Beware of the True Believers Around You

This is the story of how a woman named Mary Lou Sapone infiltrated the gun control movement on behalf of her employer, the National Rifle Association. This story should set off alarm bells in advocacy groups all throughout this country--there might be moles all around you, informing on what your organization does and sabotaging the work that you do.

Mary McFate is an advocate of environmental causes and a prominent activist within the gun control movement. For more than a decade, she volunteered for various gun violence prevention organizations, serving on the boards of anti-gun outfits, helping state groups coordinate their activities, lobbying in Washington for gun control legislation, and regularly attending strategy and organizing meetings.

Mary Lou Sapone, by contrast, is a self-described "research consultant," who for decades has covertly infiltrated citizens groups for private security firms hired by corporations that are targeted by activist campaigns. For some time, Sapone also worked for the National Rifle Association.

But these two Marys share a lot in common—a Mother Jones investigation has found that McFate and Sapone are, in fact, the same person. And this discovery has caused the leaders of gun violence prevention organizations to conclude that for years they have been penetrated—at the highest levels—by the NRA or other pro-gun parties. "It raises the question," says Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "of what did she find out and what did they want her to find out."

Sapone got within shouting distance of being inside of the inner circle of the most prominent gun control organizations in the country. Her status as an informant for the National Rifle Association sends the veritable shot across the bow--they mean business, they're going to do whatever they can to get an advantage, and they don't respect any boundaries.

How did they discover Sapone and how extensive was this infiltration?

Outside the gun control world, Mary Lou Sapone was, as Mother Jones has previously reported, a for-hire operative who spied on citizens' groups for corporate clients. Property and phone records indicate that the two names belong to the same person. Last week, a reporter for Mother Jones called the Sarasota phone number that McFate had given her gun control allies and asked the woman who answered if she was Mary Lou Sapone. "Yes," she responded. But Sapone then refused to answer any questions about Mary McFate or her work for gun control. She quickly hung up—and did not respond to subsequent calls and emails.

During Sapone's ascent through the ranks of the gun control movement, she worked for the NRA, according to a business associate. In a 2003 deposition, Tim Ward, who had been president of the Maryland-based security firm Beckett Brown International, said that the NRA had been "a client" of Sapone's. (As a subcontractor for BBI, Sapone had planted an operative within an environmental group in Lake Charles, Louisiana.) According to Ward, at his request Sapone had introduced BBI to the NRA in early 1999. And that introduction quickly paid off. Billing records obtained by Mother Jones indicate that between May 1999 and April 2000, the NRA paid BBI nearly $80,000 for various services.

In another 2003 deposition, Jay Bly, a former Secret Service officer who worked for BBI, was asked what type of work the security firm had done for the NRA, and he responded, "Those are very sensitive issues, and I'm just not comfortable going into it. I'm really not." Later in the deposition, Bly said, "I did a number of different things for the NRA in the area of investigation, the area of personal protection, in the area of event security, in the area of intelligence gathering, okay?"

Sapone's contact at the National Rifle Association? Patrick O'Malley.

In his deposition, Ward identified Sapone's contact at the NRA as Patrick O'Malley. From the late 1990s until 2002, O'Malley was the deputy executive director of the Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA's political arm. And according to billing records from BBI (which in 2000 changed its name to S2I Corporation), O'Malley was BBI's liaison at the NRA. Recent emails indicate that in 2007 and 2008 Sapone was working with O'Malley, who lobbied for the NRA after leaving the ILA and went on to work for a government relations firm retained by his former employer. In recent years, O'Malley has served as the executive director of the Ballot Issues Coalition, an organization composed of hunting-rights groups, including the NRA.

This is an extensive operation--and the more public "face" of it is Montgomery McFate (Sapone).

In the 1990s—while working within the gun control community as McFate—Sapone formed her own intelligence-gathering business. And she enlisted family members for its operations. "In our business, it's my daughter-in-law, Montgomery Sapone [who] does all the analytic reports, forecasting, and white papers," Sapone wrote to a client in an August 1999 email obtained by Mother Jones. "She produces a very professional product." Sapone continued, "We are warning our clients that activist groups are moving towards ballot initiatives…And it's easy for groups like Greenpeace to emotionally shape a looming crisis in a 10 second TV spot 2 days before a referenda election. My daughter Shelley specializes in that aspect of our business. We are doing a lot of work now to help clients in the 2000 election."

Photo: Montgomery McFate

These days, Sean and Montgomery Sapone are better known as Sean and Montgomery McFate, a successful Washington couple whose current bios make no mention of any past intelligence-gathering or opposition-research work. Sean is currently the program director of the national security initiative at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank boasting an advisory board composed of four former Senate majority leaders: Howard Baker, Bob Dole, George Mitchell, and Tom Daschle. An expert on military affairs, he previously worked for Amnesty International and for military contractor DynCorp. According to an online biography, he helped to organize "the first major legal arms shipment to Liberia in 15 years." Montgomery has made a name for herself as one of the primary architects of the US military's human terrain program, which teams social scientists with military units in Iraq and Afghanistan to help soldiers better understand the local culture. (The controversial program has been sharply criticized by the American Anthropological Association, which fears it may cross an ethical line, and has been described by detractors as "mercenary anthropology.") Now a top Pentagon adviser, Montgomery also contributed to the Army's Counterinsurgency Field Manual drafted under the guidance of General David Petraeus.

Amazing what you find out about people, and their lack of ethics. Anyone who deals with these people is asking for serious trouble--there's no telling who they would sell out to make a dollar. For all we know, Sapone and her family are selling secrets to the highest bidder--and that's not hyperbole when you speculate that they have the capability to do that kind of thing, coupled with a long history of actually doing it. You have to seriously question anyone who acts as a "mercenary" and is willing to spend years--years--duping people for money. Who know what they've been up to, or who they plan to sell out next.

Shabby grifters is all they seem to be.



Enhanced a photo of Sapone that Mother Jones found on her erstwhile blog, which has apparently been scrubbed of "better" photos.

Presidential

Senator Barack Obama in Iraq with General David Petraeus:

BOTH Photos: (AP Photo/Ssg. Lorie Jewell, HO)

Was this a fake interview with General Petraeus? Andrea Mitchell does everything she can to carry water for John McCain and ends up looking just as irrelevant, confused and as lost as he is. These are the photos that the chattering class in Washington DC did their damnedest to keep you from seeing because it blows their "narrative" sky high. John McCain doesn't look Presidential--he looks confused and lost when compared to Obama.

And doesn't the good General look like he's found a new friend?

[h/t to Daily Kos diarist drational...]

UPDATE: More desperate hysterics from the right wing (Instapundit):

A PREDICTION: If Barack Obama is elected President, he'll be far more warlike than President Bush, and far more warlike than his pre-election rhetoric suggests. Because before he's elected President, attacks on America are just attacks on America. But after he's elected President, attacks on America will also be attacks on Barack Obama.

And Keith Olbermann will describe the mushroom cloud over Tehran as "awesome in its rampant Technicolor beauty."

Yeah, that'll happen--if only because the calm, cool, rational people always fly off the handle for no reason and start wars while the insecure, daddy-hating dry drunks always make sane, sober choices. And doesn't that also mean that Obama really is patriotic? Just sayin'.

--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

A Czar for Afghanistan?

You've got to be kidding me.

From Atrios:

John McCain just said he'd appoint an Afghanistan czar who would report directly to the president. Isn't there anyone either in the military or in a civilian position who, you know, sorta has that job already without having to be named a "Czar."

The answer is yes--and his name is General David Petraeus, CENTCOM Commander.

Do you think the Media--in all of their Mancrush Glory--will deign to point out that Senator John McCain just threw General Petraeus under the bus, backed up over him, drove over him again, and then left him there in the dust? If McCain thinks Afghanistan has gotten to the point where he needs to name a "czar," then he needs to promise to find a CENTCOM Commander who can replace Petraeus.

Unbelieveable.

--WS

We Must End the Iraq War, Plain and Simple

Of course Obama is going to take heat for being realistic and flexible--that's a given. What isn't new about his position is that he offers the only realistic chance to actually draw our combat troops out of Iraq because he is not politically tied to the war in the way that John McCain is.

Barack Obama is taking heat for hinting that he might refine his 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But a forthcoming Pentagon-sponsored report will recommend an even steeper drawdown in less time, NEWSWEEK has learned. If adopted, the 300-page report by a defense analysis group at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., could transform the debate about Iraq in the presidential election.

Expected to be completed in about a month, it will recommend that U.S. forces be reduced to as few as 50,000 by the spring of 2009, down from about 150,000 now. The strategy is based on a major handoff to the increasingly successful Iraqi Army, with platoon-size U.S. detachments backing the Iraqis from small outposts, with air support. The large U.S. forward operating bases that house the bulk of U.S. troops would be mostly abandoned, and the role of Special Forces would increase.

The report's conclusions have been discussed inside Secretary Robert Gates's Defense Policy Board, a body of outside experts. And they've found favor with some former members of the Iraq Study Group, such as former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta. "That's basically the approach we thought made sense—embedding some of our forces at smaller outposts, transferring major combat to the Iraqis," says Panetta.

Now, General Petraeus is saying he knew nothing about this study, and that's reasonable to conclude--he isn't exactly sitting around waiting for studies to pour in. What General Petraeus needs to do is align himself with the idea that the war in Iraq is not an endless hole in which to stuff troops that we don't have. If he wants to continue his career, he has to break with the Bush Administration and join the reality-based club. Obama at least realizes that this is about numbers, not a wish list for neocons. We don't have the numbers to sustain 140,000 troops in Iraq--not unless we empty Afghanistan, Europe, and Japan and walk away from those commitments. The Republican Party has broken the US military, and that should be the number one issue this fall, closely followed by the issues of tearing up the Constitution, abandoning Veterans, and ruining the economy.

The US Army needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. A radical reorganization and retraining needs to take place--emphasizing lessons learned and mistakes acknowledged. We have a unique situation with our military. We have hundreds of thousands of combat Veterans who can form the cadre and the backbone of a transformed Army that can defend American interests, if we can keep them. If we don't emphasize their medical care and their quality of life, these men and women are going to bolt the service and the institutional lessons of the Iraq War will leave with them.

I am not in the school of thought that says we must place strong emphasis on Counterinsurgency (COIN) tactics. All we are doing when we do that is hand the civilian leadership the justification to go out and find us the next insurgency to fight somewhere in the world. Build an Army that does only COIN, and that's the fight that the civilians will pick with someone. Better to have light units that can do COIN and their current missions; better to emphasize to all troops that COIN is something they might have to do one day and allow those hundreds of thousands of Veterans to train accordingly for it, but not exclusively for it. Nation building does not work. If a President Obama decides to go out and engage in nation building, I will be extremely disappointed.

None of this can happen under a President McCain. There will be no drawdown or resting of our exhausted forces under him--only a slow, grinding hell that allows him political cover until the next opportunity for glory reveals itself.

--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.

Afghanistan Enters Another Summer

One of the few generals who can actually command combat troops in the field is General David McKiernan. The US Army actually has precious few of these men left--many left in disgust during the Rumsfeld era. McKiernan ran the show in Iraq in 2003--carrying out the plans handed to him. Of all the things that can be said about the Iraq War, there is no disputing the success of the US military's smashing of the Iraqi military in record time. It was a deep strike that left the follow on support troops vulnerable, but with what he had, McKiernan carried out his orders and succeeded where many would have failed. He was one of the generals who had to watch General David Petraeus pass him by--McKiernan went to be Deputy Commanding General/Chief of Staff for United States Army Forces Command while Petraeus went from being a Division Commander to CENTCOM Commander in a few short years.

McKiernan is an ROTC soldier, not a West Point man--a distinction that might not mean a great deal, but nevertheless. His rise through the ranks was not a foregone conclusion. He has recently been chosen to command all forces in Afghanistan:

The American general who led the ground invasion of Iraq took command of the 40-nation NATO-led campaign in Afghanistan on Tuesday.

Army Gen. David D. McKiernan took charge of the 51,000-member International Security Assistance Force from Gen. Dan McNeill, who will retire from the U.S. Army after 40 years.

Addressing a change of command ceremony Tuesday, McKiernan said he was "honored to walk alongside our Afghan brothers."

General McKiernan faces many new challenges--not the least of which is the fact that his new boss, General Petraeus, has, shall we say, an entirely different problem with Afghanistan:

If the problem in Iraq was introducing political suppleness, the problem in Afghanistan is the opposite: It is reducing the political suppleness. The way to do that is to introduce military force, to change the psychology of the region by convincing it that the United States is prepared to remain indefinitely and to bring overwhelming force to bear. That was the point of the U.S. announcement that it would take over the burden dropped by NATO.

The problem is that this is a bluff. The United States doesn’t have overwhelming force to bring to bear. The Soviets had 300,000 troops in Afghanistan. They held the cities, but the countryside was as treacherous for them as it is for the Americans. The force the United States can bring to bear is insufficient to overawe the tribes and cause them to break with the Taliban. And therefore, the United States is in a holding pattern, hoping that something will turn up.

That something is Pakistan. If Petraeus follows true to his Iraqi form — where he engaged the Iranians based on their own self-interest, inducing Tehran to rein in al-Sadr — then his key move must be to engage the Pakistanis in the fight against the Taliban. The problem is that it is not clearly in Pakistan’s self-interest to create a civil war in Pakistan with the Taliban, and the new government in Islamabad does not appear to have the appetite for such a struggle. And the Pakistani army continues to have elements sympathetic to the Taliban. If the army is not prepared to put up much of a fight in Pakistan’s northern tribal areas, it certainly is not looking for armed conflict with the Taliban — many of whose members are in fact Pakistani guerrillas — in Pakistan’s nontribal areas.

In sum, Petraeus improved the situation in Iraq, but he hasn’t won the war there. And applying those lessons to Afghanistan is simply repeating what has happened since 2001. Petraeus is a good general, so it is unlikely he will continue that same course. But it is also unlikely that he will be in a position to force the Pakistanis to deny Taliban sanctuary. We therefore don’t know what he will do in Afghanistan. But, as we have said before, it is a deteriorating situation, and he will be forced to act on it. That’s why he was placed at the helm of CENTCOM.

If Petraeus had Moqtada al Sadr to contend with, McKiernan has Baitullah Mehsud as his main concern:

While the Pakistani army goes for show, flying journalists in for a brief visit to demonstrate how the Taliban is in retreat, the Taliban goes for a far different tactic.

Baitullah Mehsud, the head of Pakistani Taliban, called a news conference in the same area, drove up in a new Toyota SUV full of security carrying new AK-47 assault rifles, and holds court, unmolested, for an extended period of time.

Mehsud was not bashful about acknowledging his role in combating U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and promised to intensify those attacks. Articulating the standard jihadi-Islamist view, he stated that “Islam does not recognize boundaries. There can be no deal with the United States.”

[SNIP]

It is time to stop pretending Pakistan can or will be an ally against the Taliban, either in Pakistan or Afghanistan. The group grew and was nurtured under the wings of the [Inter-services Intelligence] ISI, and are broadly supported, both by officials in Pakistan, and, in many places, by the population.

Without being able to rely on the Pakistani authorities to deny the Taliban sanctuary and without being able to take direct action in those areas itself, the NATO forces are hamstrung in an effort that at best can hold the line for a few years. Victory, or any semblance thereof, is simply out of the question as long as these sanctuaries remain.

McKiernan has to move quickly and effectively to effectively deal with Mehsud:

He and his main ally, Qari Hussain, whom officials and associates have described as a highly trained and vicious militant, have methodically built up strongholds in North and South Waziristan — killing uncooperative tribal leaders, recruiting unemployed young men to their jihad and filling the vacuum left by a lack of government services. Now, they also have lieutenants and allies across the tribal region.

In South Waziristan, they run training camps for suicide bombers, some of them children, according to the former Taliban member. Their realm is so secure that in April Mehsud's umbrella group, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, held a conference of thousands of fighters that culminated in a public execution, according to a local resident.

Local Pakistani authorities say they are helpless to deal with Mehsud's group. In a measure of their despair, on Wednesday the authorities in the Mohmand district, where the conference and public execution were held, announced a truce with the Taliban.

Mehsud was once a minor figure in the small Shabikhel branch of the fierce Mehsud tribe that lives in South Waziristan, whose inhospitable territory remained a sliver of imperial India left unconquered by the British.

But he managed to enhance his stature through the ambivalence — or protection, according to some officials — of the Pakistani authorities, say former Pakistani military officials and tribal leaders. His strength grew quickly after February 2005, when the military, then under the control of President Pervez Musharraf, signed a peace deal with him.

"That was when I knew the army was not serious," said a tribal leader who has dealt with Mehsud and would not be named for safety reasons. "If the army took firm action they could crush him in two months."

Instead, the army and the Inter-Services Intelligence, the overarching Pakistani intelligence agency, wanted to keep Mehsud "in reserve," said the tribal leader, who is also a former military officer.

It should come as no surprise that as McKiernan takes over in Afghanistan, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, arrives in Pakistan for an official two-day visit.

While Mullen lays the groundwork to deal with the Taliban, the US media does its best job of hiding its head in the sand. Barnett R. Rubin at Informed Comment recently debated David Ignatius of the Washington Post after Rubin spent some time getting a decidedly "different" picture of what is going on in Afghanistan:

One of the main explanations for the level of violence is a significant increase in infiltration from Pakistan's Tribal Areas, which are directly adjacent to RC/E. The Pakistan army has used the election of a new civilian government as a blame-shifting cover for its decision to withdraw from FATA and conclude a truce with the Pakistani Taliban. This truce has enabled the militants to focus their energy on Afghanistan.

This may be true, but it does not show that the U.S. effort in Afghanistan is in fact succeeding, when all factors are taken into account. During my visit to Kabul I found that several officials of the U.S. government there interpreted my challenge to Ignatius' assertions as criticisms or denigration of their efforts in RC/E. That is not at all my intention. I was not able to take up the Embassy's offer of a repeat of the Ignatius tour on this visit, and I last visited RC/E in August 2006, when I went to Gardez, Paktia, to visit Governor Hakim Taniwal, an old friend and academic colleague (Taniwal was a sociologist) . Taniwal was killed by a suicide bomber a few weeks later. I have no reason to doubt the positive accounts of US counter-insurgency work, mostly in Khost, one of the smallest of the 12 provinces in RC/E. The failures of U.S. policy do not result from poor implementation by people in the field. On the contrary, from what I have seen, whatever successes there have been have largely been led from the field, not from Washington. Those working on the ground have worked hard in many cases to reverse or evade policies imposed by the Bush administration.

As good as McKiernan might be as a General, he has to understand that the best way to solve the problems that he faces are to use diplomacy--as in, a diplomatic effort to pacify the Pakistanis who support the Taliban just enough to allow for some "accommodation" between Karzai and the militants. Karzai is going to have to make peace with the Taliban, or at least reach some sort of arrangement with them. He might even--gasp--have to share power with them. Remember--Karzai has asked for just that in the past.

The Taliban's former chief spokesman has revealed that top-level talks are being held between the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai and key lieutenants of the former Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

His disclosure that the Taliban "cabinet in exile" is engaged in negotiations appeared to contradict the statement to Parliament yesterday by Gordon Brown that hardline Taliban leaders would be isolated from talks over the future of Afghanistan.

The fact that Karzai has long advocated negotiations and power sharing with the Taliban is a new wrinkle for the US to contend with. This means that diplomacy is the only way to get ourselves extricated from Afghanistan, which should be our ultimate goal. Without a functioning State Department and with a CENTCOM commander who is more focused on Iraq, this might have to wait until a new Administration takes over. The encouraging thing is this--Petraeus was instrumental in bringing in Sunni militiamen. The idea of bringing the Taliban into the mix in Afghanistan isn't too far off the mark. Whether or not the Taliban will abandon their assistance of al Qaeda is something for the diplomats to work out, of course.

McKiernan will need diplomats more than he'll need airstrikes.

*Yes, the best thing to do would have been to NOT invade Afghanistan. We get that. This post deals with the reality as it is today. Making the point that "we never should have gone there in the first place" is simply stating the obvious.

Petraeus predicts September draw-down in Iraq

Of course he does! He is a political hack and a water-carrier for the republican warmongers and chickenhawks and never let anyone tell you otherwise!

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services committee this morning, he told the panel "My sense is that I will be able to make a recommendation at that time for some further reductions." Then he hastened to add that he didn't want to imply that he had anything specific in mind, no particular brigade or combat formation has been decided on. ''But I do believe there will be certain assets that, as we are already looking at the picture right now, we'll be able to recommend can be either redeployed or not deployed to the theater in the fall,'' he said, while repeating his past caution that conditions on the ground could change. Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, responded: ''That's good news to most of us.''

(Yeah Carl - it's real good news that the four-star hack is quietly influencing this upcoming presidential election, just like he did the last one. Who can forget that editorial in the Washington Post that touted non-existent progress and success of aWol's pet war - six weeks before the election? The answer to that question, by the way, is "very few" because we won't let them!)

But the meddling doesn't stop with vague suggestions of possible troop withdrawals to commence six weeks before the election. The upcoming Iraqi parliamentary elections are being pushed back to November from October.

You see, it simply wouldn't do to have all that effort to sway influence to McCain offset by Sadr's bloc waltzing to victory the following month, so the Iraqi elections have to be pushed back to after the U.S. presidential election.

So are you feeling manipulated yet? And if not, why not?

McMaster Promoted

Abu Muqawama says it finally happened:

Yes, Abu Muqawama has heard McMaster is off to TRADOC. Probably not what he would have wanted, but it might be the best thing for the Army as an institution. McMaster has written what might as well be the motto of this blog: "Beyond highlighting the limits of so-called transformational technologies, the principal lesson of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and southern Lebanon might be that military campaigns must be subordinate to a larger strategy that integrates political, military, diplomatic, economic and strategic communication efforts."

The Washington Post has more:

Army Secretary Pete Geren asked Petraeus to head the board, which convened in late 2007, and instructed it to stress innovation in selecting a new generation of one-star generals, the officers said. Several of the colonels widely expected to appear on the resulting promotion list, which has not yet been released, are considered unconventional thinkers who were effective in the Iraq campaign, in many cases because they embraced a counterinsurgency doctrine that Petraeus helped craft, the officials said.

They include Special Forces Col. Ken Tovo, a veteran of multiple Iraq tours who recently led a Special Operations task force there; Col. H.R. McMaster, a senior Petraeus adviser known for leading a successful counterinsurgency effort in the Iraqi city of Tall Afar, and Col. Sean MacFarland, who created a network of patrol bases in Ramadi that helped curb violence in the capital of Anbar Province, according to the officers.

In an article published this year on the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, McMaster challenged what he called the military's preoccupation in the 1990s with technology, to the neglect of the political and cultural dimensions of war. Military leaders must end the "self-delusion" that high-tech weapons and a "minimalist" commitment of forces can solve conflicts, he wrote.

The promotion list has attracted keen attention from younger Army officers who are weary from multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. "This sends a signal to the junior officers who are laboring in the trenches, literally, that the Army is trying to cast itself in a new mold," said retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales Jr., a defense consultant and former head of the Army War College. "The quickest way to change the Army is at the brigadier general level. That is the surest way to turn the ship, because those names are how those young officers intuit where the Army is going," he said.

The one-star-general list, which requires congressional approval, was expected to be released months ago but has been delayed, partly due to a requirement that to qualify for promotion Army colonels must attend a course designed to improve their understanding of other military services. Several colonels who served under Petraeus -- including some said to be on the list -- are currently attending or are scheduled to attend the 10-week course, called Joint Professional Military Education Phase II in Norfolk.

Spencer Ackerman Shows Sadr in a New Light

Rather than dismiss him as a fool and call him "Mookie" like the idiot warbloggers do, Spencer Ackerman comes up with a sobering assessment of Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr.

In Iraq, Moqtada Sadr is perhaps the most powerful single political actor. But in the United States, he is treated with derision and contempt by both officials and commentators. During a visit to Baghdad last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice all but called Sadr a coward, saying he was "sitting in Iran" while promising "all-out war for anybody but him." In the right-wing blogosphere, Sadr is commonly called "Mookie." Yet while the political fortunes of all other Iraqi Arab political figures have waxed and waned, only Sadr has consistently gained strength. That raises the question: Why?

My guess is that he is one of the few young Iraqis to actually have faced both Saddam and the United States. He is NOT a military man. He is NOT a leader in the way that we understand--hence, when it's not easy to pigeonhole him, the lesser minds of the right wing go ballistic because they cannot see past their own ideas of what war, insurgency and leadership are supposed to be.

One common explanation is that Sadr is the heir to a distinguished Shiite clerical line that offered the most potent and authentic resistance to Saddam Hussein. A complementary theory holds that Sadr's anti-occupation demagoguery provides all the adherent force he needs.

But a different interpretation -- not exclusive of the other two -- might hold the key to Sadr's continued success. Sadr is an insurgent figure who adopts key principles of counterinsurgency. His military strategy is complemented by an appealing political and economic strategy for securing the loyalties of the population. That would help explain why the counterinsurgents battling Sadr in Baghdad have consistently lost.

"While other individuals and parties sought U.S. support and bickered over the high-profile government ministries," A.J. Rossmiller, who spent 2005 in Baghdad as an analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency, wrote an e-mail, "Sadrists quietly sought the three things most valuable in a political system: popular legitimacy, a patronage network and the ability to provide for the basic needs of citizens."

And that's why they can't understand him--he's not so much a military figure as he is a nationalist. And, at no time in the history of this country, have we ever been able to grasp what it is that motivates a true nationalist, whether we're talking Castro, Ho Chi Minh, or Milosevic. It's also the reason why we cannot understand Hamas or Hezbollah.

Some counterinsurgents believe that Sadr's own dexterity with counterinsurgency principles, combined with his deep political support in Iraq, make accommodation the only sensible strategy. "The best solution now," said longtime counterinsurgency advocate and former Army officer Terrence Daly, "is to try to coopt Sadr's forces." Defeating him, in other words, is beyond the U.S.'s capabilities.

The principles of counterinsurgency are diverse, but they could be summed up as methods of warfare used to draw a civilian population's political and personal allegiance away from a guerrilla force. A counterinsurgent force seeks to coordinate military and civilian methods to offer both material and ideological incentives to a population so it will support a government and reject that government's enemies.

Currently, the U.S. military and its civilian associates have launched a "population protection" strategy to defend Baghdad residents against sectarian and criminal gangs; to promote competent and responsible governance at the provincial as well as national levels; to jump start commerce; and to provide social services like education health care and sanitation.

But in the areas under his control, Sadr provides all these things -- and does so better than the Iraqi government.

No disagreement there--that's the best reading of this that I've seen.

It is true that Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, has been implicated in scores of sectarian murders of Sunni Iraqis, thereby expediting and deepening Iraq's civil war. But the Mahdi Army has also stood as a bulwark for Shiites against Sunni aggression or reprisal, patrolling neighborhoods when no other force was willing or able to protect inhabitants from violence. While Iraq's legal system has remained paralyzed since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, Sadr established courts within months that -- while dealing out an illiberal brand of Islamic justice that has little respect for women's or minority rights -- adjudicated people's disputes. In 2004, when Sunni Iraqis in Fallujah were locked in a stand-off with U.S. Marines, Sadr organized a blood drive in Baghdad even as his own forces battled U.S. troops.

How many times have you heard it said in the media--In 2004, when Sunni Iraqis in Fallujah were locked in a stand-off with U.S. Marines, Sadr organized a blood drive in Baghdad even as his own forces battled U.S. troops. We're talking four years ago, obviously, but how much goodwill has Sadr been able to reap since then? Well, for starters, he ain't dead.

A new report from Refugees International, released Apr. 15, assessed that Sadr "provides shelter, food and non-food items to hundreds of thousands of Shi'ites in Iraq," making it "the main service provider in the country." Among Sadr's more recent efforts has been the active resettlement some of the two million Iraqis internally displaced by the continuing conflict. Refugees International found that while Maliki's efforts have been lacking, Sadr provides not just cost-free housing but also food and a modest income stipend. In other words, according to the report, Sadr provides better governance than the Iraqi government.

It is as if Sadr has read the Army and Marine Corps' 2006 field manual on counterinsurgency. Spearheaded by such respected counterinsurgents as Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the manual's central insight is that political and economic measures, and not simply military ones, are what defeats insurgencies. "Political power is the central issue in insurgencies and counterinsurgencies; each side aims to get the people to accept its governance or authority as legitimate," the manual states. "Long-term success in COIN [counterinsurgency] depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting to the government’s rule. Achieving this condition requires the government to eliminate as many causes of the insurgency as feasible."

But Sadr's appeal is not strictly material. Even if he did not deliver the services he provides, he would still have two potent assets that no other Iraqi political figure jointly possesses. First is his uncompromising anti-occupation stance. Last year, his deputies in Parliament led an effort to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops that won a parliamentary majority -- only to be ignored by Maliki.

I'd say he practices the manual. The US is pretending to practice it in Iraq. Every time there's a massive airstrike, it's one more nail in the coffin for COIN strategy in Iraq. We've said that here as often as it can be said.

More fundamentally, Sadr's family led the religious resistance to Saddam Hussein, with both his father and his uncle becoming high-profile victims of the regime. The Sadrist Current that he helms is a movement in Iraq with roots far deeper than any other organized political entity.

Sadr has also managed to overcome the few challenges to his religious authority. Iraq's supreme Shiite authority, the Najaf-based Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, is the only cleric whose religious-political influence outshines Sadr's. While Sistani has receded from Iraqi politics since 2005, the Shiite parties still look to him to grant his imprimatur on controversial political moves. As a result, Sadr has sought to co-opt Sistani, even as Sistani has sought to co-opt Sadr. "The relationship is mutually opportunistic, but also pragmatic, since the two clerics have not been able to ignore each other," observed Babak Rahimi of the Jamestown Foundation in a widely-read analysis last year. He noted that the alliance of convenience "is bound to reshape Iraqi Shiite politics in the years to come." Additionally, Sadr is getting ecclesiastical training in the Iranian city of Qom, a vital step for bolstering his own religious prestige.

When faced with a powerful enemy who enjoys significant popular support, one approach counterinsurgents sometimes advise is co-optation. In 2007, with Robert Gates at the helm of the Pentagon and Petraeus at the helm of the Iraq war, there was a significant effort to signal that the U.S. had no real problem with Sadr.

In June 2007, Petraeus gave an interview to USA Today that conspicuously praised the cleric. "Actually, first of all I'd like to say that Muqtada al-Sadr issued a very constructive statement today in the wake of the Samarra attack calling for mourning for several days and calling for restraint," Petraeus said. "That continues the line of messages that he has put out since his return from Iran a couple weeks ago, in which he has ordered his followers not to attack Sunnis (or) other Iraqis, not to attack mosques and shrines."

Yeah, you don't hear warbloggers condemning Petraeus for trying to accomodate Sadr.

Who's really practicing COIN in Iraq? Who's the nationalist? And who's survived longer than anyone else? No one has been a player in Iraq longer than Sadr, at least at his level. Sanchez, Casey, Bremer, and all the rest have moved on. al-Maliki came afterwards. And Petraeus got where he is by failing upward.

Excellent article, and proof someone is at least thinking critically these days.

It's a Kabuki thing...you wouldn't understand

This whole Petraeus-to-CENTCOM thing has my cynicism surging.

Pun intended.

While everyone was absorbing the news that Baghdad's favorite couple would be separating, and a Petraeus-Crocker divorce was in the offing, I went a different direction immediately. I thought "Hmmmm...Did McCain really misspeak last week? Or did he have an advance heads up on this?"

I realize he is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, but this is an executive decision. Was he briefed during the decision making process? If so, were other members of SASC? (Hillary Clinton sits on that committee, too.)

If the committee wasn't briefed, and it turns out that he was, what about the other presidential candidates? Were they briefed as well?

I am not saying he was briefed; I am asking if he was, and if he was, were the other candidates?

Reflecting on what he said last week, this is a fair question.

(Whether or not I need fitted for a tinfoil hat is a side issue.)

Promotions All Around

CENTCOM goes to Petraeus, and Odierno gets bumped up:

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the four-star general who led troops in Iraq for the past year, will be nominated by President George W. Bush to be the next commander of U.S. Central Command, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

Gates also announced that Bush will nominate Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno to replace Petraeus in Baghdad.

Central Command oversees the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

If confirmed by the Senate, Petraeus would replace Navy Adm. William Fallon, who abruptly stepped down in March after a magazine reported that he was at odds with Mr. Bush over Iran policy. Fallon said the report, while not true, had become a distraction.

Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, currently commander of the Army's 3rd Corps based in the U.S., finished in February a 15-month tour as the top deputy to Petraeus in Baghdad.

I'm speculating, but Petraeus has already won confirmation because of how he testified earlier this month before skeptical Democrats. We already know that the surge has failed, Iraq is back onto the fast track for another round of civil war, the Mahdi Army is waiting to see what happens and the Bush Administration has been embarrased in previous attempts to fill certain positions.

But ask yourself this--is Odierno the right man for the job? Is CENTCOM going to start focusing more on Afghanistan than it has been able to?

By the way, what the hell happened to "The War Czar?" Shouldn't the name of General Lute have come up during the shuffle of personalities? Did that question take you aback? You know, General Douglas Lute? Remember him?

“I think it’s important to the people of Iraq,” said Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, the president’s coordinator for Iraq issues. “It signals a commitment of both their government and the United States to an enduring relationship based on mutual interests.

“The basic message here should be clear: Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own,” General Lute said. “That’s very good news, but it won’t have to stand alone.”

Sound dated? That's because it's from November, 2007. Since then, Lute hasn't been in the New York Times at all, according to their news archive of officials.

So much for "promotions," right?

Dick Cavett dissects Petraeus/Crocker

Everything is a wandering journey when it comes to the Internet, and by wandering over to Col. Patrick Lang's site, I come to find out that Dick Cavett blogs for the New York Times. His intellect is so very welcome right now, and maybe he's not irritated that Larry King, Jay Leno, Chris Matthews and Oprah are all still on TV while he is not, but I'm irritated at that and I don't mind telling you.

No crook ever gets out of the car. A “perpetrator exits the vehicle.” (Does any cop say to his wife at dinner, “Honey, I stubbed my toe today as I exited our vehicle”?) No “man” or “woman” is present in Copspeak. They are replaced by that five-syllable, leaden ingot, the “individual.” The other day, there issued from a fire chief’s mouth, “It contributed to the obfuscation of what eventually eventuated.” This from a guy who looked like he talked, in real life, like Rocky Balboa. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Who imposes this phony, academic-sounding verbal junk on brave and hard-working men and women who don’t need the added burden of trying to talk like effete characters from Victorian novels?

And, General, there is no excuse anywhere on earth for a stillborn monster like “ethnosectarian conflict,” as Jon Stewart so hilariously pointed out.

What would the general be forced to say if it weren’t for the icky, precious-sounding “challenge” that he leans so heavily on? That politically correct term, which was created so that folks who are legally blind, deaf, clumsy, crippled, impotent, tremor-ridden, stupid, addicted or villainously ugly are really none of those unhappy things at all. They are merely challenged. (Are these euphemisms supposed to make them feel better?) And no one need be unlucky enough to be dead or hideously wounded anymore. Those unfortunates are merely “casualties” — a sort of restful-sounding word.

(I have a friend who would like the opportunity to say to our distinguished warrior, “General Petraeus, my son was killed in one of your challenges.”)

Petraeus uses “challenge” for a rich variety of things. It covers ominous developments, threats, defeats on the battlefield and unfound solutions to ghastly happenings. And of course there’s that biggest of challenges, that slapstick band of silent-movie comics called, flatteringly, the Iraqi “fighting forces.” (A perilous one letter away from “fighting farces.”) The ones who are supposed to allow us to bring troops home but never do.

Petraeus’s verbal road is full of all kinds of bumps and lurches and awkward oddities. How about “ongoing processes of substantial increases in personnel”?

Try talking English, General. You mean more soldiers.

I just spent an hour reading through the more recent posts by Cavett. Got an hour or two? Go spend it there. You could do a lot worse.

Dana Milbank Punctures the GOP Spin

McCain Media Mancrush Watch

Dana Milbank gives us reason to believe in journalists. We've seen how Senator McCain turned these proceedings into a campaign event that tried to make him appear to be the voice of reason against the supposedly shrill Democrats who did nothing but attack General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Milbank expertly deflates the widespread notion that the Petraeus/Crocker hearings were a Democrat-led bashfest, handing back to the media their spin that Republicans like McCain were there to be statesmen.

"The people of the United States have paid an awful price," thundered Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It's time for the Iraqis to pay that price for their own protection."

"I still have a hard time seeing the big picture and what constitutes success," complained Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). "That's not just one side of the aisle with those kind of concerns. Many on this side of the aisle have that as well."

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) demanded an explanation for President Bush's unmet promise that the Iraqi government would take over security for all provinces. "Of course, that has not happened," Tancredo complained. "I'm just wondering whether, General Petraeus, you have any idea of why he made that statement?"

By the end of the day, the general and his sidekick, Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, had become accomplished in the art of gulping.

Gee, it sounds like a few Republicans decided to wear their oversight and compliance hats again.

The rest of the media would have you believe it was all Democrats, attacking a patriotic hero who was winning the war all by himself with his Iron Maiden-loving sidekick, Ambassador Crocker, he of the Crocker-mania that springs up every time he gets caught having to answer a question about whether or not the al Qaeda in Pakistan is more bad-assed than the one in Iraq.

Yes, THAT Iron Maiden. The one your teenage son worshipped in 1986.

Anyway, Milbank shows us how it's done. And if you click the link, you'll see that the DC Madam is having a pretty bad week. It seems like her working girls aren't going to roll over and try to claim they were being paid $300 an hour to "act."

Petraeus Hearings Are a Bust

Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm hearing Pollyanna platitudes and no one seems to want to mix it up and get to the truth.

This is the new open thread. I'm about to fall asleep as Inhofe drones on and on, asking Crocker about nothing.

I'm handing off the baton--this whole thing is a cluster followed by an expletive.

I don't really see that any news was made--that may have been on purpose. I don't really see that our Senators have improved their ability to ask good questions, either. Was there a memorable moment? I listened to it--I thought it was a Crocker-mania wankfest.

Oh, and for you Republicans who think things are just peachy:

BAGHDAD - The Baghdad military command said Tuesday that unauthorized vehicles and motorcycles will be banned in the capital from 5 a.m. to midnight Wednesday.

The vehicle ban is aimed at preventing violence on the fifth anniversary of the capture of Baghdad by U.S. troops about a month after the war started.

The decision was announced on Iraqi state TV and confirmed by an official in the military command spokesman's office, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to release the information.

"Motorcycles?" It's so bad, they're banning motorcycles? And we're supposed to believe that the surge has worked?

Petraeus Hearings Thread

Throughout the day, this will be the thread where we put stuff about the Petraeus hearings. If you want to follow along yourself, you can join me in watching (actually, listening) to the video feed from C-SPAN. It's not dial-up friendly.

(CBS/AP) The four-star general in charge of U.S. forces in Iraq wants more time in a war that is now in its sixth year. Democrats say he has got until the November elections.

Gen. David Petraeus planned to testify Tuesday on the war for the first time in seven months. He was expected to tell two Senate committees that last year's "surge" influx of 30,000 troops in Iraq had helped calm some of the sectarian violence but that to prevent a backslide in security, troops would likely be needed in large numbers through the end of the year.

Under his proposal, as many as 140,000 troops could be in Iraq when voters head to the polls in November.

Democrats contend that this approach guarantees an open-ended commitment to a $10-billion-a-month war as the economy at home is faltering. They say the lack of political progress made in Iraq, as well as the recent spike in violence in the southern port city of Basra, indicates the troop buildup has failed.

Look, the surge HAS failed, Iraq is entering a new phase of Shia vs Shia, and Petraeus should testify to the fact that political reconcilliation won't happen unless there is a much more effective carrot and stick approach. My vote is to throw the carrot in the air, drop the stick and leave quickly.

UPDATE I -
We'll see Hillary this morning--we won't see Obama til this afternoon. McCain is there, apparently, and is the least attentive to his constituents Senator right now. He's never there. But he's there today.

The wingnuts on C-SPAN before the hearing were hilarious. A Paultard got on there and went ballistic on gold prices and fiat money.

LEVIN opens with increased violence, some success of the surge, hits on the PURPOSE of the surge, which hasn't come to fruition and has not been achieved.
"As long as YOU [ the americans ] are willing to pay for the cleanup, why should we pay for it?"
Republicans used to be about personal responsibility, the individual, the free market. All that goes out the window in Iraq.
Levin calls out al-Maliki for being incompetent in the wake of Basra--that's huge.
Levin calls out Bush on the benchmarks and the Iraqi failure to meet them.
Levin follows the money--$30 Billion Dollars sits in US banks, untouched for reconstruction. Iraq has oil revenue money all over the world. The US pays salaries of 100,000 Iraqis working on reconstruction while Iraq pays out less than 10% of its budgeted funds--that is, they budgeted x amount, and are only spending less than 10% of that money--that's huge.
Iraqi Army 160,000 strong--THAT'S ALL??? 4 years of training and that's all we have to show for it? Iraqi Army incapable of leading operations on its own.
McCain - Patriotism, selfless service, what to do in Iraq, rah rah. Thanks, Grampa Jones--can we have the TV remote back? And your car keys?
McCain points to meaningless "agreements" in the wake of extreme violence. Sadr's name hasn't come up. Wonder why?
"Genuine prospect of success" is a measure of McCain's delusion. Levin had details--McCain has platitudes and a delusional wishlist.
Should we choose to withdraw, we will exchange victory for defeat, al Qaeda would proclaim victory, genocide, destabilization of Middle East, Iranian influence of the failed state of Iraq, blah blah blah. McCain presents no facts, no details, just appeals to patriotism and -- McCain interrupted by demonstrators -- makes a silly joke about it.
"Iranian back special groups" are the Badr Brigade--they're now part of Iraq security forces. Did anyone bother explaining that to McCain? He just made a HUGE gaffe.
Backtracks on 100 years gaffe--trying to get out from under that rock.
Iraq neighbors should engage--uh, what? You WANT the Saudis and the Syrians in the middle of this?
Congress must not "choose" to lose. What the fuck? Go ahead and kick someone in the nuts instead of saying hello, dude.

Petraeus - significant but uneven progress. AQI have been dealt serious blows. Iraqi police better? Hello, Basra and Sadr city?
"Criminal Gangs" is a subject for a separate hearing. Our inability to control Iraq means good old fashioned Organized Crime has flourished. It will not go away easily. There's no infrastructure to actually fight it and the toehold it has will be permanent if nothing is done.
CHARTS - the problem with Petraeus is, his charts always show progress because they don't go back to the same start point. First chart--he goes back to early 2005. Next chart, he only goes back 1 year. And on and on. Pick one metric--we'll measure ALL FIVE YEARS and show the trends. Every chart should go back FIVE YEARS, ONE YEAR and SIX MONTHS. No exceptions. To go back "26.3 months" or "in the last 7 months" etc. means the metrics change and statistics can be dishonestly presented. Next Chart goes back about two years (i'm estimating) again--another dishonest metric and a dishonest presentation of metrics. This is highly suspect cherry picking. Half way through these terms, metrics CHANGED: i.e., bullet in the head was one kind of violence, bullet in the abdomen was another kind.
Petraeus compares 2008 to 2006 but DOES NOT compare 2008 to 2007. Again, cherry picking.

AQI is NOT a major source of instability. He brings up Zawahiri and Bin Laden--what the fuck? AQI responsible for less than 10%.
Brings up Quds and Hezbollah. Hello? They trained the Badr Brigade. Badr Brigade is now helping prop up al-Maliki.

More about the Iraqi security forces--chooses to go back to September--won't use standard metrics, i.e., one year ago, five years ago, etc.
540,000 in Iraq Sec Forces No word on AWOLS/re-enlistment.
Claims 100 battalions can operate with help--that hasn't changed since 2005, IIRC.
Iraq has only bought $2billion in materials--why so little?
Sadr's name comes up--I think for the first time.

USAID comes up for the first time--Petraeus is asking for funds for Sons of Iraq, but there's no evidence they're being paid. Money is lost between our hands the hands of the Sons of Iraq. How pathetic is that? It goes back to "organized crime."

Draw down to 15 brigade combat teams--Uh, hold the phone on that. Because we are making progress, we can't quite take all of our troops out. Strain on forces is a factor in Petraeus' recommendations--BUT, it looks like if we pull out now, everything goes to shit.

Question number one for the General--what does "not going to shit look like?"

UPDATE II - from 10:16 AM Eastern forward...

Blue Girl is power challenged and has no connectivity.

Crocker - not saying anything worth repeating. He's talking about laws the Iraqi government doesn't ever intend to pass or follow.

A new flag flies in Iraq--woo hoo! The Republicans should send someone to Iraq to help them bring up a law each year that bans the burning of that flag a means of clogging the parliament and stopping any substantive laws. Only problem is, Iraqis don't burn their own flag. They blow it up by accident when someone doesn't steal it.

Sadr's name comes up again--he doesn't seem to be getting any love from these hearings so far.

Crocker talks about the SOFA agreement and expiration of Title 7--well, if the admin knew how to deal with Congress, this would have been done by now.

The dinar is strong--ok, how about using some of those dinars to pay for reconstruction? Does the US have to keep paying for this shit? Iraq has bought 40 aircraft. OK, but will they use them? Their history with air power is not so good. Hopefully, they won't panic and land those planes and helicopters in Iran if some shit goes down.

Crocker is an uninspiring bureaucrat. Everything has tanked. Did McCain wander out after someone waved a dollar bill in the hallway? Is he looking for his fishing hat?

--demonstrators - "bring them home" and applause. Levin might clear the room. Levin is combative, it seems.
End of year troop strength - Petraeus: won't give an estimate.
Maliki DID NOT follow Petraeus' advice. P throws Maliki under the bus.
Say hello to the underside of the bus, al-Maliki: no one thinks you know what you're doing.

McCain - throws P a lifeline, helps throw al-Maliki under the bus for Basra debacle. One unit pressed into operations--how can that be when there are so many troops. McCain expresses his disappointment with Basra, has no understanding of how things actually unfolded. Green Zone has been attacked in ways it has not been attacked in a long time from Sadr City. P says we have taken control of area where they were firing 107mm rockets. Can you HOLD it?

AQI is a "major" threat??? McCain and P are perpetrating a delusional POV.

I tend to wander off when Crocker speaks...he's the filibuster as they run out the clock.

UPDATE III - 11:07AM - BG still no power in KC
Warner tries to link all of this to safety at home. 80% don't accept the premise that this is worth it. Petraeus waivers and won't say. He doesn't think about the big picture, you know.

Lieberman - pardon me while I roll my eyes. What a sad, delusional little man. He talks to his colleagues with a tut-tutting tone that is patronizing. No agreement on the facts--well, Petraeus won't use standard metrics. Everyone knows this. Lieberman won't take off the rose-colored glasses. Iraqis have more political reconcilliation than the American politicians--a bald-faced lie. Republican obstructionism has caused all of this. Not any Democratic malfeasance.
Lieberman wants to talk about Iran. Prepare for uninformed filibuster.
Lieberman brings up Iranian special forces--you mean the people who TRAINED the Badr Brigade that is now al-Maliki's palace guard?
Softballs from Lieberman to P--Lieberman says something that p can agree with. This is oversight? How ridiculous.

We go from Warner to Lieberman to Inhofe--Inhofe talks about going to a funeral. Inhofe wants to talk about detainees and attacks the "far left" while ignoring torture, abu Ghraib, etc. Softball.
The Repubs and Lieberman add nothing to the proceeding--they are there to help the filibuster to prevent anyone from asking real questions. That's why Crocker keeps getting questions. No one's listening to the answers. No one cares. Run out the clock.

Rogered Roundly (Updated)

Note: updated with new information from Juan Cole. Original post appeared last night and was written by Blue Girl...

[Reuters] Residents riding a motorcycle look at a burnt Iraqi armoured vehicle [an American-made HUMVEE] that was destroyed during clashes in Basra, 550 km (340 miles) south of Baghdad, April 2, 2008. Mehdi army fighters burned an Iraqi armoured vehicle during fresh clashes in Basra on Wednesday, a fighter from the Mehdi army said.

The pathetic showing by the Iraqi Army in Basra has drawn a stark and sobering portrait of the security situation in Iraq. If the United States is really and truly not going to stand down until the Iraqi Army can stand up, we might just as well start teaching Arabic too our preschoolers now because children not yet born will be fighting this god-forsaken, unholy clusterfuck.

President Bush last week declared the offensive, which ended Sunday, "a defining moment" in Iraq's history.

That may prove to be true, but in recent days senior U.S. officials have backed away from the operation, which ended with Shiite militias still in place in Basra, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki possibly weakened and a de facto cease-fire brokered by an Iranian general.

"There is no empirical evidence that the Iraqi forces can stand up" on their own, a senior U.S. military official in Washington said, reflecting the frustration of some at the Pentagon. He and other military officials requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak for the record.

Having Iraqi forces take a leadership role in combating militias and Islamic extremists was crucial to U.S. hopes of withdrawing more American forces in Iraq and reducing the severe strains the Iraq war has put on the Army and Marine Corps.

The failure of Iraqi forces to defeat rogue fighters in Basra has some in the military fearing they can no longer predict when it might be possible to reduce the number of troops to pre-surge levels.

"It's more complicated now," said one officer in Iraq whose role has been critical to American planning there.

It remains unclear what the American commanders in Iraq knew about the operation and when they knew it - what is known is that once again, the zeal and confident proclamations of Iraqi commanders boasting about the abilities of the troops in their command were not matched by reality once they came under fire.

Today it was revealed that British forces were involved far deeply in aiding the Iraqi army during the fighting in Basra than was previously reported. Indeed, British defense secretary Des Brown told the House of Commons on Tuesday that the use of British ground troops entry into the fighting was ordered “in extremis,” which means that the deployment of forces from the British base at Basra was a last-ditch measure to save Iraqi troops from being routed. Browne told the House of commons that the Iraqi forces displayed "fragility" under fire (what a euphemism!) He also announced that Britain was halting their drawdown of forces in the wake of the sorry showing by Iraqi forces.

So let's recap: Not only can the Iraqi forces not stand up, the Iraqi government showed itself for weak and ineffectual, we can't afford to keep propping them up, and if, nay when we leave, we most likely leave a failed state in our wake, and for that we are likely to be viewed by other states as a pariah nation for the foreseeable future.

If you look at what Juan Cole has found in the Arabic language media, you find a rather sobering and devastating account of what happened. The civil war in Iraq is getting worse and the government of Nuri al-Maliki is getting more and more corrupt by the day:

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Tuesday honored the militias of the parties in the United Iraqi Alliance, i.e. the Da'wa (Islamic Call) Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. They were singled out for having fought alongside government security forces, and some 10,000 of them were inducted into the latter.

Al-Zaman points to a double standard, insofar as the government has not similarly honored, or accepted into the state apparatus, most members of the Sunni Awakening Council militias that have been fighting the Qutbist Jihadis.

The induction of Badr Corps fighters (the paramilitary of ISCI) and those of the Da'wa Party into security positions came in the wake of the firing of thousands of officers and troops who had refused to obey orders to fire on the Mahdi Army militiamen in Baghdad and the southern provinces. They were accused of mutiny.

If al-Zaman's reporting is correct, the scale of the mutiny is breathtaking, and helps explain why government troops did so poorly against the Sadrists-- the hearts of the thousands of them were simply not with the fight.

Full scale mutiny, British troops sent in to keep them from collapsing, and armed thugs who fought on the side of the government are now "inducted" in as security forces. The very notion that the legitimization of the Badr Corps has now been accomplished should be of paramount concern to people who pay attention to these things:

Under the tutelage of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), SCIRI established a military wing in 1983, called the Badr Brigade. This force quickly grew into a full-fledged corps and joined regular IRGC forces on the front lines during the Iran-Iraq war. The relationship with the IRCG has persisted and deepened over the past two decades. The main Badr Corps training center, located just west of the Vahdati air force base in Dezful, and most of its other facilities in Western Iran and Tehran are IRGC property. The Badr Corps is believed to have between 10,000-15,000 fighters, though only around 3,000 are professionally trained (many of these being Iraqi army defectors and former POWs).

Will General Petraeus answer any of these questions? I hope to God no one runs an ad in the New York Times before he gets back from Iraq. Wouldn't want to distract anyone from what's really going on...

UPDATE I - PALE RIDER

Of course, you can't explain basic COIN to the wingnuts. Here's what Austin Bay has to say:

After his outlaw militiamen raised white flags and skedaddled from their latest round of combat with the Iraqi Army, radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr declared victory.

He always does. He understands media bravado. He wagers that survival bandaged by bombast and swathed in sensational headlines is a short-term triumph. Survive long enough, and Sadr bets he will prevail.

This time, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a contrarian press release, however, calling the Iraqi Army's anti-militia operations in southern Iraq a "success."

A dispute over casualties in the firefights has ensued, as it always does. An Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman alleged that Sadr's militia had been hit hard in six days of fighting, suffering 215 dead, 155 arrested and approximately 600 wounded. The government spokesman gave no casualty figures for Iraqi security forces.

Let's see--we have a "body count" because that's how wingnuts think you win against popular insurgencies. They haven't learned the lesson of Vietnam--body counts don't matter. Support from the indigenous population matters. Thousands of Iraqi government troops mutinied, abandoned their equipment, then had to be bailed out by the Brits and had to call in air strikes from the US (another failed method of fighting insurgents that reveals just how badly we're doing in Iraq), ultimately leaving the Mahdi Army intact--and that means that al-Maliki won?

It's incredible to contemplate how ignorant these people truly are.

Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s increasingly isolated Prime Minister, claimed yesterday his campaign to stamp out illegal armed groups in Basra had been a “success” despite being forced to sue for peace with al-Mahdi Army militia who fought his men to a standstill.

The Prime Minister, whose future is looking uncertain after he staked his reputation on the stalled military offensive, also asked gunmen to return the 50 government cars and armoured vehicles they captured from his forces during a week of fighting that left close to 500 people dead.

Rarely does the victor have to "beg" for his vehicles to be returned from the people that he "defeated."

Someone call Petraeus on this...

APOLITICAL???

Bullshit.

I sat in stunned disbelief as I listened to Petraeus as he was interviewed by Alex Chadwick. He insisted that he is apolitical, and hasn't voted since he was a Major General. He got his second star in 2001 - but if you don't know the arc of his carer path, you might think he didn't even vote in an election that aWol stood in, and I imagine that was precisely his intent when he chose those words ever so carefully.

And by the way, there are a lot of ways to be political without casting a ballot.

An editorial in the Washington Post five weeks before a hotly contested presidential election that supports the sitting presidents foolish folly certainly qualifies. And frankly, if I had been doing that interview instead of Chadwick, I would have asked him about it.

I wonder why he didn't?

Petraeus Scolded in Person by Cheney?

[VP Cheney arrives in Iraq this morning]

Wow. Not only did McCain, Lieberman and Graham make the trip to set Petraeus straight, but now we see that Shooter made the trip himself to ensure that the 100 year occupation of Iraq comes to fruition without damaging neoconservative interests:

Vice President Cheney made an unannounced visit to Baghdad this morning, just two days before the five-year anniversary of the start of the war, to push Iraqi leaders to do more to resolve the political disputes still driving the conflict.

In his first trip to Iraq since the deployment of additional U.S. forces last summer began to turn the security situation around, Cheney arrived aboard a C-17 military transport about 12:45 a.m. Monday Washington time and headed immediately to a series of meetings with U.S. commanders and Iraqi leaders.

A senior official traveling with Cheney told reporters aboard his plane that the vice president was going to meet with Iraqi leaders to "thank them for the hard work they've done" and urge them to move ahead with "the rest of the hard work necessary to consolidate Iraq's democracy," according to a pool report filed once they arrived in Baghdad. Cheney also will discuss a long-term security agreement intended to outlive the Bush presidency, the official said.

No, he went there to chew out Petraeus for wandering off script. Nothing like a panicked visit by half the damned neocons still serving in government to drive that point home. They've worked hard to pretend that the surge worked and they've gotten themselves a respite from the media attention. They've lulled the general populace into thinking the war is contained and shrinking. Anything that puts Iraq back on the front pages terrifies them. Because it blows any chance McCain has of only losing by four points in the fall. If McCain loses in a landslide, the neocons will be blown out of Washington.

Look, it's clear to anyone with a brain--Petraeus is now going to be a "realist" when it comes to Iraq and he's not going to repeat whatever he's told to repeat. He sees January 20, 2009 as his retirement date if he doesn't abandon the neocons and start to be more independent in his public statements and deeds.

It's that simple. He has to abandon the losers if he wants to move up.

Juan Cole has more details:

Gen. Petraeus isn't specific, but I can give some examples. The Sunni Arab Iraqi Accord Front withdrew from the al-Maliki 'national unity' government last summer. The IAF is a coalition of three parties. Two of them say they are uninterested in coming back into the government. The third, the Iraqi Islamic Party, led by vice president Tariq al-Hashimi, is said to be seriously considering returning. Nothing has happened so far. In other words, it is still the case that al-Maliki's government is less successful at reconciliation with the Sunnis now than it had been last year this time before the surge had made much of an impact.

Sunni Arab provinces such as Diyala, Salahuddin and Mosul are still violent, and even al-Anbar, which has settled down, is not paradise. The Awakening Council model does not seem to have been successful outside al-Anbar and some Baghdad neighborhoods, and there is always the danger that the US is creating a powerful Sunni militia that despises Prime Minister al-Maliki as Iran's cat's paw.

The Kurdish-Arab struggles in the north, the issue of Kirkuk, the terror activities of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK)-- based in Iraq but hitting NATO Turkish troops in eastern Turkey-- and the Turkish incursions into and bombings of Iraqi Kurdistan, signal that the north is a powder keg. The unresolved issue of oil-rich Kirkuk and whether it will accede to the Kurdistan Regional Government is the other shoe in the Iraq crisis, which has not yet dropped but could at any moment. I have been told that Gen. Petraeus deeply disagreed with Bush's decision to share real time intelligence on the PKK with the Turkish government and to allow a major Turkish incursion into and bombing of northern Iraq.

Likewise, the Islamic Virtue Party (Fadhila) withdrew from the al-Maliki government last year. It controls the provincial administration of Basra. Its rival, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, staged a 5000-strong demonstration against the provincial government last week. Having bad relations between the federal center and the province of Basra is not good for Iraq, because Basra is the country's biggest export route, including for petroleum, which generates 90% of government revenues.

So you could understand how Gen. Petraeus, having sacrificed so much to get some sort of social peace in Baghdad that would allow some major steps toward political reconciliation, is frustrated that no such major initiatives have been launched and that Iraqi politics just seems to be stuck.

It is worthwhile mentioning that what Gen. Petraeus said about the lack of political progress is the opposite of what John McCain has been saying. I am not saying that the contradiction is intended to be a political statement. But I am saying that Petraeus has just revealed himself again to be a straight shooter of a sort that has been all too rare in the Iraq misadventure.