Hitchens Still Faithful to Neo-Con Movement

Christopher Hitchens doesn't regret being a leading media proponent of the Iraq invasion and subsequent insurgency quagmire. Today in Slate Magazine he writes that the Iranian democratic uprising may have gotten a jumpstart from the US invasion next door.

Which brings me to a question that I think deserves to be asked: Did the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the subsequent holding of competitive elections in which many rival Iraqi Shiite parties took part, have any germinal influence on the astonishing events in Iran? Certainly when I interviewed Sayeed Khomeini in Qum some years ago, where he spoke openly about "the liberation of Iraq," he seemed to hope and believe that the example would spread.

The theory is not a slam dunk and even if it is: Sorry if I'm not that impressed on this angle as a selling point. The thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted don't seem worth it to me. Nowhere is it written in the US Constitution about the obligation to stabilize the governments of Iran, Iraq or Outer Mongolia.

Is It Possible Defeat a Guerrilla Insurgency?

I have come to conclude that the Iraq and Afghan conflicts are virtually unwinnable. Now that we're almost a decade into the conflcits, one has to wonder if a popular insurgency can ever be defeated. Robert Kaplan has a piece in The Atlantic on how the Sri Lankan government defeated the Tamil Tigers. It wasn't pretty, and the US and NATO troops will never be permitted to try the brutal tactics. Here's two examples:

The insurgents are using human shields? No problem. Just keep killing the innocent bystanders until you get to the fighters themselves. There is no comparison between the few civilians that have been killed by American Predator drones in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, and the many that were killed by the Sri Lankan government. The Americans have carefully targeted select al-Qaeda members and, in the process, killed a few—at the most, dozens—of civilians among whom the fighters were surrounded. By contrast, the Sri Lankan military indiscriminately killed large numbers of civilians—as many as 20,000 in the final months of fighting, according to the United Nations.

Bad media coverage is hurting morale and giving succor to the enemy? Just kill the journalists. That's what the Sri Lankan authorities did. Precisely because insurgencies are unconventional, there are no easy-to-follow infantry advances and retreats, so the media holds the power to shape a narrative for the public. Aware of the need for a compliant media to aid the war effort, the Sri Lankan government struck fear into the ranks of journalists. There were hundreds of disappearances of top opinion leaders.

In the run up to the Afghan War and more particularly, the Iraq War, was anybody asking if the Americans had a solution for a guerilla uprising? They lost Vietnam that way, you would think somebody might have. I guess nobody thought of it.

It should also be noted that it took Sri Lanka 26 years to totally defeat them. I can't see a democratic society accepting a commitment for that long.

Oh Yeah, That War

The BBC reports: At least 21 people have been killed and 75 people wounded in a spate of bomb attacks across Iraq, police say.

Three students on their way to sit exams, three Iraqi soldiers and a four-year-old child were reported to be among the dead.

More than 70 people were killed and 200 wounded by a massive truck bomb in the northern city of Kirkuk on Saturday - the deadliest single bomb this year.

The attacks come days before US troops pull out of Iraq's towns and cities.

With so many attacks in such a short space of time, it appears insurgents are determined to make things look as unstable as possible as the pull-out deadline approaches, the BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki urged Iraqis on Saturday: "Don't lose heart if a breach of security occurs here or there."

He said the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq's towns and cities by the end of this month would be a "great victory".

You don't hear much about Iraq these days.

I've said it before on this blog, it's not going to be an easy thing for the US to withdraw from Iraq. Fires are going to be burning. There won't be a smooth handing over ceremony and the country won't be at peace. There will be calls to stay. It will take an act of pure will by Obama, and that would mean turning his back on what could be an out of control situation. Whether he has the nerve to go through with this, is the question.

Yglesias: The Status Quo Remains the Policy in the Middle East

As the bills for the Middle East wars continue adding up in lives and treasure, and the US in poor economic health, they really have to figure out a new shift of direction. Obama had a great speech in Cairo, but it's the actions that are going to be important. If he keeps up what Bush started for his term as President, the words won't matter.

In a search to find alternative ideas, I stumbled across this Matthew Yglesias piece in the Daily Beast. He doesn't offer great solutions, but at least points out that the status quo isn't working. (Read the full article here.)

What we can do is change the way we relate to the existing governments. Currently, whether we're officially on record as favoring democracy or not, we're still deeply in bed with status quo regimes. Our global network of military bases includes installations in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Iraq and our warships operate constantly in the region's coastal waters. After Cairo, Obama went to Germany where America also has military bases. But unlike the German bases, the Middle Eastern ones are deeply unpopular and seen as a legacy of colonialism. When the president of the United States stands besides a German chancellor, a French president, or a British or Canadian prime minister, it is seen as a meeting of equals; in the Middle East, it's more like a visit from the imperial center to the provinces.

And while we shouldn't be naïve enough to think that Osama bin Laden would just pack up and live a quiet life in the absence of the heavy American military presence in the region, it can't be denied that they're frequently cited as a rallying cry and recruiting tool. What's more, it's their presence that undergirds the broader logic of al Qaeda's view that Muslims must attack the "far enemy"—the United States—in order to express their grievances with local governments. The invasion of Iraq, needless to say, did a great deal to intensify Arab fear that the United States is seeking the imperial subjugation of their lands (and oil). And Obama's disavowal of the invasion helps in this regard, but there continues to be speculation about "residual forces" remaining in Iraq even after Obama's promised withdrawal of "combat forces."

More tellingly, the bulk of our bases in the region were first established in the wake of the first Gulf War in order to "contain" the threat from Saddam Hussein. Today, Saddam is gone. But the bases aren't. On the merits, there's no need for them. The balance of power in the Persian Gulf is of some interest to the United States, but forces kept "over the horizon" could move into place if for some reason they were needed. Meanwhile, as long as the bases exist, they continue to serve as visible reminders of the ties between the U.S. and Arab autocracies—reminders that speak more powerfully than any speech can.

This is a big dilemma for the Americans. They can't understand why, and refuse to believe that the Arabs don't like their presence. America is a great force of good in the world, but they have to face up to the fact that the people in that region don't see it that way.

They need to pull up the stakes and get out of there. There's nothing in the US Constitution that says America has to protect democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's messy, it's ugly: Let them work it out alone. Don't think of it as a loss but a gain for the good of the country.

Waste of Time Diplomacy in the Middle East

Obama is going off to Cairo on Thursday, for a highly anticipated speech to the Islamic world. He'll try to make a big impression on the Arabs to stop hating the US:

He has his job cut out for him:

Al-Zawahri urged Egyptians to reject Obama when he makes his speech, calling him "that criminal who came seeking, with deception, to obtain what he failed to achieve in the field after the mujahideen ruined the project of the crusader America in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia."

He said Obama's decision to come to Cairo showed the U.S. had not given up its alliances with dictatorial and corrupt Mideast governments.

"It is a clear message that America does not stand with reform and change and other lying American propaganda, but it stands with the continuation of the existing tyrannical, rotten regimes," said al-Zawahri.

Meanwhile a United States Poll: Few Americans have favorable view of Muslim world

That view compares with 46 percent of the people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey who say they have an unfavorable opinion of Muslim countries. That's up 5 percentage points from 2002, when 41 percent indicated that they had an unfavorable view.

Meanwhile, three in 10 say they have a neutral opinion of Muslim countries.

The poll also suggests that most Americans suspect people in Muslim countries don't think highly of the United States. Nearly eight in 10 questioned say people in Muslim countries have a unfavorable opinion of the United States, with 14 percent saying Muslims hold a favorable view.

But the poll indicates Americans seem to be split on whether such negative opinions by Muslims matter. Fifty-three percent of those questioned say they think Muslim views of the United States matter greatly or moderately, with 47 percent saying that Muslim opinions of the United States don't matter very much or at all.

More and more I'm becoming a isolationist when it comes to the Middle East. Too much trouble, and the American public increasingly don't want to get involved.

Can you see Afghanistan and Iraq becoming full functioning democracies? Allies? Where western tourists visit on holidays? No way. So why are we there? If it's because of oil, we sure have wasted precious lives and lots of money on something we still buy at market price. Maybe if the damn stuff were cheaper....

Abu Ghraib Scandal Strikes Again

Here we go again. It turns out there were much worse photographs of the Abu Ghraib torture sessions of 2004. The Daily Beast has the grim details:

The Daily Beast has confirmed that the photographs of abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, which President Obama, in a reversal, decided not to release, depict sexually explicit acts, including a uniformed soldier receiving oral sex from a female prisoner, a government contractor engaged in an act of sodomy with a male prisoner and scenes of forced masturbation, forced exhibition, and penetration involving phosphorous sticks and brooms.

I'm not sure what to say. I'm glad I'm not one of those people who are digging in to support torture techniques. If you open the door to not treating people in captivity humanely, it's no surprise something like this would happen. Heck, some it of was sanctioned. To people who think either you have to torture to get information or the people who think this kind of thing isn't real torture: This mess is yours. Don't give me the "few bad apples" excuse either.

Shattered Delusions

Lately, I've been thinking about what a year 2008 was. You think of the monumental years out of the last 100: 1914, 1929, 1939, 1945, 1968, 1989, 2001. You have to agree that 2008 is in that lineup and in my lifetime, could be the most important. What did we find out? Wall Street, and US banks turned out to be a scam run by incompetents. Manufacturing giants like GM and GE weren't making money by producing things but through financial schemes. We were in Afghanistan for seven years and the Taliban were popular again. Pakistan is falling to the "terrorists." Communist China leads the capitalist world. Despite pumping in trillions of dollars and making Iraq a "democracy," the people made a hero of the man who threw the shoe at Bush.

In other words, we woke up to our delusions. I've put many core beliefs that I held under review. I'm trying to view the world with fresh eyes.

On this note, I saw this interview on Charlie Rose, with Joshua Cooper Ramo about his new chaos theory and new way of thinking. I don't agree with everything he says, and I don't agree with some of his "new thinking." But I think he has the germ of an idea here. The world has been turned upside down and our old ideas about analyzing it might be out of date. (Press play to view, it is 16 minutes.)

Thomas Ricks: Obama Only Now Realizing How Screwed He Is On the Iraq War

Thomas Ricks, Pulitzer Prize winning military journalist, who has written two best selling books on the Iraq struggle was on the Huge Hewitt Show yesterday. Transcript. Audio (see May 14)

Hewitt is a Pro-Bush hawk, and a leading defender of both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. It took some nerve to have him on, and it makes for fascinating listening. Here are some highlights:

HH: What is your assessment of Pakistan right now, Thomas Ricks? Over at your blog at Foreign Policy, which is http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com, you have a caption – Pakistan: Have I Seen This Movie. What are you talking about?

TR: I’m talking about Algeria, commando raids that the French did in Algeria in the 1950s, which are captured in that movie, Battle Of Algiers, were tactically productive, but strategically counterproductive, that is they had some battlefield success, but it undercut the political will to do much there. And the French ended up losing the war. The Pakistan military strikes me as being very much on the same course, which is they don’t want to do counterinsurgency, they don’t know how to do it. Instead, they’re going in and whacking people in neighborhoods, they’re antagonizing the locals, they’re losing support, and increasing support for their enemy Taliban.

(...)

This is timely for me. Last week I wrote a review of the film, read it here: Battle of Algiers

(...)

TR: I don’t know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. I’m just telling you the fact of the matter is twice now, the military has confronted him and made him throw out existing positions that he has taken. He campaigned on getting a brigade out a month in Iraq, every month, for the first year he was in office. Almost the first thing he did when he began talking about Iraq was throw that campaign promise overboard. Now I’m not saying I agree with it or disagree with it. I’m just saying that a lot of people voted for him to do what he promised to do. It’s a bad thing, I think, if a guy gets elected on one thing and does another thing. On the other hand, I do think yeah, number one, Obama is a strategic thinker, and is willing to make short terms course corrections to achieve a long term goal. And second, I think he’s only now realizing just how screwed he is on Iraq, that this was the biggest mess in the history of American foreign policy, invading Iraq was the worst decision in the history of American foreign policy, and it’s going to take him years, and it’s going to take the president after him many more years to clean up the mess that George Bush made.

HH: Of course there’s a counter-argument to that, but I’m running low on time....

Great comeback Hugh.

If you have the time, give it a listen. It's very interesting.

British Leave Iraq: Not With a Bang

I confess I had almost forgotten that the UK were still in Iraq. At the height of their commitment, they had 46,000 troops over there. It's perhaps too early yet to reflect on their role over there but I get a sense of emptiness. Britain ends combat operations in Iraq

"They will always be remembered for the service they have given. Our country owes them a huge debt of gratitude," [Prime Minster Gordon] Brown said.

Brown, who supported predecessor Tony Blair's decision to join the invasion, defended Britain's military mission, saying it had helped to bring new opportunities for Iraq's people.

"Today Iraq is a success story. We owe much of that to the efforts of British troops. Our mission has not always been an easy one; many have said that we would fail," he told reporters.

Not exactly stirring words, considering how controversial this issue was over there. It was a deeply unpopular war and remains so.

If/when the US withdraw, let's hope the occasion is this dull. Not another helicopters on the embassy roof situation.

This Was Easy To Predict

The Endless War continues on. Reports the New York Times: Exceptions to Iraq Deadline Are Proposed

BAGHDAD — The United States and Iraq will begin negotiating possible exceptions to the June 30 deadline for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraqi cities, focusing on the troubled northern city of Mosul, according to military officials. Some parts of Baghdad also will still have combat troops.

Everywhere else, the withdrawal of United States combat troops from all Iraqi cities and towns is on schedule to finish by the June 30 deadline, and in many cases even earlier. But because of the level of insurgent activity in Mosul, United States and Iraqi military officials will meet Monday to decide whether to consider the city an exception to the deadline in the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, between the countries.

It will be a miracle if Obama manages to withdraw the US from Iraq. There will be a million excuses such as this to keep them there. It will take guts for Obama to live up to his promise, something we haven't seen from him yet.

The Bush Torture Memos

This is not pretty. The US has published four secret memos detailing legal justification for the Bush-era CIA interrogation programme.

Three of the documents were written in May 2005 by the then acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Stephen Bradbury. They gave legal support for the combined use of various coercive techniques, and concluded that the CIA's methods were not "cruel, inhuman or degrading" under international law.

The fourth document, dating from 1 August 2002, was written by OLC lawyer John Yoo and signed by his colleague Jay Bybee.

It contained legal authorisation for a list of specific harsh interrogation techniques, including pushing detainees against a wall, facial slaps, cramped confinement, stress positions and sleep deprivation.

The memo also authorises the use of "waterboarding", or simulated drowning, and the placing of a detainee into a confined space with an insect.

Announcing the publication of the memos, Mr Obama said: "I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

"Withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time," he explained.

But he also gave an assurance that "those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice... will not be subject to prosecution."

(...)

Critics of the Bush administration's interrogation programme say the memos provide evidence that many of the methods amount to torture under US and international law.

It does appear that they were breaking the law, and knowingly. I confess that I was caught up in the emotions of 9-11, like many people. Apologists sold the ticking clock theory: If a prisoner had information about an imminent attack, shouldn't we use every means possible to obtain that information and put a stop to it before it's too late? This is a powerful argument, and I certainly bought it. BUT, how many situations are actually like this? Reading some of these examples are people who didn't have knowledge of attacks and were sordidly tortured over several months.

Illegal is illegal. When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke we were told it was a bunch of rogue soldiers, who were acting on their own volition. (Which I believed at the time.) Obviously, that wasn't the case. Orders came down from the Oval Office. They were breaking the law and covering up. Whatever their justification, the administration was in the wrong.

Ultimately, if you're preaching freedom, democracy, human rights, rule of law to the Muslim world, you lose your credibility when you act in this manner.

UPDATE: It seems a lot of people on the right are trivializing waterboarding, as merely being splashed by water. Christopher Hitchens subjected himself to it and wrote about it: Believe Me, It's Torture

UPDATE II: I think Paul Wells has the pithiest account in Maclean's

He points out that the State Department routinely decries as torture the very practices he and his colleagues are busy justifying, but only when other countries do it. And then he says it’s only torture if other countries do it.

The memos are a huge smoking gun that they knew they were doing wrong. I wonder if there will be legal action?

UPDATE III: The US World War II tribunals convicted Japanese camp officials and guards for waterboarding prisoners. From the Washington Post:

Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:

They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war.

Expensive Quagmire

Can we afford to keep up these wars? Obama seeks another $83 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration will ask Congress for another $83.4 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of September, Democratic congressional sources said Thursday.

The request is expected to pay for those conflicts for the rest of the 2009 budget year, two Democratic congressional sources said.

About $75 billion of that would pay for military operations, with the rest going to diplomatic programs and development aid.

What a waste.

Email from Iraq

The Obama administration is shifting focus on Afghanistan, and it appears that things have settled down in Iraq. We don't hear much about Iraq in the media these days. (The exception being the recent bombings, as I posted below.) But what is it like for the GI on the ground? Peter King, the excellent football writer for Sports Illustrated, has had an ongoing email correspondence with a trooper on his third tour over there, and he posts updates in his Monday Morning Quarterback column. The dispatch this week is disturbing:

I think one of the reactions I get from people two, three, four times a month, every month, is about Mike McGuire, the Army First Sergeant heading a platoon dismantling improvised explosive devices in Iraq. That's why this news, from his last e-mail, sent just after I posted last week's column, is going to hit you hard.

"Peter: We lost another good man on 26, Feb. 2009, Corporal Brian Connelly from Long Beach, N.J. His vehicle was struck by an EFP [an explosively formed penetrator, designed to cut through armor-plated vehicles], killing him instantly. Again, getting so close to the end and tragedy. He is survived by his wife of four months. He just got married while on leave and changed his name from Blonske to Connelly to honor his mom, who was always there for him. The memorial ceremony here in Taji is tomorrow.

"The hardest thing was zipping him up and saying goodbye, then we put him on a flight back to the States for his family. The soldiers here are doing as well as can be expected. Three others were injured in the blast -- Staff Sergeant Miller, Specialist Iverson and Specialist Davis all were not injured too badly and actually went out on mission in less than eight hours.

"The streets of Sadr City are so freakin' dangerous. Every minute of being out there is constant holding breath and scanning. Hard to believe that any day could be our last. Proof with Corporal Connelly. I am holding up well, staying busy. One day all this madness will hit me, I am sure. I don't know how I will react but it is building up. Hard to be tough and the First Sergeant when really all I want to do is see my family and grieve our fallen men. I guess when I return home and sitting alone in the dark on my porch I will remember them all and make peace with all this.''

Hard not to get choked up reading that.

Will Increased Bomb Attacks in Iraq Threaten Troop Withdrawal?

As 12,000 US troops prepare to leave Iraq, and a planned full withdrawal of combat troops by August, 2010, it's easy to foresee that terrorist attacks will rise. It looks like a new campaign has started:

BAGHDAD — A suicide bomber took aim at a group of Iraqi army officers on their way to a reconciliation conference, killing 33 people on Tuesday and raising concerns about an increase in insurgent activity in Iraq. It was the second attack since Sunday to kill more than two dozen people.

(...)

The bombings suggest a renewed ability by insurgents to mount more effective suicide bombings, after a long period in which such attacks were relatively few and less lethal because of heavy security precautions.

Just wait, as this increases it is likely we're going to see requests from the Iraqi government for the US troops to stay longer. Also, American hawks will start demanding the US stay longer to prevent a civil war and massive casualties. This is where President Obama will truly be tested. It will not be a clean withdrawal. To avoid that will mean staying on, and on and on forever after.

UPDATE: The question is already on the table

"The previous administration negotiated and signed an agreement that ends not just our combat commitment, but our entire military commitment," spokesman Robert Gibbs said. "And I don't think that that would be done if it presented a scenario in which the country would fall into further danger."

Radio Carny Barkers

I have posted on Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Civil War many times this week. Here is a very thoughtful piece by John Derbyshire in the The American Conservative on why these talk radio bloviators should be marginalized. (read)

With reasons for gratitude duly noted, are there some downsides to conservative talk radio? Taking the conservative project as a whole—limited government, fiscal prudence, equality under law, personal liberty, patriotism, realism abroad—has talk radio helped or hurt? All those good things are plainly off the table for the next four years at least, a prospect that conservatives can only view with anguish. Did the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs?

They surely did. At the very least, by yoking themselves to the clueless George W. Bush and his free-spending administration, they helped create the great debt bubble that has now burst so spectacularly. The big names, too, were all uncritical of the decade-long (at least) efforts to “build democracy” in no-account nations with politically primitive populations. Sean Hannity called the Iraq War a “massive success,” and in January 2008 deemed the U.S. economy “phenomenal.”

That last paragraph packs a punch. Those people chose sides and defended Bush through thick and thin, ignoring evidence in front of their faces. The majority of the population were seeing things differently. People often don't know what they want, but looking at Bush and guys like Limbaugh, the majority thought, I know what I don't want.

In my own little internet world, conservative websites had/have the same problem. Question nation building in Iraq or Afghanistan? You were a chickenshit, who wanted to "cut and run." Question neo-conservatism? You were a "paleo-conservative." (A term coined meaning dinosaur, old fogey and often used to describe Pat Buchannan.) Question George W. Bush? You had "Bush Derangement Syndrome." It became annoying and divisive.

That's why I started this blog. I couldn't find anywhere else where a conservative type could go to question the orthodoxies. Rightist blogs were fighting leftists so hard they couldn't admit that anything was wrong from their own camp.

Obama Announces Firm End of Combat Mission in Iraq

MSNBC reports on Obama's announcement, however, reading it leaves a lot of question marks:

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. - President Barack Obama on Friday declared that the United States would end its bloody and costly combat mission in Iraq by late summer of 2010 — but a dramatic force reduction was not expected until after Iraq's elections at the end of this year.

Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," he said in a speech at the Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune, N.C. "As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq."

But....

Even with the end of the combat mission, which would come three months later than Obama pledged during his presidential campaign, a force numbering between 35,000 to 50,000 American forces will stay behind in non-combat roles, with the final troops not slated to leave until Dec. 31, 2011.

(...)

There were no assurances that the residual force would not be pulled into battle should Sunni Muslim insurgent holdouts or disaffected Shiite Muslims resume wide-scale fighting.

That is the big difficulty of course. Firstly, no troops are moving out until the December elections. All kinds of things can happen between now and then. If they actually do withdraw then, it still leaves behind those troops in non-combat roles. They could be used as lures to remain in Iraq. If they get attacked or a civil war breaks out the generals will call for more troops and an extension of the mission.

So, really, this is just an announcement. It doesn't mean any of the targets will be met. I very much doubt it will go smoothly.

No End in Sight in the Iraq War

Yesterday on NPR's Fresh Air program, they interviewed Washington Post special military correspondent Thomas E. Ricks, who has been on the ground in Iraq, almost from the start.

It's a sobering analysis of the situation in Iraq that most people consider stabilized and "won." Far from it. Two main points that raised my eyebrows:

1. He talked about the "surge" and what was behind the success. I thought I'd heard it all but the real reason behind the success was directly paying off Sunni insurgents to join their side. The same guys who were planting roadside bombs and killing US troops were now on the payroll. In a chilling account, he talks of a US marine who asks an ex-insurgent, who was manning a check point, if he'd like to kill him, an American soldier. The Iraqi replies: "Yes, but not right now." I'm shocked that they think bribery is a long term solution. When the money runs out they will turn.

2. There's no way in the world US troops will be able to leave by 2011. No way. Ricks explains that all the problems are merely on hold. If the US makes a move to leave, the bad guys will start up. On top of that he believes the US are obligated to stay, in order to prevent a genocide. If they want to exit, it is going to be extremely ugly.

If you have half an hour, click here to listen.

Andrew Sullivan: Rescuing America From the Trap

Andrew Sullivan has a great retrospective of his thoughts on the Iraq War and what it means for the future in his Atlantic Monthly blog:

But can we be real for a second? Am I really very "quietly" "hoping" that the US is "defeated"? For starters, what on earth can this mean at this point? Since we deposed Saddam and the WMD threat was a chimera and some kind of ramshackle unstable government has emerged, I'd say the original goals have been met if at a cost - $2 trillion? $3 trillion? Tehran's regional ascendancy? America's moral standing? 140,000 troops still in the country after six years - nowhere near what was planned, promised or envisaged. Getting out now with as little further damage as possible is, I would have thought, a universal goal - especially when the US is effectively bankrupt. I don't think of it as a "defeat" not to be occupying countries no one would have dreamed of occupying only nine years ago. And I certainly believe and have stated countless times that the soldiers and generals who helped do this deserve our immense gratitude and support.

(...)

The reason for my worry can best be described by a series of questions. Why should the US be permanently militarily rooted in a region as thorny and as fraught with danger as Iraq - with permanent bases in a deeply Muslim country and troop levels of well over 100,000 for the foreseeable future? Isn't this a hostage to fortune? Have we not learned from the British imperial experience? Are we really contemplating an America that is not just financing tens of thousands of troops in Japan and Germany for the indefinite future, but also in Afghanistan and Iraq, two of the most unpredictable an unstable "countries" outside Africa on the planet - and the graveyard of countless empires before? My core judgment is no. And after the past eight years, it seems to me that the benefit of the doubt should rest with those of us who want to leave the place as swiftly as possible, with as minimal a presence going forward as is responsible.

Read the whole thing. Andrew Sullivan's best quality as an opinion maker is to asses and re-asses his belief system. Building up to the war and during the early phase, he was a leading advocate of the intervention. He is one of the higher profile mind changers. As his banner Orwell quote says: "To see what it in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." The war wasn't what we thought it would be. It's not treasonous to question this. For the good of the country, it should be wrapped up as soon as possible.

These days Sullivan is one of the loudest Obama cheerleaders. It will be interesting if a few years down the road, we'll have another "I was wrong" introspective in that area.

Holiday in Cambodia Iraq

Italian Luca Marchio took adventure tourism to a new level recently, by taking a solo trip to Iraq.

“I am a tourist. I want to see the most important cities in the country. That is the reason why I am here now,” he said in heavily accented English. “I want to see and understand the reality because I have never been here before, and I think every country in the world must be seen.”

Mr. Marchio said he had intended on staying overnight in Falluja, but was forced to alter his travel plans. “The authorities explained to me that it was impossible because there are not any hotels here. They suggested a short tour and then go back to Baghdad.”

Piecing together an unusual travel itinerary from an unperturbed Mr. Marchio, incredulous Iraqi and Italian officials told the strange story of an accidental tourist.

As a collector, he was looking for a "My friend went to Falluja and all I got was this lousy coffee mug" souvenir for his friend back home. Next stop is Afghanistan for a Tora Bora fridge magnet.

About Those Iraqi Elections We Were Cheering About

It appears there are no results that have been acknowledged from said elections. The crickets chirp in the mainstream media. Leila Fadel, the Baghdad bureau chief for McClatchy Newspapers, blogs about the situation from Iraq:

Preliminary results aren’t expected until Thursday and final results won’t be available for weeks. But it hasn’t stopped parties from declaring victory.

Already people are battling over fraud and declaring winners and losers. The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq spent the past few days going back and forth, declaring victory in southern provinces and then calling it unclear. Currently they control most of the southern provinces.

In Anbar tribal fighters flooded the streets on Monday with accusations of fraud against their Sunni rival the Iraqi Islamic Party. Tribal leaders threatened to take revenge if results declared the wrong people the winner i.e. not them.

Ugh! Stability seems to be dangling from a thread. If/when the chaos starts up again, there will be calls for the US to stay beyond 2011. Just wait.

The Americans have to end this. It won't be clean.