Blogito, Ergo Sum - 4 April 2008

I know it's sad, really, but I still cannot help laughing at this Washington Post report about al-Maliki:

You may recall, if you have a memory longer than the average reporter's, that the knock on al-Maliki for a very long time now has been how hesitant he has been to take any action at all. So when he finally does, after a delay that has had his supporters tearing out their hair in frustration, the Post calls him "brash"!

Maybe, but it was al-Sadr who called for the cease-fire, and some say as a result of orders from Iran.

And, silly me, I rather think the opinion of the largest Sunni block in the Iraqi parliament is more important than the opinion of some Washington Post, ah, journalist.

Oddly missing is any mention of how this proves that "the surge" isn't working. One can only hope that some unwary lawmaker will bring this up to General Petraeus later this month.

Then he can inform them that Basra was governed by the British forces, not the Americans, and the Brits did not participate in any surge...in fact, quite the reverse.

Which ought to put frosting on the cake as far as the US surge is concerned. You see what happens when we do not? Perfect.

Austin Bay, meanwhile, says what happened in Basra is actually a bit different than the US newspapers think:

After his outlaw militiamen raised white flags and skedaddled from their latest round of combat with the Iraqi Army, radical Shia cleric Muqtada 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 Sheik al-Sadr bets he will prevail. ...

The firefights, white flags, media debate and, for that matter, the Iraqi-led anti-militia offensive itself are the visible manifestations of a slow, opaque and occasionally violent political and psychological struggle that in the long term is likely democratic Iraq's most decisive: the control, reduction and eventual elimination of Shia gangs and terrorists strongly influenced if not directly supported by Iran. ...

Now the Shia-led Iraqi government focuses on its chief Shia nemesis. How the Iraqi government handles Sheik al-Sadr matters. In August 2004, Sheik al-Sadr's thugs grabbed the Grand Mosque in Najaf. Sheik al-Sadr was counting on Americans to bomb the mosque. The United States opted to follow the political lead of Shia Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. The ayatollah's aides told coalition officers: "Let us deal with Sadr. We know how to handle him and will do so. However, the coalition must not make him a martyr."

The Iraqi way often appears to be indecisive, until you learn to look at its counter-insurgency methods in the frame of achieving political success instead of the frame of American presidential elections.

In southern Iraq and east Baghdad, Sheik al-Sadr once again lost street face. Despite the predictable media umbrage, this translates into political deterioration.

Think of the Iraqi anti-al-Sadr method as a form of suffocation, a political war waged with the blessing of the Ayatollah al-Sistani that requires daily economic and political action, persistent police efforts and occasional military thrusts.

Looks different from that perspective, doesn't it. His piece was titled: Whittling Away At Al-Sadr.

"Obama . . . shares a good-government reformist zeal with Dukakis and may also be hobbled with an analogous problem in winning over lunch-bucket Democrats. But the similarities end there, since Obama may be the least likely candidate to fall for an out-of-character stunt like riding in a tank looking ridiculous. For Obama possesses something that most presidential Democrats (aside from Bill Clinton) have lacked for the last three decades -- a sense of ease and comfort with himself.

"It is not just the Republican attack machine that created the image of Democratic candidates camouflaging their inner being at the behest of their campaign consultants. From Walter Mondale playing down his liberal instincts in 1984 to Al Gore, who, in reality, did did go through a phony phase in the 2000 campaign of wearing earth tones, the Democrats often got caught by their lack of authenticity. (Out of a sense of mercy, we will not even mention the 2004 John Kerry campaign.) It is this trap that Hillary Clinton has fallen into with her exaggerated claims of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.

"But Obama -- even when he gives way to ill-conceived gimmicks like his gutter-ball bowling misadventure -- has that rare ability to laugh it off with conviction."

But Obama will still be faced with the 'phony' problem beginning very soon, now. He's running as a centrist, as someone who can reach across the aisle because it isn't a stretch for him, but he still has that 100% Liberal ranking looming like an iceberg did for the equally-unsinkable Titanic.

Can a man boasting a perfect score on the Liberal-Conservative scale really be expected to practice bipartisanship all of a sudden? Don't you get the impression that he's trying to snow us with that one?

When are they going to figure out that Obama promised Richardson the vice presidency in exchange for his double-cross? And not just of his friends, the Clintons, but also his own principles. Richardson is a superdelegate who has said that the superdelegates should honor the vote of the people.

The elected delegates for Richardson's state, New Mexico, went for Hillary. He is going the other way. Oh. That promise.

What's even funnier is when Obama stiffs him and reneges on his promise (and how much longer will we be allowed to use the word 'renege'?), Richardson's complaints are going to fall on totally deaf ears.

Today, the New York Times criticized President Bush for failing to generate headlines for his visit to Novadebt counseling center in Freehold, N.J. to meet with mortgage counselors and discuss the housing market... The 'newspaper of record' further claims 'Mr. Bush has sometimes seemed invisible during the housing and credit crunch.'

"The New York Times neglects to mention that it failed to send a reporter to cover the President's housing event in Freehold, N.J. -- a town inside its own circulation area."

John McCain has delivered a speech detailing how the housing and credit-market crises erupted and what should — and should not — be done about them. "I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers," Mr. McCain said last week in California, where some of the most "rampant speculation" in the housing market occurred earlier this decade and where the inevitable foreclosures have now become common. ...

"A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent," Mr. McCain rightly noted. "[T]they stopped asking basic questions of their borrowers like: 'Can you afford this home? Can you put a reasonable amount of money down?' " On the other side of the transaction, Mr. McCain reminded us that "some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates." ...

"Policies should move toward ensuring that homeowners provide a responsible down payment of equity at the initial purchase of a home."

When I bought my first home, and even when I got into the real estate business much later on, it was common practice for lenders to require a 20% down payment. I managed to buy with no down payment because of my eligibility under the GI Bill, which in those days represented a real value and return on my military service.

But the problem the housing/banking industry is facing now is not because lenders have become complacent and stopped asking the right questions, not at all. The problem is because the lenders were downright duplicitous, knowing full well that they did not intend to keep those loans in their own portfolios but sell them off on the "greater fool" market. They even lied outright to subsequent buyers, telling them that potentially-shaky loans were solid investments. They told purchasers things that even used-car salesmen would not dare claim.

...what distinguishes Mr. McCain's foreign policy from Mr. Obama's is not about the nature of America's commitments in the Middle East. It is about their understanding of the consequences of defeat. Mr. McCain seems to have some. It's not clear whether Mr. Obama does.

In his speech, Mr. Obama rightly observes the paradox of Mr. McCain's position on Iraq. The Arizonan, he notes, argued in 2006 that the U.S. could not withdraw because "violence was up," whereas now he argues the U.S. cannot withdraw "because violence is down." "Success," says the Illinois senator, "comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely."

A fair point. But here are questions for Mr. Obama: Could there be something worse than the indefinite maintenance of a flawed policy? What if, following a U.S. withdrawal, Iraq collapsed into chaos? What if U.S. embassy personnel have to be helicoptered to safety from the roof of the Baghdad embassy? It's not as if this hasn't happened before.

Nowhere in Mr. Obama's speech is that scenario entertained, and one wonders why. Perhaps it is a function of biography. With the exception of a failed congressional bid in 2000, defeat has not formed a significant part of Mr. Obama's upwardly mobile life experience. Or perhaps it is a function of philosophy. Not everyone shares Mr. McCain's view that the defeat in Vietnam was a "disgrace"...

Several interesting points to discuss about this column. The first is that America was perceived to have been defeated in Vietnam, and even John McCain shares a feeling of disgrace about that. Plus the recurring view of the helicopters lifting embassy personnel off of the roof only intensifies that idea that we lost militarily, when the fact of the matter was that we hadn't had combat troops in Vietnam for over two years by the time that picture was taken!

The disgrace came when we reneged on our promises to our ally, South Vietnam, to come to their aid when North Vietnam broke the peace agreement. North Vietnam broke their word, which is their problem with honor, but we similarly have to live with the dishonorable fact that we also broke ours. For a man like McCain, that has to be the ultimate disgrace.

But the notion that America "lost" in Vietnam more than two years after fighting its last battle there, a completely victorious one, and then returning home, should clearly indicate the dangers America faces in completely withdrawing from Iraq, either now or in the future.

We will definitely, absolutely, and positively be declared to be LOSERS by the Arab world! And very likely the rest of the world, as well. The consequences of that will be even worse than the consequences of that same perception in the case of Vietnam.

Don't believe me? The British, not that long ago, turned over control of Basra to the Iraqi government. It was planned, and voluntary, even if a poor idea. Here's Zawahiri on a Muslim web site Q&A (courtesy of Power Line) describing the current situation to people who are going to believe everything that he says:

As-Sahab: To begin, what is your opinion about the condition of the Jihad in Iraq today?

Zawahiri: The condition of the Iraqi Jihad, is - overall - excellent by the grace of Allah, and whatever pains are suffered are a must on the march of Jihad and the most recent reports which have come in from Iraq tell of an increase in the strength of the mujahideen and a deterioration in the Americans' conditions, despite their desperate attempts to deceive and mislead. And the decision of the British to flee is sufficient.

The decision of the British to flee is what they're being told, and it's also what they are going to believe. Remember, we lost the military engagement in Vietnam more than two years after our combat troops had left the country.

Zawahiri: So we can summarize the situation in the following: first, defeated American forces groaning from the daily hemorrhage of daily losses and looking for a way out, with their government under massive public pressure to pull them out. Second, unprepared treasonous traitor forces whom the Americans have decided to abandon to meet their fate. And third, treasonous tribal militias whose biggest thief has been eliminated: ... So if we were to borrow the mathematical expression, we are looking at a cubic failure for America in Iraq.

Zawahiri: The repeating of these deceptive phrases means one of two things: wither the American administration is lying outrageously through Petraeus and Crocker, or the Americans haven't learned anything from four years of losses in the attack-and-retreat war in Iraq, and moreover, didn't learn anything from their defeat in Vietnam.

[H]istory is recording everything, and that they will lose both their religion and life, and that the Americans will soon be departing - Allah permitting - and won't keep defending them forever. And let them look at the fate of America's agents in Vietnam and the fate of the Shah of Iran, and intelligent is he who learns from other's mistakes.

The saddest part, however, is that a lot of what Zawahiri says is actually true. We did not cut-and-run from Vietnam, pulling our troops out over four or five years, and we did not lose militarily when North Vietnam sued for a peace treaty, but we sure as hell did in fact abandon our allies to their fate afterwards.

And the Shah cannot have been too happy with the support we gave him in the end, either.

Senator Obama does not have the look of someone who is in the process of marginalizing himself from the electorate. He is personable and charming, even stylish in a Cary Grant or Sidney Poitier sort of way. He is likeable. Could you say that about Senator Kerry or Governor Dukakis?

It is no accident that the Obama Internet fund-raising operation, one almost entirely driven by small donors, has been in high gear for months, blissfully unconcerned about big donors in Hollywood or New York who send nasty letters to the Speaker of the House because she thinks the Democratic primary should be decided by something like majority rule.

No, she doesn't...and that's her problem. Nancy wants the pledged delegates to decide, and she's terrified that Hillary is going to wind up with a popular-vote majority and argue precisely that point: the majority of the voters should rule, not the delegates.

I can only hope that happens! That would be my dream primary for the Democrats. Obama wins the pledged delegates, Hillary the popular vote. The superdelegates swing the nomination to Hillary, greatly pissing off the black voters, who then go for McCain as payback.

SPEAKING OF THE WAR, Republicans seem to be warming to the idea of running on that issue and that issue alone. Certainly, Senator McCain is the quintessential warrior with the record and the experience to run on that platform. He may not know jack about the economy, but he can safely assume that the same is true for Senator Obama on matters of international affairs and security.

As the economy continues its death spiral, the Democrats are preparing to run on that issue, a natural strength for them. If Senator Obama is as smart as he seems, he will focus on the economics and health care and let his past record on the war satisfy the anti-war base of his party through November.

The fall campaign is shaping up to be a contest of strength against strength or strength on weakness. The two campaigns will talk past each other, hoping to convince the electorate that their favored issue is the most important one for the future of the Republic.

And this is a big problem for us. The American people 'us'. Because the Republic can survive an economic downturn, even a depression, but it will not survive if militant Islam wins. The unfortunate fact at the moment is that McCain understands this but the voters do not. Yet.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, from his online chat a few days ago (scroll down for post):

As-Sahab: And what is the most important field in which this Mujahid vanguard is wrestling with the enemies of Islam?

Zawahiri: Iraq is the most important of these fields.

Nancy Pelosi, from her press conference yesterday:

As we've said before and I'll end by saying: How is this war in Iraq helping us fight the war on terrorism, the real war on terrorism, Afghanistan?

I'm probably naïve, but I still keep wondering: do you suppose that she really believes this and isn't just saying it for political reasons? I honestly wonder about some of them, because I know that they lead busy, non-stop scheduled lives and probably don't get to read as much as the rest of us do. They have to rely on others to tell them what's going on in the news, and those others have their own agendas, plus probably are also trying to figure out what the boss wants to hear about most.

Don't the Taliban in Iraq actually represent something much closer to a civil war, since they actually want to run the Afghanistani government when they win, whereas al-Qaeda in Iraq has no such aim? They don't represent any domestic Iraqi political party, or group, or tribe, their goal is purely terrorist tactics to destroy, not build.

After endorsing Obama, Bill Richardson explained that he did so because, "In my view, Senator Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity." That's swell, but one can imagine a lot of voters thinking, "Unity sounds really neat, but right now I'm really concerned about rising gas prices and the plummeting value of my house." At some point, the Obama campaign will have to find a way to tether itself to more earthly matters than the problems Obama prefers addressing. The running mate selection will be a milestone event in that process.

Some people think the aforementioned Richardson would make a good ticket-mate. Sorry--he wouldn't, even if he lost the unbecoming facial hair. In spite of the media's impressive effort to turn a guy who earned about 2 percent of the Democratic party's support in the primaries into a kingmaker when he endorsed Obama, Richardson, as evidenced by his performance in those primaries, is a second-rater.

Careless thinking, Dean. For one, Obama doesn't want a first-rater as his VP. But most importantly, Richardson may deliver the Hispanic vote...not just in his state, but all across the nation. And, for frosting, Obama isn't choosing either a woman or another old white male. I still say that they cut a deal already.