Iranian Developments

A short post as I prepare to get out of town for the Holidays...and a Merry Christmas to all.

The pot is coming to a boil on several fronts. The President might want to reconsider his holiday trip to Crawford...but there is little chance of that.

Iran's President continues to say nasty things about the West, although his power and influence seems to have taken a downturn in recent Iranian local elections. Iranian moderates seem to be gaining strength (again). Since, I am of the opinion that the ruling clerics tend to "approve" elections before the event, this may be a new political turning point.

Apparently, however, the U.S. Administration is not of the same inclination. In response to not getting our way at the UN or with our European partners on sanctions, we are sending a second carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf. Not sure what that really gains us, unless there is an unknown increased threat in the region. Military experts (the talking heads) seem to be of the opinion that air strikes against Iranian nuclear sites would not be successful due to their dispersion and lack of intelligence. So, the additional carrier battle group seems to do little more than provide an additional target for Iranian shore-to-ship missiles.

Curious...we won't open direct talks with them...but we'll pressure them with military force when everybody on earth understands we don't have sufficient force to make any difference? Pat Buchanan suggested that when Congress returns, the first order of business should be a resolution specifically forbidding the President from launching a war on Iran. That's something, coming from Buchanan...so I conclude there is genuine concern in Washington circles that we may attack Iran.

Hmmm? Wonder if all the discussion between Bush and his Generals is over this possibility and NOT what to do in Iraq?

An unprovoked attack on Iran...limited or otherwise, at this stage, would seem to me to lead to impeachment...and a sort of confirmation in my mind that this whole mid-east business is about Israel and Oil and not democracy and non-proliferation.

Thoughts on Iran

I've just begun to pay more attention to the "Iranian Problem," so the thoughts herein are based on my presently sketchy understanding of its history and the present situation. So, with that caveat, here goes.

Iran was, of course, historically the Persian Empire; one of the great Empires of human civilization. And, although Islamic (primarily Shites), Iranians are not Arabs and possess a long history of civilization prior to the inception of Islam. I think this history is important and it is useful to present U.S. foreign policy goals to bear this distinction in mind. In other words, Iranians are very conscious of a history prior to Mohammad.

Jumping across several thousand years of that history, Iran was in a sense also the birthplace of the Post World War II Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States emerged from WWII as the "conscious" replacement of the former European colonial powers. From a purely economical perspective, colonialism was generally a failure...to both the occupying Europeans, wherein colonies were somewhat of a status symbol, and the subjected peoples. I believe it was FDR's belief that the United States offered a "third way," beneficial to both the developed world and the former colonial world. We were, I believe, to be the "middle road" in the post war world between the former colonial powers and international communism, at that time represented by the Soviet Union.

The Russians, whose motivations ultimately proved to be more nationalistic than ideological, never left the areas it "freed" from Nazi Germany. The Yalta Conference, toward the end of the war, was not so much a "sell out" as the failure to more precisely define and agree on a post-war world. The Red Army occupied Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was not going to allow western democratic governments to emerge, no more than we would allow a radical Islamic cleric to assume control of Iraq today.

During the closing days of the war, the Russians sent the Red Army into northern Iran. At the end of the war, they began propagandizing for a post war communist government, while their tanks in northern Iran stayed in place, contrary to wartime joint planning. After a period of tension, which included additional threats and manoeuvring by both sides (including the famous Churchill "Iron Curtain" speech), they withdrew militarily, perhaps figuring what they could not win through force, they could win through subterfuge. A democratic election of sorts was eventually held and a Pro-Soviet government elected.

It is generally accepted today that the CIA intervened at this point. The elected Iranian leader was murdered and the Shah came to power.

It is important to have some understanding of what "communism" meant in the post-war era. It's success during this period was prior to the emergence of its obvious failures and it was perceived by many former "colonial subjects" from those in the Middle East to China, as "the wave of the future." Perhaps, had Roosevelt lived the Cold War would have turned out differently (not that the Russians would have taken a different course, but in the sense that had Lincoln lived Reconstruction in the South may have been more successful). I believe Roosevelt understood that the power and influence with which we emerged from the war could be used to present this "Third Way" of democratic-capitalism, that was neither old world colonialism or communism. Harry Truman, however, had traits similar to George Bush...things tended to be either "black or white." And, while I think Truman took the correct course of containment against the Soviets, we may have missed the opportunity to win the battle of propaganda in the Third World.

As a result, we have been and still are today largely identified in this Third World has the inheritors of western colonialism. There is some truth to this perception, but this isn't the purpose of this blog. The point is that when the Shah was finally overthrown by fundamentalist Islamics, which was for the most part a genuinely popular rebellion, we were already "the bad guys." The storming of our embassy and the imprisonment of its staff followed.

Reagan set the course of Iranian-U.S. relations in a promising direction. I do not remember the details of how he secured the embassy staff's release, but suspect it was indirectly related to his subsequent withdrawal from Lebanon following the attack on our Marines - as opposed to reinforcing them. And, of course, there was the Iran-Contra affair.

In Iran, between Reagan and now, moderation did in fact grow. The current Iranian political system is not unlike the Politburo of the Soviet Union. There are democratic elections held, but the candidates offerred are essentially chosen by a "committee" of religious clerics. If a "moderate" is elected as head of the Iranian government, it is a strong indication that the ruling clerics have approved his policies. Likewise if a fanatic is "elected."

At the time of 9/11, a generally moderate Iranian government was in power. The political milieu in Iran was toward reaching an accommodation with the west. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Iranians provided us with assistance in Afghanistan, allowing fly-over rights of military aircraft, putting us into contact with anti-Taliban forces within country, providing rescue operations for downed pilots, etc.

They were "rewarded" for these actions with the Bush "Axis of Evil" speech.

Apparently bewildered by this dubious distinction, and with the understanding that political leaders often say one thing to the "voters" and pursue another policy, following their inclusion in the axis of evil, and our invasion of Iraq, they tried again to open a dialogue with the U.S., suggesting in a letter forwarded through the Swiss that they were willing to continue to pursue a policy of moderation. This was apparently rejected by the newly empowered "neo-conservatives" who, in the post 9/11 period were running U.S. foreign policy.

It was only AFTER the axis of evil speech and the rejection of their suggested negotiations that the present Iranian radical President came to power...with the clerics blessings. THis is an extremely important possible "cause and effect," for the most part totally overlooked by our media.

I suspect that the Iranian clerics believe that they are "next" on the neo-con list. The fanatical pronouncements of the current Iranian President may be in the vein of "see...we can be just as ridiculous as you." But, of course, as his pronouncements gain favor with the "Iranian in the Street," his power vis a vie the clerics grows and there is an increasing risk that there is substance behind them.

This is not to say the Iranians have been "innocent victims." They have been, prior to 9/11 supporters of terrorist groups (although it is not likely that a Shite Iran supported Sunni Al Qaeda; most of the Arab world is Sunni).

And, we have been sending subtle signals that the days of the neo-cons running American foreign policy are over. Most have either left of their own accord, or been fired. [The post 9/11 story to be written is how they hijacked our policy in the aftermath of 9/11 and how they ultimately failed...thanks largely to the media, the American voter, bad policy and incompetence.]

One cannot however, expect a complete reversal of policy overnight. While I suspect that Condi Rice is busy explaining these intra government shifts to our traditional allies (I am not aware that she was a hard core neo-con), strains of this former policy remain. Bush has not renounced pre-emptive war, nor his mission from God to bring western democracy to the world, although his trip to Vietnam may have been another "signal" of an unstated policy shift.

In his current "policy re-evaluation," two outcomes would be beneficial: 1) a willingness to re-open Mid-East dialogues without pre-conditions and a renunciation, in some subtle manner, of pre-emptive war and regime change. As long as both of these elements remain part of official U.S. foreign policy, we cannot expect members of the "Axis of Evil" to abandon nuclear weapon ambitions.

In his broad attempt to reconcile foreign policy and domestic politics with national interests and security, he has failed and that failure does not make us any safer in the "war on terror."

However, mainly through his own post 9/11 errors, and even aside from domestic politics, he is stuck between the "rock and the hard place." On the one hand, direct talks with potential enemies would be advantageous; on the other hand it would convince allies that we are back to "going it alone." Our position on Iranian talks today largely mirrors our position with the other member of the axis of evil, North Korea. There is a consistent message being sent to our allies that we are returning to multi-lateral diplomacy...via the Six Party talks with North Korea and the EU/UN talks with Iran.

In resolving this dilemmia, Bush needs to study Roosevelt more than Truman. With domestic politics behind him, there is nothing that really prevents him from pursuing both approaches. Consistency, it is said and certainly FDR understood this, is the "hobgoblin of little minds." In my opinion, he could open direct talks through the medium of multi-lateral negotiations, with the understanding that agreements reached through direct talks would require the approval of the others involved in the multi-lateral talks.

Admitting that neo-cons hi-jacked our foreign policy is a more difficult task. PErhaps the best he could do in this area, short of my suggested "Pray at the Lincoln Memorial for forgiveness," is simply to state in his forthcoming speech on Iraq that after his review of the situation he has found errors in BOTH tactics and strategy and that he is seeking to correct both. Then, stop talking about his "mission from God," emphasis the differences in the Islamic world, and explain "pre-emptive war" not as policy, but soley in the sense of "last ditch defense." In other words, he can admit the Iraq failure (of policy) without saying as much and taking a new direction. In a sense, even if the "mission was wrong," it has been accomplished. There are no WMD in Iraq and we have secured regime change. The rest, he must emphasis, is up to the Iraqi people. Remaining in Iraq in force requires two elements: 1) the continued desire of the Iraqi people to have us there and 2) our desire to remain there. The latter should be based on our preception of genuine progress toward a reasonably stable democracy, which as a minimum ensures the basic rights of the minority...period.

As a final "aside," I regretably believe that such a stance will only provide a "way out." As noted in my comments re. the Iraq Study Group, I believe it may be "too late." Too much damage has already been done and the only long term solution may be through another form of containment for fundamentalist Islam (with the exception of genuine attacks such as the Al Qaaeda attack on 9/11; Bin Laden remains at large...which is perhaps the single greatest proof of current policy failure).

More in a following post over the next few days.

Odds and Ends

THE SWIFT RAIDS

Hyrum, Utah in Cache Valley was one of the locations of the targeted INS raids this week. It would be interesting to know the degree of Swift's complicity and what they were paying the people arrested. I am beginning to think that the best way to combat illegal immigration is through "direct action" - i.e. boycott the employers caught. That will hurt them worse than any government imposed fine. In Swift's case, it may be premature until we learn more of the details...but I may call for that within a few days herein.

TACO BELL

A foot note to the corrupted food scandals of late. Can't remember details, but heard on C-SPAN that the FDA has reduced their food inspections from 34,000 to 13,000 over the last six years, due to budget cut-backs. Will try and confirm this with an internet search.

BUSH SPEECH DELAY

Seems like it is taking Bush longer to decide what to do next in Iraq longer than it took him to decide to invade. If the military turns out to be in as bad a shape as I think it may be, that could be "grounds" for impeachment. Unconsciencable to be giving tax breaks to the wealthy, while short-changing U.S. forces in harm's way. May not quite be "treason," but certainly should constitute a "misdomeanor."

Along same lines, listened to argument between CNN White House correspondent and Tony Snow (appropriate to call him "The Snow Man"?). Subject was the Oregon Senator who changed positions on the War...Republican Senator, who said actions in Iraq may be "criminal." First time I've heard that from any elected representative, save perhaps,John Conyers. Snow's reply was "that's ridiculous...how can anybody say it's criminal?" How about "criminal negligence?"

Bush has worked his way into a corner and is pretty much damned if he does; damned if he doesn't." The perception that drastic change is required also admits no one has been minding the store. Also, since the Administration has been fond of reminding us at every possible chance that "we're a nation at war," can't blame it all on a wayward Secretary of Defense...there is that old adage about "war being too important to be left to the generals"...and cabinet officers.

LET THEM EAT CAKE STORY

Four women (including Laura Bush) show up at White House Reception wearing same red dress...at $8,500 a copy.

MISSED OPPORTUNITY

The Gore film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Good facts and figures, but it could have had a lot more scenes with a lot more experts, less Al Gore. And, we could have done without the "I invented Global Warming" bit, on how he became interested, the story about his boy's accident, his loss in Florida in 2000, etc. So, although the film delivered "basically" a good, solid message, one of the "Inconvenient Truths" is that Gore is obviously running for President again in 2008. He would have made the same point without all of the Gore ego stuff.

PBS STORY ON INCOME INCREASES

Over last six years, income for 90% of households rose 2% (i.e. not quite keeping up with inflation). For top 1%, it increased 57%. For top 0.1% it increased 112%...hence creating a market for $8,500 dresses. Am thinking that we now need another Jefferson, who greeted foreign ambassadors in his PJs.

Republicans have two years to end the war in Iraq and convince American voters that they care for more than tax cuts for the wealthy. Otherwise, things are going to be worse in 2008 than they were in 2006. Might help them if they could get Bush to walk, shirtless from the White House to the Lincoln Memorial, flaying his back with branches and praying for forgiveness and fasting for three days at the feet of the Great Emancipator. Hmmmm? Might get his approval rating back above 30%.

More on the ISG Report

On the day following the Report's release, things don't look good for either Bush or Congress' acceptance of its provisions...largely due to the very aspect the Group warned against...partisan politics.

One event may serve as an example. I listened this morning to an MSNBC report regarding the Group's Co-Chairman's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator McCain was skeptical, implying the Report called for withdrawal of combat forces, when he has been calling for increases. Baker spoke up and noted to McCain that that was not what the report called for; in fact it suggested an increase in the U.S. forces in Baghdad by some 20,000, if that is what the commander's on the ground requested. This is virtually the "exact" policy McCain has been endorsing. But apparently, neither McCain or the MSNBC reporter had read the report, for the reporter concluded that McCain was upset with the report "because it called for the removal of all combat forces."

Thus, "politics" and the media penchant to encourage polarization of all issues, for the sake of entertainment, if not national security, takes apparent precedence over the substance of the report itself.

The report, on this point, says both. It foresees a temporary increase in U.S. force levels to restore stability in Baghdad, thus LEADING to a responsible withdrawal of most combat forces in the Spring of 2008. It does not mandate this withdrawal, but qualifies such on two counts: 1) the usual "conditions on the ground," and 2) the necessary forces that would be required to protect the thousands of U.S. forces who would be involved in training the Iraq Army and who would remain as long as necessary. There is no time table or withdrawal date for ALL forces. McCain and MSNBC have misinterpreted the report.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the President was having his own communication problems with his friend Tony Blair. Their joint press conference reminded me of two friends trying to "tip toe" around their disagreements for fear of offending one another. [Prediction: UK forces in Iraq will be gone within six months of Blair's own departure from UK government...probably by the end of 2007...coupled with the Pole and Italian withdrawals...we'll be down to just about Bush and Barney...and maybe six or seven Latvians and Estonians, plus Dick.]

The message thus far is clear (although its a bit early for final judgment). The President does not see his actions (or lack thereof) in Iraq as part of a failed policy; rather, he sees them as a failure of initial intelligence and subsequent competence in execution.

It's time for someone other than God or Richard Cheney to whisper in his ear. "Unless, Mr. President, you want to restore the draft, triple the defense budget and raise taxes, the country does not want you pursuing a confrontational course around the world in pursuit of turning it into a reflection of American democracy."

One of the major problems of the President is that he seems incapable of putting himself in his opponent's shoes and apparently believes that being "decisive" is the same as being "right." This is the same craziness that has come out of "business literature" and more than a few business schools, for the past twenty years. You may find George Bush thinking in books such as "Reengineering the Corporation" and "If It Ain't Broke; Fix It." And, it's largely the "cult of personality" over that of substance.

I think George Bush really thinks he can "will" success in Iraq, if he is just resolute and unwavering in his course...whatever that may be. This colors everything about his Presidency, particularly his foreign policy.

The stance that "we won't talk to you unless you first do as we say," is infantile and the stance of a bully. It is also the stance of someone with far more military power than that possessed by Bush. From the beginning, I have thought the Bush rhetoric never matched his resources. And, the last three years in Iraq have only further weakened those resources. The limited number of troops and equipment we devoted to Iraq were all predicated on a short war, followed by "privatizing" as much of the aftermath as possible. Today, there are some 5,000 plus American subcontractor personnel in Iraq, employing as many as 100,000 employees (Iraqis and others), most doing tasks normally accomplished by military forces. We fought Afghanistan largely by proxy (the Northern Alliance) and with private contractors. Indeed, treatment of the military has basically followed the same direction as the Administration's approach to the rest of federal government...privatize as much as possible.

In nation-building, which is essentially what Bush is advocating, all of the military technology in the world will not substitute for boots on the ground. You can't build schools and hospitals or protect neighborhoods from insurgents with "smart bombs." Privatization isn't effective because it introduces the "doing good for profit" motive and potential corruption on a major scale. If you scratch the surface, this Administration generally equates "patriotism with profit."

Our ability to remain a "super-power" with a downsized military, based on high tech, rests fundamentally on one factor, in cases of potential large scale conflicts, we possess effective tactical nuclear weapons and have never renounced our use of them.

Without tactical nuclear weapons, the North Korean Army could probably overrun the 20,000-30,000 U.S. troops and South Korean Army in a matter of days. Without tactical nuclear weapons, our 145,000 troops in Iraq, next door to the hostile Iranians, would be in an untenable situation.

So, for a moment, let's put ourselves in our enemy's shoes (or play devil's advocate). Our possession of sophisticated tactical nuclear weapons and an understanding that, if necessary, they would be used, is what allows the Bush Administration to pursue an aggressive and military-oriented foreign policy. And, the "Axis of Evil" knows it. From their perspective that is as good as any reason for them to reject the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Only, by developing a nuclear weapon capability of their own do they ensure their own sovereignty against a potential U.S. attack. Given that the Bush Administration is openly pursuing a "crusade against tyrants and evil doers," which includes pre-emptive war, what would you as a tyrant and evil doer do? Build nuclear weapons.

That we went into Iraq supposedly based on the threat of "imminent attack" (which, incidentally, NO ONE outside of a handful within the Administration believed was imminent) and that intelligence has subsequently been shown to have been false, undoubtedly only solidified North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions. It would not take much to convince them that the only reason we invaded Iraq was either 1) because we knew Hussein did NOT yet have nuclear weapons or 2) if it was a genuine mistake, the same could happen to them without a nuclear deterrent.

Deterrence is a concept we never hear discussed as a possible motivation for the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapon development. Yet, such deterrence was undoubtedly the case of such development in Pakistan, India and Israel, and quite possibly in China. We hear arguments such as "bargaining chip" in the case of North Korea, or an expression of nationalistic Islamic power in the case of Iran. But, nothing on deterrence.

The absence of this discussion within the United States is remarkable in that the entire Cold War with the Soviet Union was based on such deterrence. Indeed, the perception that both the Soviet Union and the United States possessed sufficient nuclear weapons to ensure the destruction of the other is generally considered a prime factor, if not THE prime factor, in keeping the Cold War cold.

Looking back on American post WWII foreign policy, from the perspective of the "Axis of Evil," it would not be an unfounded conclusion that had the radical right of the Republican Party been in control of the American political system in post WWII era and in the absence of Soviet/Chinese nuclear deterrents, the United States may have well used their nuclear capability against the Soviet Union and China in various Eastern Europe and Far Eastern post war confrontations (Berlin, Hungry, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam).

And, as noted previously in this blog, the neo-cons are the descendants of the same Republican radical right who advocated the roll-back of communism in Eastern Europe and China and toyed with the idea of offering France nuclear weapon support at Dien Bin Phu, in 1954, against the Viet Minh. As long as the United States possesses a sizable nuclear weapon deterrent of its own and does not renounce its use, what possible assurances can we give "rouge states" such as Iran and North Korea that we will not use such weapons against them, whenever WE decide its necessary?

Having been branded as enemies of the United States as part of the Axis of Evil by an Administration publicly announcing a "roll-back" composed of democratic nation-building, utilizing pre-emptive war, the leaders of these states would be crazy NOT to develop nuclear weapons.

And, then, there is Israel. By the best accounts, the Israelis possess between 200 and 300 nuclear weapons. The reason they developed these weapons is obvious. They are surrounded by peoples who want to destroy them, do not recognize their existence, and have virtually indefensible borders in case of a large scale and effective ground attack. The anti-Israel posture of the Arab in the Street is largely promoted by Arab regimes who wish to sustain their own power through keeping their populations focused on the "enemy" of Israel. The entire Middle Eastern Arab world is a rather tenuous proposition barely held together by hatred of Jews and the sale of Oil.

The West vacillates between a moral commitment to Israel and the need for oil. The "idea" of Iraq as an opportunity to "crack" this stand-off through the creation of a stable, democratic state wasn't bad in itself...aside from ignoring the reality of a thousand years or so of history and the inevitability of becoming, in the minds of the Arab in the Street, the Christian invaders. Regional Arab and Muslim power still revolves around hatred of Israel, even if it is for little more than "playing to the crowd." And, nationally-oriented Mullahs are going to prove infinitely more difficult to deal with than Saudi Princes, Egyptian dictators, or genocidal Saddam Hussein's. In fact, aside from the Israeli problem, they may actually want to keep more of their oil revenue rather than recirculate their petro dollars into western investments.

To sum this point, basically Western Middle East policy has been based on the following proposition toward Middle Eastern regimes: "We buy your oil, allow your regimes to exist and, in return, you don't let the anti-Israel play in the streets get out of hand and keep oil prices to a level that won't drive western economies into bankruptcy."

All of this has now been upset. Failure in Iraq wasn't the only factor, but it didn't help. We allowed the Islamic fundamentalists to fill a vacuum, one that now threatens to plunge the entire region into, at best, growing civil/religious unrest and, at worst, war.

I seriously doubt there is anything we can really do effectively against the religious fervor beginning to sweep the region. God, or Allah, knows we've done enough on that score. The trick is to provide safety for Israel and keep the oil flowing at a reasonable price, in the midst of a massive power shift that began with the downfall of the Shah and the murder of Anwar Sadat in Egypt.

Aside from 9/11, almost irrespective of 9/11, we are in the worst of environments...market wise. We are faced with Middle Eastern oil dependence in a market of declining resources and greater demand (thanks to the end of communism and globalization). [Note: I do not mean to say 9/11 was unimportant; very little could be more important. But, I do see 9/11 as a smaller scale problem, only indicative of the larger problem. As previously discussed, in my opinion, the proper response to 9/11 was the pursuit of Al Qaeda and the capture of Bin Laden, rather than the invasion of Iraq.]

I'll try and address how we might get through this transition in my next post.

The Iraq Study Group Report: Closing Pandora's Box

I've just finished reading about one half of the Iraq Study Group Report, which includes the Executive Summary and the Group's assessment of the present situation and problems. The remainder of the report concerns the seventy some recommendations. I'll wade through those in the next few days, but media analysis seems to have summarized the recommendations pretty well (after my own quick skim).

My first impression is that whereas my last post concerned Rumsfeld's "Too Little; Too late" memo, the Study Group's report isn't "too little," but probably "too late." It's thoughtful, reasonable and fairly comprehensive, and is the type of "post invasion plan," the country (Iraq and ours) needed three years ago. However, as things stand now, I tend to think that future policy will have to be driven not by wisdom or logic, but the unfolding events in the streets of Baghdad.

This is not to say that its recommendations should not be tried. Its a reasonable plan, with more insight than the Administration has produced in three years, with its largely vaguely goal of "staying until we win" or more recent Democratic "panic moments" that suggest withdrawing to Okinawa. But, in sum, I would give its chances for success, at this point, about the same percentage as those Americans who still support the war...30%.

So, why? Three major assumptions for success in the report are all unlikely to be achieved: a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute; some sort of regional cooperation on Iraqi stability; and the Iraqis themselves standing up for a basically secular, democratic system. None are likely, in my opinion, to be realized.

Fear is a motivation that almost instinctively "kicks-in" with the human species when its survival is threatened. Reasoned debate, civil rights, etc. do not do well in a state of fear (as Karl Rove proved in the elections of 2002 and 2004). If the American electorate was willing to turn away from these necessary prerequisites of democracy in the post 9/11 period, what makes us think the Iraqis will turn toward these prerequisites today? The more probable course is that the sectarian violence will run its course, the Sunnis will ultimately lose and that Iraq will become effectively partitioned (the Kurds in the north; the Shites in Baghdad and the south and east; the Sunnis isolated and powerless in the western province of Anbar). Perhaps, the best that may be achieved is a continuing, but extremely weak central government, kept together by an understanding by all Iraqi factions that such is preferable to a physical partition - i.e. the division of the country among its neighbors.

In the meantime, things are likely to simply continue to be brutal. One noteworthy fact in the report was that approximately 2.0 million Iraqis have already fled the country since the invasion and that many of these people (primarily Sunnis) were the backbone of the former Iraqi infrastructure. With this component of the population largely gone, Iraqi seems destined for internal chaos, religious war and the emergence of a new society of some sort over the next several generations.

The Iraq Study Group report may be more important for domestic politics than for anything it may accomplish in Iraq itself. Without pointing fingers, it chronicles the remarkable ineptitude of both policy and policy execution of the Bush Administration. Basically and very, very obviously, this is an Administration that had to be "bailed out." In 20-30 years, when the histories of this period are written, I think the general consensus will be that in the aftermath of 9/11, a "know-nothing, intellectually-challenged President," elected almost entirely on the basis of greed and fear, turned to a small radical group of neo-cons who temporarily derailed 50 some odd years of successful bi-partisan American foreign policy. And, that only their bumbling and incompetence saved us from worse.

Basically...and call it what you will, globalization, free trade, American democracy, God's Will, etc., that failed policy posed the future of the country as one of "Empire." At least, that was most of the world's perception. Afghanistan was good, old-fashioned revenge, which no one was prepared to deny us following 9/11. Iraq was aggression and Imperial ambition, which even if you agreed with it, was far, far beyond our scope and resources.

I'd like to explore all of that in future posts, but the immediate question is how will the President respond to the report? I think that he's largely been "boxed in." There are too many problems at home (foremost being homeland security) to be embarking on some "world mission." I suspect this is the consensus of "the wise men" of the Study Group, including the President's father and newly appointed Defense Secretary Gates. Rather than be driven by unreasonable White House policies and ambitions, I believe, Gates would simply resign and that resignation would be to Bush, what the firing of Archibald Cox (and the Saturday Night Massacre) was to Nixon...the beginning of impeachment.

Bush is being essentially told, "you either 'get it' or you get out."

And, broadly, in its emphasis on a return to multi-lateral diplomacy, the withdrawal of combat forces, etc. there is the underlying message of the report that neo-con influence is dead. Perhaps, that will be its greatest accomplishment...a return to sanity and a backing away from an abyss to which we came as close to as any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Rumsfeld Memo: Fired for Not Staying the Course or Too Little, Too Late

The recently leaked Rumsfeld Memo, with its admission that things were not going as planned in Iraq and offering a check list of possible changes is interesting, not so much in its contents, as in who leaked it and why?

The purpose of the leak and its origin are curious. Given the fact that the Memo was written on November 6th, the election was November 7th, and the Rumsfeld departure announced on November 8th, the purpose in leaking it now seems to serve only one of three possible motivations. 1) It's a "school-boyish" attempt by Rumsfeld himself, to show: "Gee...see, I really was thinking about these things." I discount that, because as much as I believe Rumsfeld had a tendency for detachment, I've never believed he was a complete idiot.

2) The State Department leaked it to show how little attention Iraq was really getting in Washington, if not in Iraq itself, the international community, the world press, and the mind of the American voter. My first reaction, after reading it, was: "Good Grief! These guys weren't discussing these possibilities until November 6th?" However, although this might be a probable source and motivation in the Powell State Department, I don't see the Rice State Department as the source of the leak.

This leaves me with 3) the White House, with the motivation suggested in the title: Was it leaked to show that on the day before the election, Rumsfeld's second thoughts were "too little, too late," as confirmed by the election results or was it a reminder to the Baker-Hamilton Commission and the forth coming, internal Pentagon re-evaluation, that those who suggest something other than staying the course are "history."

Which of the two motivations you choose depends to some degree on how you perceive the President. There is a saying about there being no worse a fanatic than a convert. Bush was, and perhaps still is, despite some "window dressing," a convert to the neo-conservative cause in foreign policy. In this interpretation, as a convert, the President has been "unfazed" by the clamor for a policy change, and remains on the "staying the course" trajectory. After all, who are we compared to a "message from God?" Leaking the memo was to show there is no future in this Administration, or in independent commissions, for the faint at heart and it's "staying the course," or get off the boat. But this interpretation suggests that Bush is more an "ideologue" and insane than I think he is. The neo-con conversion was "real" as long as it worked and allowed him to do what he wanted to do anyhow...sort of like the CEO who brings in outside consultants to justify his own behavior. So, I am going to opt for the second, "too little, too late" motivation.

The White House leak (if that's the source) with the too little, too late motivation falls in line with an understanding of the President as essentially a spoiled rich kid, who has inherited the family store and thinks he can run it because he has an MBA from Harvard. In this mode, he operates through staff, not through public opinion polls, the media, elections or anything else that might actually sway a true politician. He assigns responsibility and depends upon that person to carry the ball; in this case, Rumsfeld.

There are two factors, in this "CEO/Chairman of the Board scenario," that lead to "firing." The first has to do with the CEO's boss, the stockholders. If the stockholders (read the American voter) determine that a change of course is necessary, it's because the person appointed responsibility for that aspect of the business didn't get the job done. So, it's a question of, in this case, firing Rumsfeld or Bush resigning as CEO. The second factor is a nuance, connected to the first - i.e. the CEO/Chairman will support the person responsible only up to the point wherein that person shows strength and resolution, without self-doubt. The Rumsfeld Memo, coming a day before the "stockholders" voted, showed "self-doubt" and was a disservice to the Board, in being "too little, too late."

I would suggest that had the election gone the way the White House wanted and the Rumsfeld Memo had not been written, the President would be staying the course, not only in Iraq, but with Rumsfeld as well. I also suspect that Mr. Bush spoke the truth some weeks prior to the election in giving Rumsfeld his support and saying to reporters that he expected Rumsfeld to remain as Secretary of Defense for the remainder of his term. In other words, he lied about the lie.

So...we have a President with mediocre intelligence and intellectual interest, put into office because of his name and slick marketing, and who otherwise would have done well to become Commissioner of Major League Baseball. This is compounded by the fact that he seems to compensate for these faults by being stubborn...staying the course, for fear of admitting error and showing his obvious weaknesses, of which he is probably painfully aware.

Were he the CEO/Chairman of a large corporation, the stockholders would by now have insisted on his removal. Had he been on the ticket in November, he would have been "fired."

At the moment, I concur with the Democratic decision not to pursue impeachment. However, that decision may change depending upon the revelations of the forth coming congressional investigations. If "war is the continuance of politics by other means," impeachment is, similarly, the continuance of politics by other means. Or, in corporate terms, think of it as buying out his contract. Democrats would be wise not to take this course unless they are assured of the votes, which at the moment they are far, far from having. But, suppose the situation in Iraq worsens. Suppose the brutal "choice" becomes either getting our current troops out safely immediately or re-establishing the draft and sending 500,000 more troops into a situation that no one believes may be resolved in our national interest for several decades, if ever. And, suppose this is coupled with a series of "scandals" regarding Iraqi oil and government contracting in Iraq. Even if the President himself is not seen as being personally involved, "incompetence" may become grounds for impeachment.

I hope this is not the course of things to come. My personal feelings and votes in 2000 and 2004 have been vindicated pretty much by events. And, although I did not support Bush Junior or the vast majority of his policies, including the Iraqi invasion, I recognize that he is my President as well as those who have supported him. And, at this point, regardless of policies, an impeachment movement would almost certainly be linked to a dramatic rise in U.S. troop casualties in Iraq; that is foremost in my mind concerning Mr. Bush's future. So, I "hope" for a different outcome, other than the one which, in my mind, seems probable. But, we must all begin asking ourselves the question of whether U.S. forces are now dying in Iraq, not because of just the wrong policy, but for the "legacy" of an elected official who simply can't admit he's been wrong. And, if I come to that conclusion, I'd impeach him tomorrow.