Iraq, And How To Win The Mid-East

There are two ways to get the US out of its jam in Iraq:

1) Leave
2) Stay

Brilliant, ey? Doesn't get any simpler than that. The irony is intended, but there are military solutions to Iraq, real, workable solutions represented by those two most basic approaches. Lest you think it arrogant of me to propose such, I claim my right to do so by the manifest, criminal and repeated failures of the pros and the "experts." Bear with me, because each approach can work, both would marshal largely untapped resources, and neither excludes the other.

Obviously, a gradual draw-down won't help, being merely the catastrophic status quo writ small. The warning phrase the Bushies are so fond of invoking, "make no mistake," applies: the US has been defeated in Iraq. It's a fact. Base and unit-level perimeters have already shrunk dramatically in response to worsening conditions, only Rumsfeld and his cowed careerists never bothered to mention it. The number of bases has shrunk from 110 to 53. This is because the US Command in Iraq is struggling to just keep its supply lines open. Shrinking perimeters during an occupation, although tactically prudent, is ultimately about as effective as Napoleon shrinking Le Grand Armee's perimeter in Russia, and nearly as ominous. A gradual draw-down will allow the insurgents near-complete mastery of the ground, and will probably result in much higher losses on all sides while it occurs.

What if the US had 500,000 combat troops to send? It doesn't. McCain and his new Neocon buddies are suggesting 20-3o,ooo more combat troops will solve the problem. The depths of delusion and depravity which gave vent to that notion deserve public pillory, and it's a measure of our nation's troubles that these nonsense-spewing monsters walk unmolested and unchallenged. Their suggestion is so insultingly ridiculous as to be genuinely sadistic. Listen: even if the US were to institute the draft and sent a million troops in, it would simply aggravate resistance levels because it has by now richly earned either the distrust or hatred of every Iraqi alive, and collectively they'd rather die than live under us. They gave up on polite hints long ago. The US has lost ability to impose its will on Iraq at any force level, and is being ground down through a now rapidly devolving stalemate. Sending more US troops is a waste of lives and economy.

Left to its current trajectory, most of Iraq will become a client state of Iran, with the Sunnis turning to Taliban-like Shariah-preaching warlords to stave off genocide, and the Kurds provoking a war with Turkey, Iran, or both. Can anything work? Yes. Knowledge of political gravity. Judo. Altering Iraq's trajectory in ways which suit US interests can be effected by completely and utterly withdrawing troop presence, or by massive international reinforcement. Neither are sure things, are without question dangerous and hinge on tricky implementation, but they both have a good chance of working. Contrast them with guaranteed failure, and they'll both start looking more attractive. Even to Boosh himself. It'll probably take about a year before the Washington jeniuses are ready, and chances are high Iran will be bombed before then as the compensation for impotence, and as yet an excuse to fiddle with new weapons and air power theories. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Solution One: Leave (And Make It Arabia's Problem)
Shia dominance can be used against it. If we completely pull out of the country, it will create a power vacuum, and power vacuums fill themselves with whatever is available. This one has an ancient religious rivalry surrounding it, and if it is not filled, Sunnis in Iraq face genocide and poverty. The US absence will suck in support from the Saudis and other very rich Sunni nations. This support will rapidly mean heavy weapons and volunteers flowing into and fortifying the Sunni Triangle, and it will mean the re-formation and financing of an outnumbered but technically superior, well-organized army capable of defending itself handily. It will mean humanitarian aid. It will be bloody, but a lot less so than "stayin' the curse" will be, and balance will be achieved. This will work because Iraqi Shias fundamentally don't want to be vassals of Iran. With balance, an oil revenue-sharing sharing deal can eventually be brokered, as recommended by one of the Iraq Study Group points. (If it worked for Alaska, it can work anywhere.)

Solution Two: Stay (And Make It Europe's Problem)
Iraqi oil flows to Europe, as does Iran's. There is another option, and it amounts to widening the conflict in a smart way. In effect, Iraq's future oil production can be used to entice massive reinforcements from Europe, and as window dressing, from the UN. By massive, I mean an international force of close to a million men, with 600,000 troops in-country at all times. French troops. German troops. NATO troops. Maybe even UN troops. Most important is that US troops and flags are not much seen in Iraq for a long time, and that Europe and the World are allowed into Iraq to provide security and humanitarian aid. This will work because it's what the Iraqis actually want. All that's required is to give up the Neocon Dream of direct and sole US control over the world's oil patches; it's abundantly clear now that plan was not a realistic objective, and bringing Old Europe in as a full partner would share the load and salvage an energy destiny for the West.

Neither of these solutions are going to occur soon, if at all. Too much humble pie to choke down. (Funny, you'd think their mouths would be big enough.) Every day which passes decreases the odds of Iraq being recoverable to any solution. Just wanted to go on the record. Even with average leadership, Iraq could still be won.

Footnote #59: Nailing The Failing

I've been reading Rory Stewart's travelogue of his 2002 winter walk through Afghanistan, "The Places in Between." It's not just a dynamite book of its kind, it's the only book. In it he makes a point which should be ever-obvious about the Prozac Policies of this generation of Western governments, and comes close to nailing why we're failing. We want the benefits of colonies without the responsibilities, yet our systems deny the inclination, imagination, and the persistence required to understand the cultures underlying the regimes we've changed:

Critics have accused this new breed of administrators of neocolonialism. But in fact their approach is not that of a nineteenth-century colonial officer. Colonial administrations may have been racist and exploitative, but they did at least work seriously at the business of understanding the people they were governing. They recruited people prepared to spend their entire careers in dangerous provinces of a single alien nation. They invested in teaching administrators and military officers of the local language. They established effective departments of state, trained a local elite, and continued in the countless academic studies of their subjects through institutes and museums, royal geographical societies, and royal botanical gardens. They balanced the local budget and generated fiscal revenue because if they didn't their home government would rarely bail them out. If they failed to govern fairly, the population would mutiny. Postconflict experts have got the prestige without the effort or the stigma of imperialism. Their implicit denial of the difference between cultures is the new mass brand of international intervention. Their policy fails but no one notices. There are no credible monitoring bodies and there is no one to take formal responsibility. Individual officers are never in any one place and rarely in any one organization long enough to be adequately assessed. The colonial enterprise could be judged by the security or revenue it delivered, but neocolonialists have no such performance criteria. In fact their very uselessness benefits them. By avoiding any serious action or judgement they, unlike their colonial predecessors, are able to escape accusations of racism, exploitation, and oppression. Perhaps it is because no one requires more than a charming illusion of action in the developing world. If the policy makers know little about the Afghans, the public knows even less, and few care about policy failure when the effects are felt only in Afghanistan.

In reading his on-the-ground experiences while simply trying to make it across the country alive, the primary conflict in Afghanistan emerges naturally; a conflict not between Coalition Forces and insurgents but one between a social revolution sponsored by Iran (represented by Ismail Khan), and an ancient Islamic feudal system in the process of being co-opted by the Taliban (sponsored by oil-rich Sunni families). Both have widespread popular support and deep cultural sympathies, and both see Hamid Karzai as a clownish American puppet unworthy of annoyance. But Rory's wrong about one thing in his 59th Footnote above: the effects of failure in Afghanistan will be felt far beyond its borders. Today Pakistan announced the acceptance of a Taliban mini-state in Waziristan after a four-year war and several recent treaties have failed to mitigate its influence.

Scotland Yard: Princess Diana's Phone Bugged By US "Secret Service"

Article: The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.

So...the British Royal family has concluded its investigation of its complete absence of any role in her death. (See the "Lord" in front of the report manager's last name? It's either a very ambitious first name, or a title granted by the Queen.) As is well and proper.

Only a couple of minor points remain unexplained: why Dodi Fayed's chauffeur was working for French intelligence, and why Diana's phone was bugged by an unspecified US intelligence agency. The writers don't care to speculate, and neither does Lord Stevens, having received assurances that nothing was awry. Gosh, I wonder why conspiracy theories linger over Diana's death?

Update: The National Security Agency is preparing a statement that it did not bug Diana's phone:

(CBS/AP) The National Security Agency is working on a statement that will deny eavesdropping on Princess Diana, a U.S. intelligence official tells CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.

Hogwash. The NSA has its largest world monitoring station in Northern England, and at the very least they would've monitored her cell phone conversations for gossip value alone.

Impressive

Gorilla's Guides is one of the best English-language blogs for straight news, analysis, and eyewitness accounts from Iraq and the region, and is run by a group of former UN soldiers and current Mid-east residents. Siun over at FDL turned me onto them (thanks, Siun!). Markfromireland, the original Gorilla of Gorilla's Guides, caught this Reuters Alert story:

Only six fluent in Arabic at US Iraq embassy-panel 06 Dec 2006 22:20:12 GMT
Source: Reuters WASHINGTON, Dec 6 (Reuters) -

Among the 1,000 people who work in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, only 33 are Arabic speakers and only six speak the language fluently, according to the Iraq Study Group report released on Wednesday. "All of our efforts in Iraq, military and civilian, are handicapped by Americans' lack of knowledge of language and cultural understanding," the bipartisan panel said in its report. "In a conflict that demands effective and efficient communication with Iraqis, we are often at a disadvantage."

The report, written by five Republicans and five Democrats, recommended the U.S. government give "the highest possible priority to professional language proficiency and cultural training" for officials headed to Iraq.

Communication? Ha! Honestly, I'm impressed this many Arabic speakers made it into the embassy in Iraq, since having any language proficiency or pertinent cultural knowledge was considered to be the veritable Mark of Cain in the Neocon Department. Previously, Doug Feith and others purged Arabic speakers from positions of responsibility and barred new hires with expertise. So maybe the 33 Arabic speakers in the Green Zone were infected in Iraq and "went native." To stop their spying for Al-Qaeda, they'll have to be found, sent home, quarantined, and ritually purified.

Note, the ISG Report is available here in .pdf format.

Craig Ferguson Interviews Bush

And Bush comes off pretty well. Friends Al and Ann turned me on to Craig Ferguson. Although he may be Scottish, he's funny, and seems to have quite a show. I've only seen a few of his segments on YouTube, but if Santa approves a nice flat-screen TV for the living room (oh yes, boys and girls, he's thinking about it), I'll be watching his show more often. On real TV. With commercials and channels and everything.

The Gift That Keeps On Giving...To Itself

Those good ol' boys in the Grotesque Old Party are trying to vote themselves one last raise before they lose control. $3,300. Admittedly, it's not much in comparison with the trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt they've approved for "Defense" or bridges to nowhere, and it is the holiday season. $3,300, coincidentally, is just enough for a primo flat-screen TV and home entertainment system. But why stop there? Hell, why not give themselves $20k? Or $50k? What's with the restraint? Come on, you guys can do better than a few thousand! Even the Dims think it's unseemly, and are holding out for more.

If I Could Write...

I've been in deadline hell until now, working on deals and a draft on behalf of Harvard for a National Institute of Health grant that if successful will automatically process tens of millions of calls and provide data to unlock the secrets of nutrition and correlate them with health outcomes. You know, same-old same-old.

So I went YouTubing (Trademark pending) and just typed in the first thing that popped into my head without thinking: Sam Phillips. One gut-wrenching singer. English. Classy. Artiste. Pretty. A little crazy, and smart as hell. Imagine the poetry of "not waving, drowning" set to post-war dance-hall music sung by a stunning, laser-blue eyed chanteuse in a lively, relieved and hopping resort on the English coast a few summers after World War Two, and you're starting to cop a Sam Phillips feel. The YouTube feed is jaggy and set to some show called Rory & Dean which I've never heard of, but Sam's from a past which always existed, echoes in our dreams, and whispers across the skies. Take your best gal or guy, give Sam a chance and do an easy slow dance. If I could write:

If I could write, I'd set all the words free:
to follow you.
Tell you wonders, tell you secrets, and solitude!
I've had to let go of so Much it's hard to hold on, now;
something far off is pulling me,
and when I go this time,
I don't think I'm coming back.

I took your ring that never comes off, and put it on:
sorry to lose you, sorry to keep you after you were gone.
Nothing is small, nothing is unexpected
I want more, and when I go this time
I don't think I'm coming back.

Desire is the element that I can't fight.
Dream is the arm of God;
girl's looking for themselves in your eyes,
I'm looking for you.
What's this supposed to be, some kind of perfect?
I want more, and when I go this time,
don't think I'm coming back.
Don't think I'm coming back.

Iraq Study Group (ISG) Report Released Today

Remember, Dick, you'll be retiring for health reasons. "For health reasons," you got that? And when you give the farewell speech, try not to look like you just boiled Hansel and Gretel, ok?

I have a different take on the ISG than most other folks. To my lights the "Iraq" and "Study" parts of the ISG are extraneous, since those are pretty much screwed up beyond repair and too late, respectively. I figure the Group is really part of a much more important project to save the Bush Family Legacy and fulfill Dubya's Destiny. Now, if you were hired to pull off one miracle or the other, a short pause for quiet contemplation as you struggled to breathe, breathe, would reveal you'd need to get rid of Dick Cheney (the master of disaster himself, the man that made the Neocons famous) first to give yourself a fighting chance.

Jim Baker is as good as it gets. Where he goes, things get fixed, he makes people happy, and he passes out credit to everyone but himself. He flat gets things done. Freeing the hostages from Iran. Iran-Contra. Getting the rest of the world to pony up $70 billion for Gulf War One. Carlyle Group contracts. Oil deals. Getting Iran to help out in Afghanistan. A bunch of stuff I don't know about. Cheney gets by on doggedness and clenched teeth. Baker makes things look effortless, and like he had nothing much to do with them.

The Group wisely started off by attacking Cheney's biggest liability, Donald Rumsfeld. Why do I think this? Well, if a minor objective is to throw some sulfanomide and gauze on the sucking chest wound that is Iraq, you had to get rid of Rummy. The man had no more business running America's war machine than I do painting Rembrandt forgeries. Next you must control both ears of the President, and explain why diplomacy is an easier, quicker way to fulfill his Destiny as the Toughest, Smartest, Jesus-Son of All Time. This means prying Cheney away with a crowbar, isolating him in an echo chamber, and piping ether into it as an entymologist would into a bug's kill-jar. Getting Cheney gone is no mean feat, since a paranoiac like him maintains his own security apparatus (What, you think I'm kidding? The man travels with a complete medical crash team, an ambulance, and his personal physician. And then isn't ashamed to say so.) but James Baker has a lot of tools at his disposal, lots of good and powerful friends besides the Bushes who he has made richer and happier over the years (many of them in the Mid-East) and one helluva lot of guile. And now the job is easier because getting Rumsfeld fired was like cutting a Siamese twin in half. Condi did her best disco happy dance over that one (I like to think she's a closet Pointer Sisters devotee).

It was Dubya's parents who introduced him to Condi Rice at Kennebunkport in 1998, when she was Provost at Stanford, and a political science professor known for specializing in Soviet Russia. They wanted her to protect Junior's blind side (presumably his knowledge of foreign policy), and Condi charmed the pants off him. They have been very close ever since. Cheney may have access to the President's left ear and may have obligated him in the distant past with $20 mill here or there, but Condi has the President's right ear and his real affections. Condi is a family friend, thus a natural enemy to the Vice President, Rumsfeld, and the neo-cons. That's my bet for where Baker started building pontoon bridges.

Not everyone agrees with the above speculation. A lot of people much smarter and on the inside don't. Below is part of an exchange from FDL's great session between me and former ambassador Joe Wilson, who started the ball pushing back against Cheney by writing his editorial refuting some of Cheney's lies about Iraq's nuclear activities, "The Truth About What I Saw in Niger." Note, I'm not grandstanding, there were about a thousand people there either commenting or lurking--in fact I was close to star-struck because Joe Wilson is a patriot and a hero in my book, and I am totally star-struck by his wife, Valerie Plame. As a measure of what the Wilsons mean to this country, at the Washington Press Club Dinner this year where Steven Colbert spoke, he eviscerated everyone in the room except Joe and Valerie. Them, he honored. Anyhow:

'Me: Ambassador Joe,

Glad you’re still here (was on conf call from 11PST til now). Question:

Baker seems to be driving to neutralize Cheney via the ISG, and there are a number of authoritative leaks that have seemed to be his handiwork. I am a Baker admirer and in real life I occasionally negotiate with delusional companies. So yes, I’m projecting biases. But do you think JBIII had anything to do with getting rid of Rumsfeld? I’m asking for speculation, not definition.

Joe Wilson: I think the elections had more to do with Rummy’s departure than anything else. That may help with the acceptance of the ISG report but remember it is the White House that has the final say, not SecDef.

Me: Thanks. You’re probably right, but I would think Cheney has felt very threatened by Rummy’s departure, and imagine he tried to do anything he could have to prevent such. This would indicate some change on who helps the White House formulate its final say.

I see the ISG less as a serious policy document, more as a vehicle to get Junior to fulfill his destiny in a more economical way, by listening to more practical advisors. Ex posto Cheney. Freely admit, I’m projecting and have no hard data here. It just seems like a good negotiator’s approach to dislodge the necessary roadblocks.

The PNAC target remains Iran. Cheney’s targets remains Iran, the Caspian Basin, and direct energy control, whereas the ISG represents transition to a containment model. The two are inimical. If Cheney undercuts its key recommendations, which boil down to keeping Iran and Syria non-volatile and being a bit freer about bargaining with Iraqi oil, then the failure of the ISG itself would naturally provide basis for going ahead with less gentle methods. This is the fate of our Republic and its wealth that are being played with here by The Crazies.'

Guess what? I was being deferential. I don't think the elections had much to do with Rumsfeld's resignation. Bush himself said so. And Baker is a great deal-cutter. He'll salvage what he can for the Bushes, and to a great extent, that's a good thing for us. It likely means de-escalating vis-a-vis Iran, and giving all the countries in the region a stake in seeing Iraq stabilize.

One Day Hun, Blunder Serve Fails Lance

A speech recognition engine might transcribe the spoken phrase "One Nation, Under Surveillance" as "One Day Hun, Blunder Serve Fails Lance." Or to "Won Nary Tons Fundies Sir Salient." Or to "Dear aunt, let's so double the killer delete select all," as happens in this Microsoft Speech Recognition demo for their new Vista operating system. The poor product manager tries to dictate a "dear mom" letter in front of a bunch of reviewers, and hilarity ensues. Ah, yes. I know it well. This is my field, and I briefly had that guy's exact job several years back; they let me have it for awhile until they could find someone calmer, less prone to seizures, someone who wouldn't randomly scream out "Auaaaagggh!" in meetings, with no visible eye-twitch or physical abnormalities. And I was the lucky one. They found the new guy before I had to give one of these demos. Auaaaagggh!

Seriously, speech recognition has gotten pretty good. But it's also still sensitive, imperfect, and unpredictable, so it's not really ready for prime time in free-form applications like speaking English. It best performs repetitive tasks in narrow domains. Trying to understand people speaking full sentences is hard enough for a human, and some days I wonder if they do it very well at all. To be fair, the technology has come a very long way, and has gotten pretty good unless, say, you have a sinus infection or a fluorescent light happens to be on. Speaking of lights, it's very good at tasks like switching a light on and off. Almost always.

Our government, in its desire to be helpful, is applying speech recognition technology (not Microsoft's) to the problem of listening to phone conversations, you know, so we can tell who's running terrorist cells and where they're going to attack next. Last I checked I think the National Security Agency admitted to having about a $40 billion yearly budget, give or take a few score unreported black projects and a few hundred contractors. Making technology work for you. Feel better now?

F-16 Anbar Crash Follow-Up, Pt. III: DNA Match,
Embarrassing Conflicts

Does anyone else out there think the stories about the F-16 downed in Anbar, Iraq last week didn't line up? Seems like I'm alone out here. The US Air Force listed F-16 pilot Major Troy Gilbert as KIA 12/03/06, following a DNA tissue sample match (12/01/06) following his crash in the Anbar Province six days earlier (11/27/06). The Air Force says insurgents got to the pilot's body before their forces could get there, and they couldn't find the body (video from Air Force's web site at link, the windows media download site here says 'file not found.') The pilot's body supposedly went missing despite "fighters as well as intelligence and surveillance assets" (ISR) circling overhead at the time of the crash. I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble gagging conflicting elements of this story down. And if the main story of the missing body is true, then the Air Force is as messed up as the Bush Administration. I would hope that's not the case. But consider:

An Iraqi journalist and one bystander filmed the pilot's body
You will see what appears to be the pilot's torso face-down on the ground, head pointing towards the camera at 29 seconds into the 'Live Leak' video link above. His torso appears to be tangled in the parachute with blood or human remains strewn some yards away but within the parachute's trail. You can hear the flap of clothing in the breeze, the breathing of the camera-man, low voices, and you can see one Iraqi man standing on and examining the wreckage. No insurgents. No hiss of fighters circling overhead. No thwop-thwop of incoming helicopter rescue teams. Just a silent, open field and what appears to be a dead body. The video description says: "The pilot appeared to have died after ejecting, television footage from the scene of the crash showed. A local journalist who shot the film said he was in no doubt the pilot was dead." This video directly contradicts every "official" version of the crash.

The open field
Other jets were said to be circling over the crash site, and to have spotted insurgents. Why were these insurgents not fired upon, or buzzed, in an effort to protect the pilot, thereby saving his life or body? His parachute can clearly be seen lying open on the ground (see video footage above), indicating he ejected and had a good chance of still being alive. If fighters circled as claimed, a lot of firepower went unused. Why circle above the crash site at all, but to protect the pilot? An Iraqi journalist and his companion filmed the crash site at leisure.

The F-16 is said to have been seen "flying erratically" by witnesses before it crashed
This would indicate there was time for the pilot to may-day and to warn of mechanical difficulties or a missile strike, as per training, and for other airborne assets to rapidly converge (which they supposedly did). Sending single F-16s out on ground support missions wouldn't seem to be good procedure. He didn't have a wingman? He was said to be flying close support of ground pounders, and in contact with them. They're not around.

Major Gilbert was "well-known and liked"
Ok, then why did the Air Force not confirm that he was missing for 3-4 days? He was flying out of the air base at Balad. Why were DNA tests necessary to confirm his identity? The Air Force had no problem confirming the identity of downed fighter pilots before DNA testing. Are we expected to believe the pilot took the jet out on an unauthorized ground-support joy-ride without his crew chief strapping him into the cockpit, and saying "Good luck, Major?" Did he steal the plane anonymously?

No Body
Do you mean to tell me insurgents carried Major Gilbert's body from a completely open field in broad daylight to whereabouts unknown? Fighters. Satellites. AWACs. Helicopters. Air Cav. Grunts. They could've at least tracked his body optically or visually and recovered it. Now his poor family gets to bury an empty casket. And if you were flying missions in Iraq's Anbar Province, you would probably tell your wing-mates, "If I go down, don't let them take me alive. And if I'm dead, don't let them mutilate my body."

I'm an amateur in these matters. There are a bunch of standard operating procedures and technologies the Air Force employs when a pilot is downed which I am not familiar with, so the magnitude of the screw-up or deception is probably worse than guessed at here. I realize an abundance of caution is kind when dealing with the family members of those who fall in duty. It would be understandable if the pilot's bereaved family demanded a DNA test in the absence of his recovered body. That may explain the DNA testing. But at minimum, a lack of caution and respect was shown to the dead pilot and his family, first in not protecting and locating his body, and next in not sparing his family unnecessary agony and suspense. That, or basic elements of this story are bogus, and there's a lot we're not hearing.

Three helicopters went down in the Anbar Province on the same day Major Gilbert crashed, and in the video above, the crash site has obviously not been secured, nor is it remotely close to being secured. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that United States Air Force lacked the means, the will, or the coordination to respond to one of its own as they should have wished. They must be ashamed. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion they're lying out their ass, and all of this rotten story invites speculation about vastly improved air defense capabilities on the ground in the Sunni Anbar Province.

If I am in error in any of the points above, I would enthusiastically welcome correction from qualifed searchers in the comments section below.

"My Son Is An Honest Man," Pt. II

I have respect for a good liar. A good liar, like a good thief, must have great respect for the truth in order to not get caught, keeping all the threads in the web straight and orderly. Bill Clinton, for example, was a liar par excellence. Almost as good as his wife Hillary in terms of pure technique, and far better on delivery. The Bush Family, on the other hand, lives in the Spin Zone, and lost all connection to the truth, and thus to reality, long, long ago. Spin relies on assertion, and like a good thug it must repeat itself like the heel of Orwell's proverbial boot kicking humanity in the face over and over forever. Spin responds to nothing; it is not tethered to the truth by lies. Spin is an assassin sent on a suicide mission; freed from the restraints of reason, like reptilian tissue it functions only on the most base impulses, like threat avoidance, threat confrontation, the pleasure of eating, or pain. The Bush Family is a wounded reptile right now, its pains not hard to discern in the recent writhings of its biggest dragon:

The former US president George Bush Snr was forced into a defence of his son, the current President, during a visit to United Arab Emirates yesterday, when George Bush Jnr's Middle East policies were derided by a hostile audience.

"My son is an honest man," Mr Bush told Gulf Arabs at a leadership conference in Abu Dhabi, after an audience member said Mr Bush Jnr and his policies were not respected. "He is working hard for peace. It takes a lot of guts to get up and tell a father about his son in those terms when I just told you the thing that matters in my heart is my family." Mr Bush, President from 1989 to 1993, added: "How come everybody wants to come to the United States if the United States is so bad?"

He said he had faced tougher audiences but that attacks on his sons hurt more than those on him.

The oil-rich Persian Gulf used to be safe territory for Mr Bush Snr, an oil man who brought Arab leaders together in a coalition that drove Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in 1991. But his son's invasion of Iraq and support for Israel are unpopular in the UAE. "We do not respect your son. We do not respect what he's doing all over the world," a female audience member told Mr Bush after his folksy keynote speech, in which he said how proud he was of his sons. Mr Bush appeared stunned as the audience of young business leaders whooped and whistled in approval.

"This son is not going to back away," Mr Bush said, his voice quivering.

So we see the genetic and behavioral well-springs of the delusional narcissim running through the entire bugsy Bush clan. One part of me has empathy for a man who sees himself as having devoted his life and his family's to public service. Then I remember that his grandfather armed the Brown-shirts with Smith and Wesson revolvers in 1923. Then I remember that his father was the investment banker for Hitler until at least 1943. Then I remember that he called the Dallas PD three hours before JFK got shot. How much else do you need to know? So the other part of me, the reasoning part, sees Papa Lizard lope back to the swamp he's been feeding at since he was spawned, detect a threatening smell in the air when he flicks out his tongue, hissing and growling in reflex. The Bush Family is a failed dynasty--too bad it's going to take many more spear-thrusts to lay these worms to rest. But it must be done. Too bad lizards thrash about so when they're wounded, and too bad they're still leading our country.

"My Son Is An Honest Man," Pt. I

"Send in the clowns!
There ought to be clowns...
don't bother; they're here."

Barbara Streisand, 'Send in the Clowns'

Isn't it rich, aren't we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground,
You in mid-air.
Send in the clowns.

Isn't it bliss, don't you approve?
One who keeps tearing around
One who can't move
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.

Just when I'd stopped opening doors,
Finally knowing the one that I wanted was yours.
Making my entrance again with my usual flair,
Sure of my lines;
No one is there.

Don't you love farce?
My fault I fear,
I thought that you'd want what I want,
Sorry my dear
But where are the clowns
There ought to be clowns
Quick send in the clowns

What a surprise!
Who could foresee
I'd come to feel about you
What you felt about me?
Why only now when I see
That you've drifted away?
What a surprise...
What a cliche'...

Isn't it rich, isn't it queer
Losing my timing this late in my career
And where are the clowns
Quick send in the clowns
Don't bother, they're here.

F-16 Crash Follow-Up, Pt. IV: A Semi-Controlled Descent

A CH-53 carrying 16 US Marines crashed into a lake in the Anbar Province yesterday, making it the fourth helicopter to "have mechanical problems" and crash there in the last 7 days. This particular crash at least warranted a brief Associated Press release, although it was described as "an emergency landing," one "in which the pilots maintained control of the aircraft the entire time."

Oh, really? Then why did the pilots choose to land in a lake? My guess is because, had they maintained control the entire time down into the ground, all aboard would've died. Fortunately, they were apparently able to just make it past the shore, and only 4 Marines died rather than all 16. This incident may really have been due to mechanical failure, but the careful wording of the release and lack of interviews merit serious doubts, and certainly not all the crashes this week were accidents. The Sunnis are getting MANPAD-style (modern portable surface-to-air missiles) from somewhere. I doubt SA-16s or SA-18s from Iran, but maybe directly from Russia or China.

There is another strong contender for the source of the missiles. Last week, on Cheney's trip to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia probably threatened him with retaliation if the Sunnis in Iraq were hung out to dry in a "Salvador Option." The Salvador Option refers to choosing a side, ostensibly the Shias, arming them and backing them with US trainers, advisors, and air support; this were the methods credited with suppressing communism in El Salvador in the 1980s. Death squads, in other words. (See Newsweek story, "The Pentagon may put Special Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq.")

From King Abdullah's perspective, shooting down four of his aircraft on the same day you're meeting with an uppity company's sales rep is a very effective way to make your point clear, while leaving your chain-mailed fist covered in velvet. It's a way of saying this: "If Iraqi Shias are unleashed with American backing on the Sunni Triangle, it will ignite Sunni Arab rage, a full-scale regional war, and deep financial disturbances." Yes, I just referred to Dick Cheney as a sales rep. You see, there's a better way to think of Saudi Arabia's rulers, one much more in line with how they think of themselves: as the largest shareholders in the corporate entity which refers to itself as "the United States." Cheney was summoned to Riyadh, not dispatched as US newspapers would have us believe. Faisal, Bandar, and Abdullah have all referred to the US as "my blue-eyed slave."

Why We (Really) Fight: Mythbusting, Pt. V Redux

(Update: I'm re-posting this today because the announcement just went out that the respective ambassadors of the United States and Iran will be following up on their recent meeting again, this time officially, over the next few weeks to discuss how Iran can help in the stabilization of Iraq. The old post below discusses the basics of what drives American and Western foreign policy. While the upcoming talks are a back-down humiliation for the Bush Administration, they're a big win for BushCo because they're not just "talks." They're the start of a long negotiation which will likely include many components like money, markets, and opportunities. Dick Cheney personally did business with Iran when he was CEO at Halliburton, even though it was expressly banned by law. Profits are more important than laws.

US policy makers do not care if other governments or their people are sacrificing children to molten idols of Moloch and worship in Temples to Baal if there's relatively risk-free bucks to be made. Money will be put on the table with Iran early, and it will involve uranium enrichment and who helps them build nuclear power plants. One big US objective will be to kick the Russians out of their contracts to build the plant at Bushehr. Similar to the deal BushCo struck with India. If that's a trade Iran is willing to make, and they're willing to pay in oil or cash along with making some political concessions, they'll get a deal. I strongly suspect that Mssr. Cheney is already working this angle hard, and that it's behind his recent presence in the Mid-East. And yes, I suspect it even though he just stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and reminded the mullahs he can bomb them whenever he chooses. If we're dealing with "totalitarians," Cheney is behind it, and there's going to be money involved.)

You've almost undoubtedly heard the logic from a friend or a relative: "Saddam was a bad man, and we had to go take him out." Relatives, well....I figure I'm stuck with them, and if they've put up with me for so long, I can pretty well put up with them. It saddens me more when I hear this kind of thing from a friend, because it means they're spouting ignorance, and ignorance in friends tends to concern me. Sadly, it means I'll probably have to speak carefully and be patient while reality sneaks up behind them and whaps them like a thug with a blackjack just behind their ear. You should be able to save a friend from such a fate.

On rare occasion I've blurted out, "You actually believe our government cares whether or not Saddam Hussein was a bad man? Cool! You must have a trust fund you didn't tell me about. Dinner's on you tonight, thanks, buddy!" Amongst friends, foes, strangers or no, indulging in Non-Delusional Honesty Incidents (or as we call them here at the ABH offices, N-DHI's) regarding our misadventures in the Mid-East have helped keep my social calendar to a manageable level of engagment, and silence, changes of topic, various looks of confusion, indigestion, disappointment, steely rejection, and seething rage can ensue. I've lost friends, too. But all those things are delightful experiences in comparison to living under a Cone of Complete Bullshit (or COC-B).

Here's the AgitPop Foreign Policy Guide, quick and dirty: "Furren" countries are judged not on any moral basis, not ever, despite the pundit classes' well-paid protestations to the contrary. They're judged solely on their willingness and ability to mold themselves in America's image and provide enough stability for corporations to make money. So here's a handy barometer I use:

If there's a McDonald's in a country, it is either with The Program, or they're trying hard to get with it. No McDonald's? No KFCs? No Baskin Robbins, not even a measly Dunkin' Donuts? They're Bad Guys, and you're in Injun country. America's terminology is governed by the McDonald's distinction, because it's a useful measure of whether or not the multinational corporations who run the US government can safely make money in a particular country. If there are a few McDonald's fast food restaurants in Absurdistan, the proper word to characterize its ruler is "authoritarian," or "friendly." If there is no McDonald's, or only one, that country is still run by a "totalitarian regime." August Pinochet: authoritian. Saddam Hussein: totalitarian. One you can make money off of, no problemo, the other is really tricky. See? Rock-solid simple analysis. The best you can do to fleece totalitarians is sell them weapons, a risky and often clandestine exercise.

Afghanistan was invaded not because it had anything to do with 9/11, but because the Taliban had previously negotiated over proposed pipelines, to be junctioned in Kandahar, in bad faith. It also became apparent the Golden Arches were never going to spread their smiling shadows over its craggy landscape. Same basic thing with Saddam Hussein. Refusing the Blessings of the Big Mac is proof positive that a leader is refusing reason, is dangerously totalitarian, and is impossible for our franchises to do business with. Thus the need for "regime change." And what about Iran? Ah, Iran is far, far worse:

Iran has invested its oil wealth in universal education, healthcare, infrastructure bringing clean water and electricity to more than 98 percent of its people, and economic progress. Military spending is a paltry $91 per capita compared to more than $1,500 per capita in the United States and Israel. The social and economic achievements of the revolutionary regime in Iran in the past 25 years look quite progressive in reducing poverty and social inequalities, and as the society liberalises toward a more secular democratic regime, even better progress can be expected in the future. Compared to rising inequality in the United States and Israel, ranked numbers one and two for social inequality among developed nations, the Iranians look pretty damn good.

That, of course, is the problem. If Iran, rather like Venezuela, becomes a regional leader and examplar of social democracy, it becomes a threat to the corporatist and militarist elites that dominate the political classes of Washington and Tel Aviv and exploit the mineral and oil wealth of underdeveloped nations.

Education and successful economic development are a bigger threat than any weaponry if you are a corporatist kleptocrat. And that is why Iran must be bombed, like Iraq and like Lebanon. It has succeeded, and must be bombed back to failure.

The level of distribution, ingredients, preparation, quality, uniformity, and broadcast control required to sell a Big Mac in Mumbai is enormous. By nature, it has to be systemic. This is so axiomatic it has attained the status of an orthodoxy we don't even think about. To us in the West, it's invisible. Whereas, for many Muslims in other countries, they know a McDonald's system will not respect the core dictates of their religion, nor their lives, having witnessed the agents of that system at work in Iraq. Prior to Iraq, McDonald's could buy them off gradually, but now that game is done. Bombing the Iranians won't help bring anyone into line, either. The whole Muslim world has seen with its own eyes that 99% of the Iraq War has been about taking its resources, and they're not about to buy into the American Dream. There won't be a lot of new takers for what we're selling, either, because now they're all "totalitarians."

(So I'm not predicting McDonald's and Starbucks are going to start popping up in Tehran anytime soon. But talking with your enemies is better than the other alternatives. Thanks for Uncle $cam over at American Samizdat for permission to reprint his catch of a Dkos diary.)

Rumsfeld...Donald Rumsfeld

I've started to honestly believe we're living in a Banana Republic. I mean, there's no shortage of bananas, there's a clothing store going by that name in almost every mall, and why else would one of our oldest and most respected national organizations have given Donald Rumsfeld a "Gold Medal" award last night, unless we were living in a dictatorial regime? I mean, pretty soon we'll have goon squads running around, wearing black ski masks and uniforms, breaking into people's homes, and an El Presidente in the thrall of gringo corporations passing out phony medals to thieves. (Oh. Crap.) Until 20 minutes ago I had no idea who or what the Union League is, or why they think it's a good idea to humiliate themselves on the world stage by giving Donald Rumsfeld an award. Geez. Pretty soon the thought of popping Wikipedia open could start to give me the shakes.

Turns out the Union Leagues were set up back in '63 (that would be 1863) to support the policies of Abraham Lincoln, things like federalism, anti-slavery, and the Republican Party. Therefore, I assumed there must be another Donald Rumsfeld, and was thinking this must be a mistaken identity thing, you know, like in The Big Lebowski, where loan sharks send two tough guys to rough up the wrong Jeffrey Lebowski, beating him and holding his head down in his own scummy toilet, flushing repeatedly. (Oh, gosh. I'm projecting revenge fantasies again.) But, no, it's the right Donald Rumsfeld. Despite an intended lack of publicity, some of the invitation-only Union League members broke with etiquette to leak the story to a Philadelphia paper:

'Club member James A. Ounsworth told the paper that he was "astonished and ashamed" because "Rumsfeld is a failure. I don't think you should give an award for failure."'

But Jimbo: where in bloody hell have you been? We've been giving awards for failure for the past 6 years! 30 or 40 protesters showed up screaming with signs not because they were hippies, lefties, or commies, but because they are Republicans whose relatives are or were members of the Philadelphia chapter of the Union League, and who somehow felt the integrity of their beloved, AKC-certified pedigree institution was going straight down the tubes:

"My family is traditional Republican, and they are sick about the Union League giving Rumsfeld a medal," said protester Elizabeth Doering, whose grandfather and father were longtime club members. "It's such a crass gesture."

Who's handing out the lapel candy next, the Sons of the American Revolution? The best part: the League politely declines to say what the award is for. The imagination roils while I laugh like a drain at conservative Republicans. Suck-ers!

The Tourism Boom In Afghanistan

"You are the first tourist in Afghanistan," an Afghan Secret Service agent warned Rory Stewart, an avidly naive Scotsman, before he set out to walk across the country in 2002. "It is mid-winter - there are three meters of snow on the high passes, there are wolves, and this is a war. You will die, I can guarantee."

So there's a promotional slogan from an erstwhile Ministry of Tourism for you: Don't come here. You will die. I had the good sense not to go to there as a tourist or otherwise, but, oh, to be in Kandahar, now that the sub-zero winter winds have come and buzkashi matches have begun. Buzkashi is the national pastime, kind of like basketball, except there are no teams and the players fight on horseback for the right to carry a dead goat. The objective is to carry a dead animal, preferably a 30-lb. goat but anything dead of similar size will do, through a distant goal, with anywhere from 10 to a few hundred other riders trying to stop you. There are no rules, the only weapons are fists, and killing your opponents through any means other than the trampling hooves of mischance is considered poor form. I suspect the game originated with the Mongols, passed into the region by Tamerlane, and the Afghan tribes loved it. In a nod to modernity, however, buzkashi is no longer played with a severed human head.

Rory Stewart calls his book "The Places in Between." I must have it, and was surprised to see it's at the #51 sales position on Amazon. Since the Silk Road trade routes and long before, Afghanistan has been known as The Place Which Must Be Crossed, a fact of which Stewart, a former journalist and Foreign Office staffer, is well aware. It was probably one of the first places on earth to be home to caravanserai (caravan palaces) and is one of the last still ruled by tribes. Stewart had already walked through Turkey and Iran, and before crossing he promised his mother it would be his last journey, that he would come home if he didn't get killed. He describes the people of Afghanistan as "greedy, idle, stupid, hypocritical, insensitive, mendacious, ignorant and cruel," yet praises them for never attempting "to kidnap or kill me" despite representing "a culture that many of them hated." He made it out alive, still wired for adventure, and later went on to write another book, "The Prince of the Marshes: And Other Occupational Hazards of a Year in Iraq." The New York Times Book Review says of his his first work:

'The book is replete with fascinating, if fearfully context-dependent, travel tips. If you are forced to lie about being a Muslim, claim you're from Indonesia, a Muslim nation few non-Indonesian Muslims know much about. Open land undefiled by sheep droppings has most likely been mined. If you're taking your donkey to high altitudes, slice open its nostrils to allow greater oxygen flow. Don't carry detailed maps, since they tend to suggest 007 affinities. If, finally, you're determined to do something as recklessly stupid as walk across a war zone, your surest bet to quash all the inevitable criticism is to write a flat-out masterpiece. Stewart did. Stewart has. "The Places in Between" is, in very nearly every sense, too good to be true.'

What Passeth Beyond All Understanding

The level of uncertainty is now at maximum. We who hold our ears down to the iron horse's rail like Tonto can't tell what's coming because the vibrations are so long and strong we've never heard anything like them before, and can only resort for comparison to legends our grandmothers told us. For example, I feared and predicted the US would attack across the borders of Afghanistan into Pakistan, and yesterday, its fighter-bombers did. Both targets were religious schools, mashrams, where children are taught in seminary to regard the West as the enemy. Our armies, bureaucrats, and politicians consider these schools to be sources of the Taliban, the safe harbors of al-Qaeda, but our leaders are deaf to the groans, creaks, and shrieks I hear coming through the tracks. Against what's coming, there is no witch's spell which can be spoken, no guided missile which can keep our myths from being broken.

In the islamic world, these schools are part of a Great Reformation every bit as profound as what happened after Martin Luther said Christians were free to read the Bible for themselves. A hundred years of war and more were fought over that proposition, and our country is acting as if it's the Catholic Church of the 1500s. The number of dead at the schools were said to be 18 and 80, respectively, most of them children. The Western Press claimed that Pakistani jets carried out the attacks. Every Pakistani source denies that, but in the end, it doesn't matter which. This I know, the dead children's teeth were white as snow and their blood was as red as my son's. Pakistan is about to go up in Protestant coup d'etat. In my self-appointed role as Tonto, I must lift my ear and tell the Lone Ranger that what's coming is horrible and big, big, big, Ki-mo-saa-bei.

(Source for the bombing information was Mary-Louise Kelly's dispatch from Pakistan.)

Mmm, Yummy!

Looks like the Bush Family is pulling out the stops for their Christmas Gala, and this season is especially joyful for having cajoled their embittered pastry chef into ending his holdout. And my little family, watching the Today Show yesterday morning, we got to see the First Lady show off the 14-foot high tree while discussing how great it is that Iraq has a democracy. (To paraphrase John Adams: "A Republic, if you can keep it from car-bombing you or drilling holes in your head.") Here's what more of our tax dollars are wisely being invested in this holiday season:

Display of Specialty Cheeses and Winter Fruits (Served with a Bountiful Display of Lavish Specialty Crackers and Spiced Pecans).

Colossal Shrimp Cocktail and Jonah Crab Claws (Served with Ramsey’s Cocktail Sauce and Spiced Remoulade).

Stuffed Turkey Breasts with Winter Mushrooms, Cheese and Brandied Cranberries.

Sugar Cured Virginia Ham with Hot Pepper Mustard (Served with Warm Blue Corn Muffins).

Chicken Fried Beef Tenderloin with White Onion Gravy (Served with Tiny Icebox Rolls).

Herb Roasted Lollipop Lamb Chops served with Warm Yeast Rolls.

Honey Cup Mustard Sauce.

Fresh Tamales with Tomatillo Sauce and Black Beans.

Baked White Cheddar Farfalle.

Sweet Potato Soufflé.

Asparagus Tier with Lemon-Garlic Aioli.

Golden and Crimson Beet Salad with Orange, Fennel, and Feta.

Chocolate Peppermint Cookies with Peppermint Crunch.

Pecan Sandie Tree (Mexican Wedding Cookies, Russian Tea Cakes) with Layers of Cookies.

Holiday Ornamental Cookies: Barney, Miss Beazley, Christmas Trees, Snowflakes, Candy Canes.

Red Hat Box Mascarpone Cake.

White Pound Cake with Mascarpone Cream Filling, Red Marzipan Frosting and Red Ribbon Bow Decoration.

Coconut Cake.

Coconut Chiffon Cake, Coconut Pastry Cream Filling and 7 Minute Meringue Frosting.

Chocolate Roulade (Christmas Log): Soft Ganache Frosting with a Chocolate Sponge, Meringue Mushrooms, Magnolia Leaves in White Chocolate, Raspberries.

Mini Tartlettes.

Pecan Pie, Lemon Meringue Pie, Orange Chiffon and Chocolate Boston Cream Pie.

Chocolate Truffles.

Homemade, Bittersweet Chocolate Ganache.

Long Stem Strawberries with Dark Chocolate Dipping Sauce.

Warm Macintosh Apple Cobbler With Oatmeal Crumble.

Pumpkin Trifle.

Spiced Pumpkin Mousse with Whipped Cream and Shaved Dark Chocolate.

I was hoping for a Whole Roasted Elk, With Festooned Rack. Or perhaps something more exotic, like a Baked Holiday Rhino. Maybe next year, whatever. Now I know where to go dumpster diving on Christmas Morn!

Yes, America, You Can Un-Shit The Bed!

It's come to this, now: Jonathan Chait, an Establishment writer who poses as a liberal-leaning smarty-pants, and who wields his mighty pen for hoity-toity publications I've forced myself to read on occasion, has called for the return of Saddam Hussein in an LA Times Op-Ed piece:

Jonathan Chait: Bring back Saddam Hussein

Restoring the dictator to power may give Iraqis the jolt of authority they need. Have a better solution?

It goes on from there, and there is a chance he means it as a comedy piece, but I don't think so:

Restoring the expectation of order in Iraq will take some kind of large-scale psychological shock. The Iraqi elections were expected to offer that shock, but they didn't. The return of Saddam Hussein — a man every Iraqi knows, and whom many of them fear — would do the trick.

A large-scale shock. Huh. Yeah...obviously killing 600,000 thousand or so Iraqis (oh, well, who's counting?) wasn't enough to shock the benighted savages into docility. We need to bring back Saddam, who did such a good job for the CIA until he went off the farm after we attacked him. Silly bugger didn't know his place. That'll teach him to turn down Pizza Hut franchises.

Comedy or not, Chait came out and stated the perfect Companion Meme to the burgeoning "Blame The Iraqis For Their Problems Meme," currently being passed around the think tanks, which made its way through the strenuously Darwinian process of cocktail party discussions devoted to crafting the most artful mask to put on the face of massive failure. Both memes are implicit in the messages Bush and Cheney just delivered to Iraq's elected leaders (gag#bullcrap!#hack) and to interested parties in the region: "Well, old boy, if you can't govern your own people, then you shouldn't really have a government, should you? Best get cracking on the insurgency, wot-wot? Those Swiss bank accounts can be awfully dodgy, you know."

Now I'm certain the US forces are pulling out of the Sunni Triangle. Sunnis will be paid in oil for their blood, to counter the Shiite mullahcracy. The picture above is from the movie Trainspotting, when the character got wasted, slept in his girlfriend's house, and copiously lost control of his bowels during his sleep. He attempted to hide the incontinent evidence by folding up the corners of the sheets and carrying the bundle past the family in the breakfast nook. It didn't end well.

Hello Darkness My Old Friend, Pt. IV: Cheney Vs. The Iraq Study Group

Much as it may amaze, there's a place in the Blogsophere where I'm considered a cock-eyed optimist--retract your dropped jaw please. There are quite a few places, really, but the one I'm referring to is frequented by people who are still apparently quite sane: the highly professional and no-nonsense Sic Semper Tyrannis. It is run by Pat Lang, an expert on the Mid-east who had a long career in service and the business, and he has built probably the largest-caliber community for open-source military intelligence analysis on the net. The level of historical and current knowledge there can even be intimidating. Generally, the dominant opinion is that the Bush Mis-administration can't be dissuaded from staying the course, and that Jim Baker's Iraq Study Group is an exercise in futility. I don't see it that way, and below is an exchange with a sharp regular over in the comments section who goes by the handle of "Got A Watch:"

"It takes a special kind of stupidity to be GWB. You have to go above and beyond the single digit IQ to reach this state. So any who think the situation in Iraq will be resolved by this Administration need a hard reality check. The ISG Report will be worthless before it comes out of the printer."

Got A Watch @10AM:

If you're negotiating for an incompetent, it's your job to use their incompetence to advantage in facilitating a deal which makes them look and feel good. You use the areas they don't care about, or don't see, as leverage to achieve that objective, and the more bone-headed they are, the more they tend to miss. While the missed areas may be extremely important to others (let's say they're oil leases and development rights or domestic political concerns), to Bush they would be mere casualties in the greater cause of his ego fulfillment, of as little importance as lives and limbs lost by young volunteeers and older reservists.

Bush has his Destiny, and he will not deviate from it. For him to approve anything, he must be shown a quicker, preferably easier way to fulfill it, and Baker is keenly aware of that. He's not butting heads with Dubya, nor will he need to. Cheney, for example, has used Bush's divinely confident incompetence to his own advantage--to attempt to directly seize the world's greatest known oil reserves from the inside out.

The ISG plan isn't worthless. It was carefully set up to carry congressional imprimatur and to be bipartisan. The ISG's immediate aim, already half-met with the departure of Rumsfeld, is to neutralize or eliminate Cheney. That's where the head-butting is happening.

If James Baker (whose clients in this matter are the Bush Family, The Carlyle Group, The United States Establishment, and Big Oil), cannot neutralize Cheney, it means he probably cannot convince Bush to facilitate peace in the Mid-East or Christ's reign on earth through more reliance on diplomacy. If Cheney is removed as an obstacle, the true objective is much easier to realize.

So if Baker's first efforts to drive for a diplomatic solution fail, which they will, he has still successfully laid the groundwork for them abroad. Domestically, he can then go back to the impetus for the ISG and recommend a course of action to remove the necessary political roadblocks. Cheney correctly perceives himself as Baker's target; he even predicted that when and if his critics came after him, they would take Rumsfeld out first.

If I were Baker, I would make it look like it came from the Democrats.

Baker is great with the angles, and he's not the Bush Family Fixer for nothing. He is, amongst many other under-appreciated things, the man who negotiated the October Surprise with Iran, and who got the Supreme Court to name Dubya "Preznit." I'm no fan of his morals. I am a fan of his ability as a back-door operator and negotiator because he is extremely good at what he does. When the shit hits the fan for the Bush family, for the Carlyle Group, for governments and for oil companies, he has a long record of fixing it. He's the equivalent of Pulp Fiction's "Wolf," as I posted on a while back. I never thought he would be on my side, but this time he's gunning to knock out Dick Cheney, and he already got Rumsfeld. Stopping the bleeding is probably his most challenging assignment yet, but if anybody can handle Cheney, Bush, Iran, and the Mid-east, he can. He's done it before.