city was also under constant rocket and artillery fire.

In what turned out to be a misinterpretation of the violence as criminal-led rather than a full-blown insurgency, Britain cut a deal with the Sadrist militia to ensure the safe withdrawal of British troops from the Basra palace to the airport in return for the release of a number of militia prisoners, in what became known as the “accommodation”.

What's not clear is just what the reaction among the British and the Americans really was when it became evident that the Maliki government was going to freelance it and start a fight in Basra. It was either a debacle or a stunning victory. Troops mutinied but the Mahdi Army melted away. Did they demand that no future operations kick off like that again? Or did another secret deal ensure everything would settle down until an eventual British withdrawal?

Or did it convince the British that their imminent withdrawal was long overdue?Remember to update your blogrolls and bookmarks with our new domain name, They gave us a republic...

McCain is the Flip Flopper

Nothing about this post surprises me because it has been readily apparent to me, to a lot of voters, even to Republicans, that John McCain will say or do anything to get elected. He can't remember what he once held as a principled stand on an issue because the principle he stands on is saying whatever it takes in the moment to continue rolling forward towards election day.

During a January 30 Republican primary debate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) pilloried former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for having once used the word “timetable” while talking about Iraq. “Timetables was the buzzword for those that wanted to get out,” scoffed McCain.

But on the heels Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s embrace of a 16-month timetable for withdrawal, McCain has been forced to change his tune. “I think it’s a pretty good timetable,” McCain told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Friday.

Now, however, McCain is denying his own words. “I didn’t use the word timetable,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview airing today:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You shouldn’t have used the word timetable.

MCCAIN: I didn’t use the word timetable. That I did — if I did…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, it’s a pretty good timetable.

MCCAIN: Oh, well, look. Anything is a good timetable that is dictated by conditions on the ground. Anything is good.

More mockery of this would be nice.

--WS

Throwing Everything Against the Wall

If you want to know what desperation looks like, spend some time watching the McCain campaign. Isn't it time to fire some people? Like the idiots who write the ads and determine the strategy and the idiots who send McCain out there without any kind of preparation so that he looks like "Cotton Hill" on a Dulcolax bender...?

If you think (and I do not) that Obama’s a sociopath who sees wounded soldiers as nothing but political chips to be played in an election card game, surely we can agree that he’s nevertheless savvy enough to grasp how horribly bad it would look to have photographers with him on a hospital visit in the middle of a campaign. If there were pictures on the wires of him shaking hands with bedridden vets while media vultures crowded around for close-ups, conservatives would have ripped him for it properly and mercilessly and he knows it.

Oh, of course you don't think that! You wrote it, but you don't think that! The worst thing in the world for the McCain campaign is to see US troops cheering and waving at Obama. Hey, do you think that the fact that they're FOR the guy who has a plan to get them out of the worst fucking quagmire in the history of this country so they don't get killed or crippled propping up a government that now welcomes "dissenters" has anything to do with it?

And do you really think that the guy who wants to keep filling Landstuhl up with broken, battered and wounded troops for the next hundred years should try to make political points over their situation against the guy who wants to stop the flow of blood-soaked bandages into Landstuhl? I mean, really. Does anyone think about these things rationally anymore? Obama doesn't hate the wounded troops--he just wants there to be fewer and fewer of them.

Desperate fucking idiots is all they are. Flailing, losing, drowning, sinking and irrelevant. A noun, a verb, and shriek "the surge!" and hope someone cares.

How many Republican members of Congress have donated money to the McCain campaign? How many of them are staying away from the convention? How many of them roll their eyes and shiver at the thought that McCain might--might--run again in 2012?

--WS

McCain Tries Everything, Except Admitting He Knows Nothing About Iraq

Devastatingly embarrassed, and so breathtakingly ignorant about the one subject he has to run on, John McCain is desperate. He has had the worst month in his entire political career. He is faltering, stepping on his own denials, and we are very near the moment where hard-core Republicans are about to throw up their hands and abandon him, crying, "wait til 2012."

The media just doesn't get it--McCain is not a politician who knows specifics or details. He is emotionally driven, not logically driven. He has never taken the time to sit down and absorb the knowledge necessary to make logical decisions about his Iraq policy. He has been engaged, furiously, in the rhetoric and the language of supporting President Bush so that he can win the nomination of the Republican Party. He doesn't care about Sunni vs Shia or chronologies or events because he has never paid attention to the details. He has internalized the rhetoric and the put-down and the terminology without actually knowing what the fuck he's talking about. In short, his staff tells him what to say because they know he doesn't care about the details.

John McCain defended comments he made in an interview on Tuesday when he incorrectly argued that the surge in Iraq gave way to the so-called “Anbar Awakening” - when Sunni leaders joined forces with U.S. troops to fight Al Qaeda in the fall of 2006.

The Arizona senator told reporters Wednesday afternoon that when he refers to the surge, it encompasses not just the January 2007 increase in troop levels but also the counter-insurgency that started in Iraq’s Al Anbar province months prior.

“A surge is really a counter-insurgency strategy, and it’s made up of a number of components,” McCain said. “This counter-insurgency was initiated to some degree by Colonel McFarland in Anbar province, relatively on his own.”

Were that the case, then the 1967 surge of US troops into Vietnam would have been a rousing success, right? How come the wingnuts can't remember their basic Vietnam history? Answer--no one studied COIN after Vietnam, except for a very small handful of military officers, and many of those were overshadowed by the expansion of the US military into a bloated nation-state smashing type of military, not a lean and mean security forces type military. Lessons were not learned after Vietnam. When the US effort appeared to be faltering, the violence and the manpower was escalated by President Johnson while successful efforts like "winning the hearts and minds" of the people were abandoned for B-52 strikes and sprawling firebases.

The Anbar Awakening had nothing to do with the surge but was also responsible for the phony "success" claimed by its proponents like McCain. It should open the eyes of even the blindest partisan that McCain got a major piece of Iraq war history wrong.

A Counterinsurgency strategy comes in many forms, but pouring more men and violence into a conflict isn't one of them. Embracing the Anbar Awakening was one of the few demonstrably successful examples of COIN. Drawing down troops and letting political reconciliation occur in the vacuum of military operations might be considered a COIN strategy, as would eliminating house-to-house doorkicking searches and paying people not to pick up weapons against you. "Surging" troops into a conflict can bring down the violence if enough troops are used for an extended period of time, but that's not COIN--that's enhancing security for a limited time. In Iraq, we moved in a gradual token number of forces in while, more importantly, the Mahdi Army abandoned key attacks against US troops. Had the Mahdi Army not disbanded in many areas, the violence may well have escalated. And let us not forget that the drop in violence had a lot to do with the success of the ethnic cleansing of key areas.

In Iraq, no where near enough troops were added to make a demonstrable surge appear to be anything more than an illusion, and that is the lie McCain keeps spreading every time he speaks. "A noun, a verb, and The Surge" are all he has to run on, and he can't get the details or the specifics right. The other major gaffe of his campaign was an uninformed throwaway comment about how many years to stay in Iraq--"make it a hundred!" His floundering and confusion should be a wake-up call to the media--the man doesn't know what he's talking about.

Too bad they're so enamored with him that they cannot see it. He looks Presidential in their eyes, but he's babbling nonsense.

--WS

This Is Where General Petraeus Could Change History

Given the reality of the American Presidential race, if General Petraeus wants to continue his military career past the end of the Bush Administration, he's going to have to break with the orthodoxy of the Republican Party when it comes to the war in Iraq and embrace a withdrawal of American troops. Will he do that BEFORE the election and will he, essentially, cut John McCain's legs out from under him in order to extend his own career?

Jason Zengerle picks up the gist of McCain's disastrous exchange with Meridith Viera from this morning:

Here's the key exchange from McCain's interview this morning on NBC's "Today":

Vieira: "Senator Obama's timetable of removing U.S. troops from Iraq within that 16-month period seemed to be getting a thumbs up by the Iraqi prime minister when he called it 'the right timeframe for a withdrawal.' He has backed off that somewhat, but the Iraqis have not stopped using the word timetable, so if the Iraqi government were to say -- if you were President -- we want a timetable for troops being to removed, would you agree with that?"

McCain: "I have been there too many times. I've met too many times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that's what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be -- the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states is it will be based on conditions. This is a great success, but it's fragile, and could be reversed very easily. I think we should trust the word of General Petraeus who has orchestrated this dramatic turnaround. And by the way, we would have been out last march if Senator Obama's original wish would have been called for. Not 16 months from now, but last March. He was wrong on the surge, he was wrong today when he says it didn't succeed. And obviously we have challenges in Afghanistan which will require more troops and more NATO participation, but we can win. If we had lost in Iraq, we would have risked a much wider war that would have put enormous challenges and burdens on our military." [Emphasis added.]

So, basically, the new McCain position on withdrawal seems to be: we shouldn't listen to what the Iraqi government says it wants, we should listen to what McCain says it wants. And, oh yeah, we should listen to Petraeus, too. Mike's counterintuitive point about the long-term impact of Maliki's statement aside, I think that's going to be a tough position for McCain to sustain for the next three months.

Long before that three months are even up, will Petraeus move to align himself with Obama's plan? Is he going to stay out of the fight? Or is he going to align himself with McCain and go down with the ship?

The prospect of staying in Iraq--especially when the Iraqi government doesn't want us there--is a losing issue, no matter what McCain wants us to believe. General Petraeus is like any other General--a politically astute individual who knows that when the civilian government is moving towards a certain policy, it's best not to be seen as being the antithesis of who they want to carry out that policy. It makes it all too easy to replace you with someone who can carry out that policy.

--WS

Frank Rich Takes John McCain to the Woodshed

You have to celebrate the moment when a prominent columnist actually does his or her job and points out just how ridiculous this campaign has become. We are enthralled with images and slights, attacks and smears when we should be focused on who has the best strategy to reduce the threat of terrorism and manage our economy. The two are intertwined, and Frank Rich nails it:

“In a time of war,” Mr. McCain said last week, “the commander in chief doesn’t get a learning curve.” Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain’s attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer’s learning curve was faster than his.

Mr. McCain still doesn’t understand that we can’t send troops to Afghanistan unless they’re shifted from Iraq. But simple math, to put it charitably, has never been his forte. When it comes to the central front of American anxiety — the economy — his learning curve has flat-lined.

In 2000, he told an interviewer that he would make up for his lack of attention to “those issues.” As he entered the 2008 campaign, Mr. McCain was still saying the same, vowing to read “Greenspan’s book” as a tutorial. Last weekend, the resolutely analog candidate told The New York Times he is at last starting to learn how “to get online myself.” Perhaps he’ll retire his abacus by Election Day.

Mr. McCain’s fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated on video by whining about “a nation of whiners.” The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obama’s connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings, no doubt to correct the candidate’s numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia.

A vote for McCain is a vote for Gramm. And Gramm was so soundly rejected the last time he ran for President, you have to question the judgement of someone who would hire him to give advice on running for President. It's a wonder that it took this long for McCain to get rid of Gramm. Again, you come back to judgement.

--WS

A Noun, A Verb, and The Surge®

Josh Marshall has been doing yeoman's work smacking down the incompetent moves and the debilitating bullshit that has spewed out of the McCain campaign this weekend--and what a weekend it has been!

The McCain campaign has just come out with their response to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki's endorsement of Obama's withdrawal plan. I think the clotted, dodging-the-issue nature of the response communicates very clearly the box this has placed the McCain camp in.

Today, McCain 2008 Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Randy Scheunemann issued the following statement:

"The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama's views had prevailed."

The McCain campaign has wrapped itself around The Surge® because it's the only tenuous piece of moderate success that they can point to. It's their "a noun, a verb, 9/11!" refrain, isn't it?

Every time the McCain campaign talks about foreign policy, The Surge® appears like we're seeing Rudy try to stumble back into being relevant. No wonder the press sees every setback for the McCain campaign as "good news for John McCain." Out of respect for the fact that they're probably going to register it as their campaign trademark, I'll try to remember to add the "®" symbol.

McCain is simply Rudy all over again, flailing and sinking like a stone. "a noun, a verb, and The Surge®."

Oddly enough, no one thought of this moment--The Surge® is over. I know--bummer! What's next for the McCain campaign? Their only bright spot is over and they've got...what, exactly? That's right! A surge for Afghanistan! That way the tired old refrain can keep getting played: a noun, a verb, and The Surge®!

Seriously, he'll be shaking up his campaign again soon. This is some spectacularly bad advice. Rudy "the inevitable President" Guiliani can attest to that.

--WS

Michael Yon Says the War is Over. Which War?

This means the troops can come home, right? Because, after all--that's how victory is measured, or is it not?

Independent reporter Michael Yon has spent more time in Iraq embedded with combat soldiers than any other journalist in the world, and a few days ago he boldly declared the war over:

Barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.

I’m reluctant to say “the war has ended,” as he did, but everything else he wrote is undoubtedly true. The war in Iraq is all but over right now, and it will be officially over if the current trends in violence continue their downward slide. That is a mathematical fact.

The civil war? The war against al Qaeda in Iraq? The war against the Mahdi Army? The war against the dead enders and the insurgents who weren't initially called insurgents? I don't think any of these people know which war ended and which war is about to start.

Then there are the facts on the ground--a snippet of that indicates to me that there are still issues:

Guerrillas launched a series of bombing campaigns in the eastern mixed province of Diyala and in the northern city of Mosul on Tuesday, killing at least 40 and wounding dozens. In Diyala, recruiting stations for security forces were hit, as potential recruits lined up. In Mosul, likewise, the targest were Iraqi security forces. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had sent the new Iraqi army up to Mosul, where it is encountering heavy resistance in the form of bombings and sniping from Sunni Arab guerrillas, some of them apparently neo-Baathists. Diyala is violent and the government is saying that it will send troops there, too.

Michael Yon is hardly "independent." And I wouldn't say the Iraq War is over. I think the American political will to continue sacrificing American lives has ended. So we're going to declare victory and get the hell out as fast as we can. But for Juan Cole, we'd never hear about the violence, would we? The media went to sleep and John McCain never had to pay a significant price for his 100 years in Iraq gaffe. He's being bailed out by people who were going to bring our troops out no matter what.

Consider this a lull. A lull created by over four exhausting years of continuous combat and civil war, beginning in the first part of 2004 when the insurgency matured around Shia and Sunni cadre that could organize better and more lethal attacks. We are only 29 months past the bombing of the Golden Mosque, perhaps the attack that served as the catalyst for carrying out comprehensive ethnic cleansing in Iraq. Once that cleansing was completed, the violence subsided, along with payouts to the Sunnis to stop attacking us and political maneuvering between the Mahdi Army and the Iraqi government. The idea that the surge solved all of this remains ludicrous--we didn't surge nearly enough troops to make a difference. What we did was create an illusion that we did something, and people like Michael Yon are applauding the results of that illusion.

Meanwhile, Americans never stop having to die for these lies.

--WS

Michael O'Hanlon's Phony Outrage

Have I told you lately...how much I love Think Progress? Let me count the ways...

Yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) published an op-ed in the New York Times outlining his strategy to get out of Iraq. The Washington Post reports that Iraq war supporter Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution was “livid” after reading Obama’s op-ed:

“To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule — regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground — is the height of absurdity,” said O’Hanlon, who described himself as “livid.” “I’m not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn’t be president. I’ll leave that to someone else.”

In 2004, however, O’Hanlon’s sentiments were strikingly similar to Obama’s. In an op-ed titled “Set a date to pull out,” O’Hanlon wrote that “our own enduring commitment to success in Iraq is beginning to work against us.” “Some will see this as cut-and-run,” he said. “It is not.”

O'Hanlon is more angry at the fact that no one calls him as often as they used to and that he doesn't get to go on television when he feels like it. He's gradually drifting, along with dozens of other neoconservative hacks and Republican Bushniks, into a hellish obscurity. O'Hanlon will soon be fighting for space in the Moonie Times, and he knows it. They all know it--and they knew it the moment McCain blurted out that we could stay in Iraq for a hundred years.

What O'Hanlon doesn't get is that the Iraq War is long since decided, and the US needs to leave. Nothing is going to change unless we can draft a 500,000 man Army out of thin air to stabilize the country entirely, take out Maliki, install a Sunni strongman, and turn the country into what it used to be, a bulwark against Shia Islam. Too late, suckers. Iraq is destined to be a client state of Iran, and we drove them there. Your phony surge accomplished nothing, other than kicking the can down the road, and the greatest military debacle in American history is permanently hung around the necks of the Republican Party.

--WS

Yes, He Will Cut and Run--Because He Wants A Legacy

Now that the so-called surge has "worked" in the collective wisdom of the Washington DC establishment, the acceleration of the withdrawal of US troops can start--so that George W Bush can depart the Presidency with troops being drawn down. He can do this because coverage of the war is non-existent, it makes people feel good about him, and it allows him phony coverage so he can claim he "won" the Iraq war, handed it off to someone else, and brought the boys home by Christmas.

The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago.

Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006 and 2007.

One factor in the consideration is the pressing need for additional American troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and other fighters have intensified their insurgency and inflicted a growing number of casualties on Afghans and American-led forces there.

More American and allied troops died in Afghanistan than in Iraq in May and June, a trend that has continued this month.

Although no decision has been made, by the time President Bush leaves office on Jan. 20, at least one and as many as 3 of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could be withdrawn or at least scheduled for withdrawal, the officials said.

The desire to move more quickly reflects the view of many in the Pentagon who want to ease the strain on the military but also to free more troops for Afghanistan and potentially other missions.

Prepare to be sickened by the praise for the Bush Administration. They know the only chance McCain has is to eliminate the Iraq War as an issue, so the Bush Administration and the DC Establishment is going to do whatever they can to praise Bush for his "leadership" and to show that only John McCain can be trusted to "finish the job."

This cynical, unrealistic and untenable position on the war is all these people have left. They are fighting tooth and nail to keep the American people from seeing the costs of the war--in deaths and injuries, in lost souls and wandering, homeless Veterans. They desperately need to draw down to around a hundred thousand US troops or slightly less--so they can say that there are "more" troops deployed in Europe, Japan and Korea than in the Middle East. It's a sham, and no one should buy it.

--WS

Why the Military Can't Fix Equipment Fast Enough

According to a GAO report issued on July 8, the amount of equipment being sent to the five military repair depots is causing incredible strain on the system that repairs the equipment our military needs to sustain operations

The five Army depot maintenance activities support combat readiness by providing services necessary to keep Army units operating worldwide. From fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2007, the amount of new orders received to perform work increased from approximately $2.6 billion to $5.2 billion—about a 100 percent increase. These orders were to repair and overhaul a wide range of assets, including helicopters, such as the Apache and Blackhawk; combat vehicles such as the Abrams tank; air defense systems, such as the Patriot missile; electronics; and inventory items for the Army, other military services, and foreign governments. Many of these weapons systems are used to support the Army’s current effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. To perform the work needed in support of the Global War on Terrorism, the number of employees at the five depots increased from 12,983 to 15,717—a 21 percent increase—from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2007 and the number of direct labor hours of work increased from about 16.3 million in fiscal year 2004 to 24 million for fiscal year 2007—a 47 percent increase.

The five Army depots operate under the working capital fund concept, where customers are to be charged for the anticipated full cost of goods and services. To the extent that the depots do not complete work at year-end, the funded work will be carried into the next fiscal year. Carryover is the reported dollar value of work that has been ordered and funded (obligated) by customers but not completed by working capital fund activities at the end of the fiscal year.

The dramatic increase in "carryover" is the strain, and because we are running at full speed in Iraq and increasing our operations in Afghanistan, the carryover is only going to increase unless drastic action is taken to reduce that strain. I should also note--what "foreign governments" are putting strain on the system? I hope they need the gear to help us fight.

The following chart shows the growth--and the strain--that the military repair depots are under:



The reasons are pretty stark for this:

Our analysis of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 Army depot reports and discussions with depot officials identified four primary reasons for the significant growth in carryover. While some of these reasons are under the control of other DOD activities, such as customers not sending assets needing repair to the depots as planned, other reasons are within the depots’ control.

•First, the Army depot maintenance budget significantly underestimated the amount of new orders received from customers by about $1.7 billion and $1.5 billion for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, respectively. While the depots performed more work than budgeted during fiscal years 2006 and 2007, they could not keep pace with the increases in new orders.

•Second, the depots accepted new orders late in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 that could not reasonably be completed (and in some cases were not even started) prior to the end of the fiscal year.

•Third, our analysis of depot data and interviews with depot officials found that the depots experienced shortages in parts needed to perform their work in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

•Fourth, based on our review of selected depot production reports on the status of work and discussions with depot officials, we determined that unserviceable assets (assets requiring repair) were not sent to the depots for repair as planned. Army officials informed us that in some cases the assets remained in-theatre (such as Iraq) for longer periods than planned.

I think it's outrageous that the planning was this bad. Obviously, "no one could have forseen" that we'd be tied down in two wars, one unsustainable and one escalating quickly out of control because of a lack of available US troops.

If one of these facilities is located near you, I would be willing to bet you that they're hiring and looking to expand. As the demand increases, the GAO indicated that these facilities have been adding personnel:

• Anniston performs maintenance on both heavy- and light-tracked combat vehicles and their components, such as the M1 Abrams tank.

•Corpus Christi Army Depot (Corpus Christi) overhauls, repairs, modifies, tests, and modernizes helicopters, engines, and components for all services and foreign military customers.

•Letterkenny Army Depot (Letterkenny) has tactical missile repair capabilities supporting a variety of DOD missile systems including the Patriot and its ground support and radar equipment. In response to the Global War on Terrorism, Letterkenny is rebuilding the High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) that are returning from theater and is rebuilding them to a configuration that will support add-on armor.

•Red River Army Depot (Red River) performs maintenance, certification, and related support services on ground combat systems, air defense systems, and tactical wheeled vehicles. Systems supported include the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Multiple Launch Rocket System, Small Emplacement Excavator, 5-ton dump truck, and HMMWVs.

•Tobyhanna uses advanced technologies to ensure the readiness of U.S. armed forces and is a full-service repair, overhaul, and fabrication facility for communications-electronics.

This last part is the part that probably bothers me the most--the lack of spare parts is absolutely killing our ability to repair and refurbish equipment and get it back to the troops. When you hear stories like thisabout how we found ourselves in urban combat with the wrong equipment or simply not enough of it and this story where a soldier complains about waiting months for "a handful of screws" , it indicates to me that we have never properly put this country on a wartime footing and used our manufacturing and industrial capabilities to supply the troops. What's lost in all of this is that if we invested in helping create or sustain a dozen or more companies that could manufacture and upgrade or retool and rehabilitate equipment, it would create jobs. It would be "pork barrel spending" to certain folks but it would be money well spent to sustain our military AND reduce the strain on these depots:

Our analysis of depot data and interviews with depot officials found that the depots experienced shortages of parts needed to perform their repair work in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Our analysis of data in the critical maintenance repair parts reactive system11 at four depots showed that in 733 and 605 instances, repair parts shortages resulted in work stoppage in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, respectively. DLA and to a lesser extent Army Supply were the sources of supply for most of the repair parts. DLA officials told us that a major difficulty DLA faces as a supplier is forecasting the amount of repair parts needed when the depots’ types and numbers of repairs keep changing. Having a firm requirement (quantity of items to be repaired) early in the process is critical if DLA is to provide the spare parts to the depots when they need them. However, this has not always been the case. For example, as discussed later in this report, in November 2006, Red River accepted an order to overhaul 200 HMMWVs. Over the next 4 months, the order was amended first to decrease the quantity to 106 and then increase the quantity to 344. According to DLA officials, changing requirements, similar to this example, make it extremely difficult to forecast the spare parts needed for repairs. If DLA waits to buy the parts until the depot has a firm requirement, the parts might not be available when the depot needs them. On the other hand, if DLA buys the parts before the requirement is firm, DLA is at risk for excess inventory of parts when requirements for parts are significantly reduced.

Depots Could Not Obtain Parts Needed to Perform Repair Work as Scheduled

In order to perform the required repair work and help minimize the impact of parts shortages on depot operations, the depots have taken a number of actions to obtain parts when they were not available, including using parts from other assets, commonly referred to as robbing parts; fabricating the parts; and obtaining parts through the use of their local procurement authority, including the government purchase card. The following are examples of actions taken by the depots.

In October 2006, Anniston accepted a $5.6 million order financed with fiscal year 2007 operation and maintenance appropriated funds to overhaul 1,200 M2 machine guns. The work was originally scheduled to begin in March 2007. Because of the lack of parts, the work did not begin until July 2007 which resulted in more carryover than originally planned. About $5.4 million of the $5.6 million carried over from fiscal year 2007 into fiscal year 2008.

Because of the Global War on Terrorism and the surge in production of the M2s, Anniston had problems with obtaining parts to overhaul the machine guns since 2004. Because the depot could not get the needed parts from DLA or Army Supply, it used parts from other M2 machine guns. Some of these parts included the barrels, buffer body assemble, bolt, barrel extensions, breech locks, and receivers. Since the depot used parts from these 1,200 machine guns to repair machine guns in previous years, these 1,200 machine guns were missing parts. By the time the depot overhauled the 1,200 M2 machine guns, about half of the M2s had been totally stripped of their parts. An Army official stated that the machine guns going through overhaul were the “worst of the worst.” To perform the work, the depot had to buy new parts and have the Picatinny Arsenal fabricate barrel extensions in order to obtain the parts needed to complete the overhaul. This extra work increased the costs to about $10.4 million and the work was completed in December 2007.

In November 2006, Red River accepted an order totaling approximately $24.8 million to overhaul 200 M1114 up armor HMMWVs from the Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command. The order was financed with fiscal year 2007 operation and maintenance appropriated funds and was modified twice. In January 2007, the order was reduced to overhaul 106 HMMWVs for about $13.1 million. Two months later in March 2007, the order was increased to 344 HMMWVs for about $56.1 million. In performing this work, the depot encountered two problems. First, the HMMWVs were not always available, resulting in changes to scheduling the performance of work. Second, the depot encountered problems in obtaining the material it needed to perform the repairs. For example, in May 2007, there was a shortage or potential parts shortage of 45 different parts to perform this work. To obtain the parts needed to perform the work, depot officials stated that they used parts from other vehicles at the depot or purchased parts via local procurement, including using government purchase cards. In August 2007, there was a shortage or potential parts shortage of 30 different parts. Since most of the work was not completed in fiscal year 2007, about $37.5 million carried over into fiscal year 2008. As of December 2007, documents showed that the depot anticipated completing work on this order in April 2008.

In discussing the M1114 up armor HMMWV work with Red River officials, they told us that the problems encountered in performing the fiscal year 2007 work also occurred in the previous fiscal year. First, the quantity to be repaired kept changing. Specifically, in January 2006 they accepted an order to repair 37 HMMWVs. In March 2006, the order was amended to 108 HMMWVs. Then in July 2006 the order was amended to repair 58 HMMWVs. Finally, in August, 2006, the order was amended back to 108 HMMWVs. Second, the depot also encountered problems on obtaining parts to perform the work. According to depot officials, because the last amendment increasing the order to 108 HMMWVs occurred in August 2006 and the HMMWVs to be repaired were in poor condition, the carryover amount was high.

Finally, someone who knows what the hell they're supposed to use their government credit card on!

As this problem gets worse, remember--every time a troop doesn't have the equipment that they need in a war zone, their unit suffers, their readiness suffers and they are placed in danger for no good reason.

And that's the real outrage here. No American should ever reach for a weapon or go without a vehicle that isn't there in a war zone.

Party Platforms Are Meaningless

Is there anything less relevant and more disregarded than a party platform? Typically, the nuts write the platform and the candidate ignores what is in it in order to keep from offending the 5% of voters in the middle of the political spectrum that will seal the deal on Election Day:

Conservative activists are preparing to do battle with allies of Sen. John McCain in advance of September's Republican National Convention, hoping to prevent his views on global warming, immigration, stem cell research and campaign finance from becoming enshrined in the party's official declaration of principles.

McCain has not yet signaled the changes he plans to make in the GOP platform, but many conservatives say they fear wholesale revisions could emerge as candidate McCain seeks to put his stamp on a document that currently reflects the policies and principles of President Bush.

"There is just no way that you can avoid anticipating what is going to come. Everyone is aware that McCain is different on these issues," said Jessica Echard, executive director of the conservative Eagle Forum. "We're all kind of waiting with anticipation because we just don't know how he's going to thread this needle."

Translation: McCain has said and done anything he can to get the nomination, and now that he has to run as a conservative, his own lack of principles are at odds with the rabble he had to appeal to in order to win. You know what won't be in there? Promises to cut Medicare and Medicaid and force everyone to get a private e-Trade account in lieu of social security. And it's a safe bet that a promise to remain in Iraq for the next 100 years isn't going to be in there, either.

Party platforms are meaningless. They give no indication as to how a candidate will actually govern; they give every indication as to how the lunatic fringe elements in either party will get when they're given the crumbs from the table. Don't tell me what's in the party platform--tell me who's going to be Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. Don't tell me what the party position on free trade is--tell me what the plan is to deal with Congress when the issue comes up.

Thanks for Nothing, Asshole

Sometimes, even your friends tell you what they're thinking--by what they don't say:

Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that the government has defeated terrorism in the country, a sign of growing confidence after recent crackdowns against Sunni extremists and Shiite militias.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched the crackdowns to extend the authority of the government over areas in Baghdad and elsewhere that have largely been under the control of armed groups since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

"They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it," al-Maliki said. "But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them."

He was speaking at ceremonies marking the fifth anniversary of the 2003 assassination of Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, a leading opponent of Saddam Hussein who was killed in a truck bombing in the southern Iraqi city of Najaf after returning from exile in Iran.

Did you detect in there a startling, glaring omission? He says "the army" but he obviously doesn't mean the US Army or the US Marines--he means the Iraqi Army.

Does Maliki really think they've defeated terrorism? And in his premature "last throes" statement, did you hear him say anything about the sacrifice of American lives? Or the surge? Or of the American effort to make the Shia government reconcile with the Sunnis? Maliki tears the rug out from under Bush and McCain and laughs in the face of American sacrifice.

Americans have died--Americans have been wounded--Americans have spent months and years away from their families, making tremendous sacrifices in Iraq--and they don't rate a mention? The Prime Minister thinks his ragtag band of incompetent policemen--who regularly go AWOL, sell their weapons to insurgents and look the other way at death squads--did the trick? How many of his battalions can fight on their own? Without US assistance and without US troops bailing them out with helicopters and frantic convoys?

Outrageous. The timetable for US withdrawal can speed up now--to hell with a hundred year occupation. Why not pull our troops out by Christmas? The Iraqis defeated terrorism all by themselves, apparently. Why do our troops have to be there at all?

--WS

It Wasn't The Surge, It Was The Walls

We've talked about this in the past, but, essentially, the "surge" of troops into Iraq didn't bring down the violence--the enforced segregation of the Iraqi people, the acceptance of the Badr Corps into the legitimate Iraqi government as a security force AND the "appeasement" to our enemies did. Appeasement as in, paying the Sunnis with money and guns not to attack us.

How hard is it to figure out that if you put up walls and help the Iraqis ethnically cleanse their own neighborhoods and then pay the people who were attacking our troops to stop attacking our troops, you'll successfully lower violent attacks for a while, but, ultimately, you'll have gained little or nothing substantive?

Baghdad's walls are everywhere, turning a riverside capital of leafy neighborhoods and palm-lined boulevards where Shiites and Sunnis once mingled into a city of shadows separating the two Muslim sects.

The walls block access to schools, mosques, churches, hotels, homes, markets and even entire neighborhoods — almost anything that could be attacked. For many Iraqis, they have become the iconic symbol of the war.

"Maybe one day they will remove it," said Kareem Mustapha, a 26-year-old Sadr City resident who lives a five-minute walk from a wall built this spring in the large Shiite district.

"I don't know when, but it is not soon."

Indeed, new walls are still going up, the latest one around the northwestern Shiite neighborhood of Hurriyah, where thousands of Sunnis were slaughtered or expelled in 2006. They could well be around for years to come, enforcing Iraq's fragile peace and enshrining the capital's sectarian divisions.

It's called kicking the can down the road, and the next President will simply have to deal with the issues that the so-called "surge" didn't address. This has been the passing of the buck, not the ascendancy of a brilliant strategy.

It's a GOOD THING that there are fewer attacks, but the goal should never have been to slow down the attacks--the goal should have been to leave Iraq to the Iraqis and get US combat troops out of Iraq altogether. Their presence will ALWAYS fuel resentment and they will always be targets of opportunity for whatever dynamic is still in play--even if we stay a hundred years.

--WS

Bill Kristol Lives His Life on the Wrong Side of History

Now, this is an ad:



William Kristol gets offended a lot these days. Especially when someone points out the fact that what John McCain said about staying in Iraq for a hundred years was probably the stupidest thing he's said all year.

I’m not persuaded. Having slandered a distinguished general officer, MoveOn has now moved on to express contempt for all who might choose to serve their country in uniform.

Their new and improved message is presented in a 30-second TV spot, “Not Alex,” produced in conjunction with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It’s airing for a week on local broadcast stations in markets in the swing states of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, and on two national cable channels, with a reported buy of over half a million dollars.

The ad is simple. A mother speaks as she holds her baby boy:

“Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him.”

Take that, warmonger!

Now it might be pedantic to point out that John McCain isn’t counting on Alex to serve in Iraq, because little Alex will only be 9 years old when President McCain leaves office after two terms.

And it might be picky to remark that when McCain was asked whether U.S. troops might have to remain in Iraq for as long as 50 years, he replied, “Maybe 100” — explaining, “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world. ...”

In other words, McCain is open to an extended military presence in Iraq, similar to ones we’ve had in Germany, Japan or Kuwait. He does not wish for, nor does he anticipate, a 100-year war in Iraq.

But it is surely relevant to point out that the United States has an all-volunteer Army. Alex won’t be drafted, and his mommy can’t enlist him. He can decide when he’s an adult whether he wants to serve. And, of course, McCain supports the volunteer army.

So much bullshit, so little time. Petraeus was never slandered, he, himself, was writing op-eds for the Washington Post that supported the Bush Administration. McCain made a tremendous gaffe that he's never going to recover from. No amount of spinning is going to undo that harm--it was his "I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it" moment. Kristol doesn't have the moral courage to mention the Balkans--how'd that quagmire work out for us? Kristol thinks he can make a funny against people who oppose the war--well, who's on the wrong side of history on THAT subject? I mean, really. If you're on the wrong side of history, you don't get to take shots at the people who got it right the first time. They have "credibility" and you do not. And how is it a volunteer army when, as soon as you volunteer, you can't leave when what you volunteered to do is completed? Explain that one to me.

I haven't checked with my better half on this subject yet, but I think it's safe to say that John McCain can't have either of our kids, nor can they have the Blue Girl's grandkid, nor can they still get the ones that are old enough to enlist right now. I'm pretty sure I can say that. Someone holler if I can't, Okay?

Vote McCain and you can count on them expecting your kids to fight an endless war in Iraq. After all, the operative phrase here is "extended military presence" which is a polite neocon word for "occupation."

--WS

Stephen Schwartz Gets It Completely Wrong

Scwartz is an obscure wingnut, but he's a wingnut writing for the Weekly Standard, and that means someone thought he was worth hiring. He had this to say when he compared Poland to Iraq:

There is, however, a more relevant and positive historical example evoked by the new Iraq, and it is that of Poland. Lest the metaphor be misunderstood, we must certainly guard against Iraq being divided between Saudi Wahhabis and Iranian radicals as the Polish Republic in 1939 was invaded and split by Hitler and Stalin.

But I have in mind the modern Poland of the last three decades. The new Iraq can play a role in the Muslim world similar to that seen when, at the end of the 1970s, the Polish nation, inspired by Pope John Paul II and the Solidarity labor movement, rose to challenge a Soviet power then viewed as invulnerable. Poland inaugurated an affirmation of popular sovereignty and intellectual freedom that spread first to countries like Hungary with which it shared a Catholic heritage, then to the rest of the Communist zone, and finally to the former Soviet Union itself, which then finally crumbled.

[SNIP]

This is not to say that a Polish parallel in Iraq would bring instant gratification for a West, and a world, hungry for resolution of the Mideast crisis. In the 30 years that have passed since the beginning of the Polish national revival, that country has yet to fulfill its noble promise as a herald of democracy. It has contended with its own religious and national extremists, undergone disillusion with its hero Lech Walesa, and has even slid back, at times, into governance by its enduring "post-Communist" nomenklatura. But its role in the dissolution of Communist tyranny in Europe is inarguable.

Many wars fought by Americans were considered lost during the struggle. Washington at Valley Forge, the U.S. after the burning of the capital in the War of 1812 (which we did lose), Lincoln in the early period of the Civil War, Franklin Roosevelt before the Battle of Midway in 1942, all faced the specter of defeat. The Korean War ended without a clear victory, although the people of South Korea today enjoy freedom and prosperity thanks to the sacrifice of American forces. Many Americans have lost touch with our military history, and these examples may mean little to them as they ponder the conflict in Iraq.

But in living memory, it is impossible to think that President Ronald Reagan would have told the Soviet rulers, between 1981 and 1989, to dispose of a reborn, independent Poland as they saw fit. Reagan would not have called out, in an unamusing paraphrase, "Mr. Gorbachev, reinforce this wall!" The Poles, like the Iraqis, faced setbacks and disappointments, but they prevailed, and their example changed the history of the world. A firm commitment to the new Iraq from the next American president may do the same for the Muslim nations.

Here's how I refute this:

1. Poland is almost entirely a Catholic nation (90% Roman Catholic) while Iraq is divided between Shia (60%), Sunni (37%) and Christian (3%) (Rough estimates).
2. Reagan abandoned Lebanon.
3. Poland was split between the Germans and Russians from October 1939 to June 1941.
4. We did not "lose" the War of 1812--Andrew Jackson slaughtered the British at New Orleans. Had the Treaty of Ghent been negotiated after that fact, the US would have won the war by forcing better terms. The victory at New Orleans ensured that the British had to abide by the treaty they signed.
5. The Iraqis don't want us there and our Status of Forces Agreement with them effectively cedes their sovereignty to us. During the Cold War, Polish sovereignty was effectively ceded to the Soviet Union. So, in effect, the US becomes "the Soviet Union" in its relationship with Iraq.
6. One can walk safely through a Polish city without fear of sectarian violence.
7. The Pope did more than just "inspire" the resistance to the Soviet Union.

Add your own refutations to the larger column--there are many more ridiculous assertions. It's a doozy.

-WS

UPDATED--Former Petraeus Colleague Convicted of Accepting Bribes in Iraq

Sorry to do this, but the lede was buried. I am republishing this story with updated information and some observations--originally, I had planned to call Selph a "little fish in a big pond." It now appears there are some serious questions to be asked of some very senior leaders.

From the New York Times, August 27, 2007:

Several federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other matériel to Iraqi and American forces, according to American officials. The officials said it amounted to the largest ring of fraud and kickbacks uncovered in the conflict here.

The inquiry has already led to several indictments of Americans, with more expected, the officials said. One of the investigations involves a senior American officer who worked closely with Gen. David H. Petraeus in setting up the logistics operation to supply the Iraqi forces when General Petraeus was in charge of training and equipping those forces in 2004 and 2005, American officials said Monday.

There is no indication that investigators have uncovered any wrongdoing by General Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, who through a spokesman declined comment on any legal proceedings.

[SNIP]

But now, American officials said, part of the criminal investigation is focused on Lt. Col. Levonda Joey Selph, who reported directly to General Petraeus and worked closely with him in setting up the logistics operation for what were then the fledgling Iraqi security forces.

That operation moved everything from AK-47s, armored vehicles and plastic explosives to boots and Army uniforms, according to officials who were involved in it. Her former colleagues recall Colonel Selph as a courageous officer who was willing to take substantial personal risks to carry out her mission and was unfailingly loyal to General Petraeus and his directives to move quickly in setting up the logistics operation.

“She was kind of like the Pony Express of the Iraqi security forces,” said Victoria Wayne, who was then deputy director of logistics for the overall Iraqi reconstruction program.

Still, Colonel Selph also ran into serious problems with a company she oversaw that failed to live up to a contract it had signed to carry out part of that logistics mission.

It is not clear exactly what Colonel Selph is being investigated for. Colonel Selph, reached by telephone twice on Monday, said she would speak to reporters later but did not answer further messages left for her.

Flash forward to today:

A retired U.S. Army colonel pleaded guilty Tuesday to awarding contracts in Iraq to a Kuwait-based firm in exchange for gifts.

Levonda Selph of Virginia admitted accepting $4,000 in cash and a $5,000 vacation to Thailand from the unidentified contractor, which was awarded $12 million in contracts to operate Defense Department warehouses in Iraq. [see below for Selph's link to Thailand]

She pleaded guilty to charges of bribery and conspiracy. She was secretly indicted on those charges in October; the charges weren't disclosed until her court appearance Tuesday.

Under terms of a plea agreement, Selph could receive up to 33 months in jail. She promised to repay the government $9,000 and to cooperate in an ongoing investigation.

Prosecutors said Selph was a lieutenant colonel at Camp Victory in Iraq in 2004 and 2005 when she led a committee that awarded the warehouse contracts.

The Justice Department said she will be free until her sentencing October 14 but will not be allowed to leave the country.

MISSING from that story is the original link between Selph and Petraeus, of course. Missing is the fact that Colonel Ted Westhusing killed himself over these very issues, according to his suicide note, which mentioned Petraeus by name. Think we'll hear anything about that?

UPDATED 8:50 AM - WS:

Now we know why there was a link to Thailand:

In a phone interview from Bangkok, John Hess, who worked as the assistant director of operations for an American-owned company that helped manage supplies for Iraq, said payments to the companies that supplied arms to Iraq were often delayed because of missing DD-250s. He said he believed that the officers had the right motives but used dangerous methods.

“Once those weapons left normal channels,” Mr. Hess said, “none of us were ever sure where they were really going.”

Several co-workers complained about the unorthodox tactics of the two officers, including an accusation that Major Cox, 38, was stealing weapons, Major Isgrigg said. However, federal officials said the officers were not the targets of an investigation.

Even when they managed to get weapons to the Iraqi military, Major Isgrigg said, it was hard for him and Major Cox to feel triumphant. The Iraqi commanders could barely keep track of their troops, much less stocks of new weapons, he said. He estimated that 30 percent of the equipment he and Major Cox delivered went to Iraqi soldiers who showed up for duty one day, and disappeared the next.
“There were times we would issue a batch of weapons and within 10 days they would show up at the Enemy Weapons Purchase Program,” Major Cox, who is on his second tour in Baghdad, wrote by e-mail, referring to a military effort to buy guns from the streets.

“We didn’t always think we were going about things the right way,” said Major Isgrigg, who left Iraq in July. But he said he believed that his actions were necessary, saying of his commanders: “They rushed it. Their goal was to get those units standing as fast as possible, and then to get out of there. There was no planning for the long term.”

As the American military hurried to train and equip Iraqi security forces in the spring of 2004, the Pentagon turned to contractors to operate warehouses to store equipment and weapons.

Mr. Saffar managed an armory on the grounds of the Baghdad Police Academy, which along with a nearby warehouse was operated by an American-owned company based in Kuwait.

In July, the company, American Logistics Services, which later became Lee Dynamics International, was suspended by the Army from doing future business with the government amid accusations that the company paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to military contracting officers. The company had won $11 million in contracts to manage five warehouses with arms and other equipment in Iraq.

The company’s armory, a long concrete building divided into two sections in the back, was a logistics hub for the new Iraqi police. Crates of AK-47s and Glock pistols purchased by the Pentagon were trucked to the armory by armed convoys from a large warehouse at Abu Ghraib, and Mr. Saffar issued them to cadets.

----------------
Yes, ALL of the crooks should be punished. But she gets prison while numerous others go free after building shit-encrusted buildings, a US Embassy complex that is an embarrassment to civilized society, setting up showers that electrocute troops, setting up water distribution facilities that distribute filthy water and shooting up Iraqis left and right?

We can send Colonel Selph to prison for pocketing a few grand but we can't even put Blackwater guards who have shot and killed human beings on trial because they have immunity? Is this a case where someone is going to point to her conviction and go, "see, we caught everyone who was stealing money, and we punished them, so the problem is now solved?" This is like claiming you saved America from terrorism by catching a bunch of guys who couldn't even buy combat boots.

Talk about a problem with your values system. Damn.

TPM Muckraker was ALL OVER this last year:

Commenter:
Nancy wrote on August 30, 2007 5:03 PM:
You are wrong about Joey Selph. You are getting half a story. I am assuming that you have never been in the military or have been some place like Iraq, during a war, with limited resources. If you knew Joey, you would know that she is an outstanding officer with superior morals. She would never and I repeat Never, do anything that was unlawful. She is the most patriotic person that I have ever met. I served underneath her and have only the utmost respect for her. When this is all said and done, you will find, that she did nothing wrong. Wait and see.......

As soon as Nancy, was done, some REAL commenting was done:

Jack the Bear wrote on November 11, 2007 2:14 PM:
LTC Selph is a nasty person. She lived in the ALS mansion in the Green Zone with the very contractor she was overseeing...drinking and carousing and having a big time corrupting good soldiers. Shame on you. Perhaps they will find out about the $5M in shipping containers you bought from Basil without authorization.

Jack the Bear wrote on November 12, 2007 9:42 AM:
Jon,
You must not have really worked for her. I too, worked with her. I predicted, sooner or later, she would pay a high price for her greed and avarice. She trampled and corrupted many a good soldier while she was downrange and now she is paying the piper. She laid up with her KBR/PWC boyfriend and crushed anyone in her way. LTC Davis, her cohort, was just as bad, but I didn't know him that well. Just that they were working hard to ensure ALS had all the warehouse business in theatre locked up. Now I know why they were so keen to back a broken company who couldn't execute. Anytime there is an irrational exuberation about any one contractor for no reason, there is something bad going on. She is no hero, just a skanky zero.

The Truth wrote on November 13, 2007 6:04 AM:
The shame of it all is that General Patreaus' good name is ruined by this "skanky zero". LTC Selph worked for COL Hinton and when ever he tried to control her she would go to her CENTCOM buddies and then to Patreaus spewing things like they are hindering the distrobution of weapons. She would obtain and distribute alcoholic beverages to E-5s and below she also had a co-conspirator in CW3 McPheron who left country under the guise of heart trouble only to return back to Iraq within a month working for Basil who was supposed to provide 20 trucks per day but rarely had more than five but was always paid the full amount. When complaints were made again she would run to her CENTCOM buddies. LTC Patreaus did and is keeping his eyes on the big picture and trusted that officer's would do the right thing.

Jack the Bear wrote on November 13, 2007 9:51 AM:
Truth,
You are correct. GEN Petraeus was busy focusing on the big picture and the "Scarecrow" LTC Selph was busy enriching herself and her cronies. There are other names not mentioned and I can't wait to see the next shoe drop. The KO who signed those sweetheart contracts forcing all incoming equipment into the ALS system had to be government. The stinky Taos weapons buys also had to be awarded by a govie. There will be much more uncovered before this is put to bed. Anyone who tried to manage the Scarecrow got stomped. Too bad for Gen Petraeus and COL Hinton. Two great soldiers whose reputations will be sullied by LTC Selph.

So who's going to ask General Petraeus to comment? Anyone?

Think we'll ever hear back?

This was in my original post, but it has been overtaken by events:
It is a good thing that she was caught, tried, and convicted when the evidence against her was weighed. You can't have crooks running around in Iraq if we're going to be there for a hundred years, obviously. And we can't have crooks who aren't smart enough to actually get paid--I mean, come on. You can save nine grand in a year if you ride the bus and use the generic toilet paper. I'm sorry, but nine grand is chump change for a O-5 deployed to a combat zone for a year.

Let's say she was at 18 years time in service, paid as an O-5, and we'll use the current numbers. Her monthly pay is, TAX FREE, $7,212.00. On top of that, she gets 12 months of imminent danger pay ($225 a month) and 12 months of family separation pay ($250 a month) if she has a family. Her income for one year of service in Iraq, just based on those figures, is approximately $92,200--and I'm not counting housing allowances or anything else. That's just her base pay, imminent danger pay and family separation pay. And she took a bribe on top of that for a measly $9,000? And risked her entire career, her retirement, everything for what amounts to a little more than a month of pay?

I don't know if it's better that we caught a crook or that we got one of Jerry's Kids out of uniform.

I'm not saying that she should have been given a free ride because she, quite clearly, did not hold sway over a whole lot of purchasing power while she was at Camp Victory in 2004-05. It looks to me like she was a very small fish in a much larger pond--full of people who were handling vast sums of money--so much so they needed forklifts to move it--and it looks to me like she was involved in some petty crimes.

Timothy Shriver, Concern Troll

Timothy Shriver says Hillary Clinton should just "do nothing" now that she's suspended her campaign. Hey, I'm sure that she thanks you for the advice, but it really wasn't necessary:

Hillary Clinton’s amazing campaign is over. Regardless of what one thinks of her, we can all appreciate the model she has set for women and girls. She’s redefined the possible in politics, and our country is forever changed because of her.

Pundits have already begun to evaluate her next political move. Senate leader? Legislative powerhouse? New York governor? None of the options seems exactly right.

At times of transition, when people don’t know where to turn, the spiritual world has an answer: Do nothing. Do nothing every day. Do nothing at all for several days and then continue doing nothing at least once a day for the rest of your life!

Sorry, Timothy. She's free to do whatever she damned well pleases, and your concern troll pleading to soothe her battered spirits underlies the fundamental reason why no one in your line of work understands her: doing nothing is what got us where we are today.

Doing nothing allowed George Bush to wreck the fucking country. Hillary was in there, every single day, trying to do something to stop it. You can complain about her vote for the war, but she was lied to like everyone else, and we're getting to the bottom of that, so you and everyone else can stop bitching at her for it. If she were to come out and say that it was a mistake, you and everyone else would bitch at her for that, too.

[If you want to comment, and bitch about the war, please do. But the point has already been made--voting to authorize the war was a mistake. Hillary was willing to do whatever it took to fix the problem, and she wasn't the one who suggested we stay there for a hundred years. So STFU.]

Now, the concern troll suggestion that she drop out of public life is all well and good, but I thank God for Hillary Clinton, because that's the last thing she's going to do. She's already back at work, fighting like crazy for the good of this country, and here's why:

For the next twenty or thirty years, a whole hell of a lot of us now get to work extra hard to un-fuck the country so that our grandkids can have something.

Hey, thanks for playing. Now, please go shut your fucking piehole and let us get to work.

--WS

There Are Exploding Neocon Heads Everywhere

They sure look like pals to me:

Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Sunday tried to allay Iranian fears over a planned U.S.-Iraq security pact, saying his government would not allow Iraq to become a launching pad for an attack on its neighbor.

"Iraq today doesn't present any threat as it used to be in the times of the former regime," al-Maliki told Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a Sunday meeting between two leaders, according to a statement from the prime minister's office.

"Today's Iraq is a constitutional state based on the rule of law, and it seeks to develop its relations with the regional countries based on cooperation and mutual respect," al-Maliki said.

Earlier, Iran's state-run news agency IRNA quoted the Iraqi leader as saying that "Baghdad would not allow its soil to be used as a base to damage the security of the neighboring countries, including Iran."

It never ceases to amaze me that the neocons believe in a world where the mostly irrelevant and powerless Ahmadinejad has his finger, literally and figuratively, on a nuclear weapon [that Iran doesn't have the capability to build or deploy] and the immediate destruction of Israel, and yet he routinely has warm meetings and dealings at all levels with his "counterpart" in Iraq, the same al-Maliki pictured here:



Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's just one degree of separation between McCain and Ahmadinejad now. Anyone for a bowl of hot steaming appeasement?

Al-Maliki and Ahmadinejad met Sunday afternoon, with Ahmadinejad calling on Iraq's neighbors and the United Nations to help restore security and stability to Iraq, IRNA reported. And al-Maliki thanked Ahmadinejad for his call for an end to longstanding U.N. sanctions against Iraq that date back to the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Wait a minute--five years after the fall of the Iraqi regime under Saddam--five years--and the United Nations still has Iraq on its shit list? There are still UN sanctions against Iraq? I did not know that. But it doesn't surprise me--it's not like we've ever sent anyone to the United Nations who could actually get something done during the Bush Administration. Shouldn't someone be writing a letter or something on behalf of our allies in Iraq? As in, yo, this is a different government now. You can end the sanctions--they're the puppet government we're propping up.

The "Strategic Alliance" Between the US and Iraq

When the United States deploys its troops to a foreign country, the framework of the relationship between the two countries is stretched across what is called a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that codifies the particulars of the relationship.

It should come as no surprise that the SOFA between the US and Iraq is a political document, split into two parts, that is being crafted to achieve two goals--to make as permanent as possible the involvement of US troops in Iraq in order to ensure the legacy of George Bush does NOT hinge completely on Iraq and to help John McCain get elected President.

Alexander Cockburn explains:

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabili[z]e Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

There is no basis to declare victory in Iraq--the government cannot stand without US assistance and US assistance is killing Americans virtually every day. There is simply no reason to honor any agreement Bush makes with Iraq. There should be a Senate vote on this treaty, but because the administration refuses to call it a treaty there won't be. It avoids the necessary review in the Senate that would ensure that the American people have a say in what is decided.

And what's sad is that the Grand Ayatollah of Iraq has more say in the matter than the US Senate:

Al-Hayat writing in Arabic reports that Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (the leading bloc in parliament and keystone of the government of Nuri al-Maliki) is saying he spoke to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani about the security agreement with Washington. He says that Sistani laid out four points to which any such agreement must adhere:

-National sovereignty
-Transparency
-National consensus
-Parliamentary approval of it

Al-Hakim met with Sistani Wednesday evening, along with some journalists. The journalists reported that the grand ayatollah stressed national Iraqi unity in the face of challenges, expressed his concern about the lack of services for citizens, including electricity and water, and said the water shortage was especially harming farmers. He also urged haste in the rebuilding of the Askariya Shrine in Samarra.

Al-Hakim said that his own party felt the current American draft detracts too much from Iraq's sovereignty and fails to protect Iraqi wealth. He said that Sistani did not go into details but stressed general principles. He maintained that in general Sistani shared the concerns of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

As usual, Joe Biden was all over this from get go:

“Last November, the President of the United States and Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq signed a ‘Declaration of Principles,’ which set out a framework for our countries to negotiate, by the end of July of this year, agreements governing cooperation in political, economic and security spheres. Among other things, the Declaration contemplates ‘providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq’ and supporting Iraq ‘in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups,’ including Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and ‘all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation.’ In other words, all the folks fighting in Iraq and killing each other.

“This sends up not just one, but many red flags with me and many other Americans. We’ve pledged we’re not only going to consult when there is an outside threat, but also when there is an inside threat. We’ve just witnessed when Mr. Maliki engaged in the use of force against another Shia group in the south, is this an inside threat?

“We will hear today about the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq which were anticipated in the November Declaration. On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker told us that these agreements would set forth the ‘vision’ – his phrase – of our bilateral relationship with Iraq.

“One agreement is a ‘strategic framework agreement’ that will include the economic, political and security issues outlined in the Declaration of Principles. The document might be better titled ‘What the United States will do for Iraq,’ because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction – promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country.

“We’re told that the reason why we’re not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don’t want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it’s not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is.

“The second agreement is what Administration officials call a ‘standard’ Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces – for the purposes of Iraqi law – to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don’t know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy.

The American people don't have a say, and, apparently, the Iraqi people won't have much of a say either. Ali Allawi, the former Finance Minister of Iraq, writes:

In 1930 the Anglo-Iraqi treaty was signed as a prelude to Iraq gaining full independence. Britain had occupied Iraq after defeating the Turks in the First World War, and was granted a mandate over the country. The treaty gave Britain military and economic privileges in exchange for Britain's promise to end its mandate. The treaty was ratified by a docile Iraqi parliament, but was bitterly resented by nationalists. Iraq's dependency on Britain poisoned Iraqi politics for the next quarter of a century. Riots, civil disturbances, uprisings and coups were all a feature of Iraq's political landscape, prompted in no small measure by the bitter disputations over the treaty with Britain.

Iraq is now faced with a reprise of that treaty, but this time with the US, rather than Britain, as the dominant foreign partner. The US is pushing for the enactment of a "strategic alliance" with Iraq, partly as a precondition for supporting Iraq's removal from its sanctioned status under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. It is a treaty under any other name. It has been structured as an alliance partly to avoid subjecting its terms to the approval of the US Senate, and partly to obfuscate its significance. Although the draft has not been circulated outside official circles, the leaks raise serious alarm about its long-term significance for Iraq's sovereignty and independence. Of course the terms of the alliance for Iraq will be sweetened with promises of military and economic aid, but these are no different in essence from the commitments made in Iraq's previous disastrous treaty entanglements.

The Bush administration has set 31 July as the deadline for the signing of the agreement. Under the present plan, the draft of the agreement will have to be brought to Iraq's parliament for approval. Parliament, however, is beholden to the political parties that dominate the present coalition, and there is unlikely to be substantive debate on the matter. The Shia religious leadership in Najaf, especially Grand Ayatollah Sistani, has not clearly come out against the agreement, although his spokesmen have set out markers that must be respected by the negotiators. The Najaf religious hierarchy is probably the only remaining institution that can block the agreement. But it is unclear whether the political or religious leadership are prepared to confront the US. President Bush, with an eye on history, is seeking to salvage his Iraq expedition by claiming that Iraq is now pacified and is a loyal American ally in the Middle East and the War on Terror.

It is only now that Iraqis have woken up to the possibility that Iraq might be a signatory on a long-term security treaty with the US, as a price for regaining its full sovereignty. Iraqis must know its details and implications. How would such an alliance constrain Iraq's freedom in choosing its commercial, military and political partners? Will Iraq be obliged to openly or covertly support all of America's policies in the Middle East? These are issues of a vital nature that cannot be brushed aside with the Iraqi government's platitudes about "protecting Iraqi interests". A treaty of such singular significance to Iraq cannot be rammed through with less than a few weeks of debate. Otherwise, the proposed strategic alliance will most certainly be a divisive element in Iraqi politics. It will have the same disastrous effect as the treaty with Britain nearly eighty years ago.

The late Steve Gilliard wrote at length about the historical precedents, but here's a great excerpt from the history of the British occupation of Iraq that rings true today:

Above all, reliance was being placed on the new military technology to magnify manpower. It had been pushed forward rapidly by the Great War, which in this way fortified imperialism as much as in other ways it weakened it. During its course electrified as well as barbed wire was made use of on a turbulent section of the north-west frontier. The armoured car showed its paces in the Afghan war, though only available in limited numbers, `It possessed great fire power and mobility’, the army reported, `while offering a small and almost invulnerable target to the enemy.’ `Motor machine-gun batteries’ were also now in service. A grander chariot of wrath was the tank, an avatar of the elephant of older Indian warfare. But the true deus ex machina was the aviator, who had made his appearance in various colonial theatres during the Great War. . . .

To empire men of [General L.C.] Dunsterville’s generation, aviation promised, as his book makes clear, to be the trump card, the perfect means of keeping colonial peoples on the strait and narrow path. In the government this view had champions in [Colonial Secretary Lord] Milner and [Secretary for War and Air Winston] Churchill. . . The aim was to turn Iraq, whose defence was being entrusted to the RAF, into a showpiece of the new philosophy

It was in new territories where colonial rule had as yet no infrastructure that air forces could be looked on most of all as a short cut to control. In Iraq the British Mandate found few welcomers, and there were complications both in the north, where oil was expected, with Kurdish rebels, and in the south with Wahhabis, Muslim zealots raiding across the nebulous border from the new neighbouring kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A variety of operations were soon being undertaken by the RAF, on its own or in conjunction with ground forces under its direction. They were breeding a new type of soldier, a technician in uniform. A good specimen was the L.A. Simmons who joined the RAF as a 'skilled driver' in 1923, and spent 'two and a half quite unforgettable years' with armoured car units in Iraq, before moving on to Egypt. He rose to flight lieutenant. The army was not concerned to notice that it had some enquiring minds now in the fold. No one told Simmons and his friends that they would be getting out of a train at Ur of the Chaldees. 'There was little or no "Briefing" in those days, eveyone was kept in the dark about what was going on.' He arranged to have newspaper cuttings sent out from home, in order to get some clue to what he was doing.

His No.4 company of armoured cars had its base at Hinaidi, close to the capital of Baghdad. Far-ranging patrols were carried out, by sections each of four cars, four Fords with Lewis guns, and a tender with radio and provisions. A car had a crew of five, all of whom had to be able to drive it and to handle any of its weapons. 'Our "armoureds" were greatly respected everywhere', he wrote. When men on the ground spotted the enemy in too much strength for them to tackle they radioed for planes to come and bonb him.

Airstrikes--the best way to make sure one does NOT win the hearts and minds of the people. It was true in the 1920s and it is true today.

The legacy of the Iraq War must be something entirely belonging to President Bush and none of the decisions, agreements or documents he has signed should be honored--a break with precedent, of course, but, then again, the Bush Presidency has never honored precedent. NONE of the things that were decided or negotiated were done under legitimate Congressional oversight and nothing was done in the best interests of the American people.