21st Century America is a Debt Nation.

Debt was our largest commodity. On the global market, we sold trillions of it. It was our biggest export.

It has also been the fiber of our soul.

When war came knocking, we spent rather than sacrifice. When the bill for that spending came due, we just put it on credit. When hard decisions demanded we engage our enemies in more than a shouting match, we fumbled every time rather than swallow our pride and muster our allies.

Criticisms, we just dealt with later. Problems, we ignored rather than address in the misbelief that recognizing them causes them. And as for changing our profligate, arrogant ways, we just kept on casting support behind people that gave us a spoonful of “values” solutions, rather than the sour medicine we needed.

The result is a trillion-dollar war without end. The result is a plummeting strategic power abroad. The result is this credit crisis, where we see hapless Americans’ hard-edged support of the “free market” coming back to cut their throats and leave them to bleed out with their houses and families falling around them.

So today, the buck was passed to Congress. Business had failed. The voters had failed. Only Congress could stand up and affect a change – steer hard in the proper direct no matter the political cost, and get the entire world’s capital moving again.

Instead, Congress passed the buck back.

Afraid of offending the voters they had stunned on free market Kool-Aid over too these black and ignorant years, the House rejected their leadership and blew the bailout.

Well, sorry, America, but the buck stops with you. And right now, it’s not moving. Anywhere.

The Dow has plummeted 600 points in less than an hour. It keeps falling and falling. And already, Europe and Asia are going to be nationalizing banks. The whole world’s turning Commie – turning inwards; going Red.

All because, for too long, we’ve been yellow.

It’s time to start paying our due. It looks like it’s going to be done the hard way.

Keith Olbermann presented Obama’s FISA vote choices in a positive light in his latest Special Comment:

Either option is fine by me, given that neither option sees a piece of legislation that is, in essence, retroactive legitimacy for law-breaking – so long as Obama becomes President, that is. But then, so much of the healing this nation needs depends on that.

By popular demand, I’m covering the surprising revelation that the Democratic Congress has outbid not only the usually venal, poll-steered White House, but the GOP as well, when it comes to immigration enforcement.

Homeland Security budget bill now moving through the House Appropriations Committee specifies that at least $800 million be spent after Oct. 1 to identify and remove the most violent and dangerous criminals from the U.S. And Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) is expected to take an even more aggressive approach Wednesday in his own plan, adding more money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations within Homeland Security.

In short, the Dems are plotting a pretty politically safe course in addressing one of the illegal immigration problems – they’re going after those who’re actually known to have committed crimes.

Does an infusion of tax dollars address what a deportation effort needs? Yes, according to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement responsible:

Homeland Security officials say any long-term solution rests on investing in new technologies and improved interoperability to give ICE a virtual presence throughout prisons and jails nationwide.

Is the Democrat solution more than what the GOP was doing, though? Yes; vastly more.

…after the new Democratic Congress added $200 million to the agency’s 2008 budget for this purpose, the White House didn’t continue the funding…

Comparatively speaking, the Democrats have been worlds better than the GOP on immigration enforcement.

In 2003, 445 worksite enforcement arrests of illegal immigrants were made. In 2007, there were 4,077. In 2006, the last year of the GOP Congress, j”ust 67,000 illegal immigrants had been charged for deportation; by 2007 that number had doubled to 164,000, and the goal is to begin proceedings for 200,000 persons this year.”

In short, prior to the Democratic takeover of Congress, immigration law enforcement was a travesty. Now it is approaching effective on some areas like deportation. But the resources are still far below adequate to address even that:

…ICE estimates that it would require between $2.1 billion and $3.4 billion each year to remove all illegal immigrants convicted of crimes…

That is deemed an “impossible” sum. It is a hefty price tag, after all.

But it is also the amount of money spent on Iraq in a single week.

It is sometimes easy to do the right thing at the right time; it is a different thing altogether to do the right thing when it’s the wrong time, the inconvenient time, the hard time. The notion of sacrificing for one’s values is the foundation of proving one’s values. From the classic example of Abraham and Isaac, to the modern famous figures of Pat Tillman and Rachel Corrie, it’s when values are held to be more important than one’s life that they take on the aura of immortality. Now the Congress has another opportunity to prove that America’s values of declaring for human rights conquer convenience and transcend the concerns of the moment.

This opportunity is a measure recognizing the Armenian Genocide – the massacre and expulsion of up to 1.5 million Armenians, and at least 300,000 Armenians, by the Ottoman Empire, predecessor to the modern state of Turkey. Just to be clear, recognizing this genocide isn’t like believing in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: It is well-documented, with some survivors around to this very day, and has been acknowledged as a genocide by most of the civilized world. Despite its obviousness, the USA has consistently refused to call it a genocide.

The reason why is because Turkey might, under some international law, be held responsible for the human rights violations. This may mean, at least on a small scale, reparations. It would certainly mean greater – and due – attention paid to their ancestor’s barbarities. And Turkey is, in the words of President Bush, a vital ally:

“This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror,” Bush said at the White House before the vote.

The bulk of supplies for troops in Iraq pass through Turkey’s Incirlik airbase, and Turkey provides thousands of truck drivers and other workers for U.S. operations in Iraq. Supplies also flow from that base to troops in Afghanistan.

As a consequence, all resolutions for the USA to officially recognize the genocide have been killed by Republican-dominated Congresses. Now, with the Democrats in charge, the measure goes to a vote. It seems an intriguing coincidence that Turkey, just yesterday, resumed talking about their military invading northern Iraq.

This is undoubtedly a hard time to stand for our principles – that we will not hesitate to confront injustice with censure. It is most likely that, as I noted in my remarks about Ahmadinejad, speaking with civility and candor will not lead to greater conflict, but towards resolving it. Still, the possibility that Turkey will be provoked to incendiary activity in this potentially explosive region remains.

We should set that concern aside. We need to be ready to abandon comfort for principle, not principle for comfort. We expect it of our troops abroad. We should give them no less in return.

The New York Times announced yesterday that two more legal opinions written by the Bush Administration Justice Department endorsed the legality of certain forms of torture by deciding they did not constitute actual “torture” under international laws. Both of these memos from Attorney General Gonzales came after the White House declaration renouncing torture, which itself only came after the Abu Ghraib scandals. Congressional Democrats have already begun plotting an investigation into these memos, surely sending some weary of these hearings into groans.

I sympathize. But at the heart of most of these investigations is a serious wrong decision and a flat refusal by the Administration to provide evidence and be held accountable for it. The problem isn’t so much that Congress keeps launching these annoying investigations, it’s that the Administration keeps doing these bad things. Complaining about Congress’ investigations is like an insubordinate child stamping their feet about their parents being too strict: If you didn’t break the rules in the first place, little Jimmy, we all wouldn’t have to waste so much time making you sit in the corner.

The White House has already replied that “it is a policy of the United States that we do not torture,” but this is just as juvenile as formulation. Bill Clinton may have inspired the world to collectively roll its eyes when he argued what the definition of “is” is, but the Bush Administration has anybody with an eye on them staring in shocked horror when at their definition of torture:

…torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death

Under that definition, practically any torture technique – including most employed by the Hussein regime and Iran – is not “torture”. And so, under that definition, White House spokesperson Dana Perino is right – the United States does not torture. That is why, as these newly revealed memos show, the Justice Department issued specific instructions in 2005, after a public renunciation of torture:

The new opinion…provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

As any thug-in-the-know will inform you, “head-slapping” is not so “domestic incident” as all that – it refers to a technique of constantly knocking a victim about the head to keep them disoriented and off balance. And perhaps that still sounds benign when inflicted on a grizzled martyr for Osama’s cause, but the sad fact is that isn’t exclusively who we’re interrogating. If we knew who those targets were, we wouldn’t have to interrogate anyone – we could just lock them all away and be done with it. Instead, we sweep up detainees for interrogation with what information we’re provided, which is initially pretty sparse – grabbing everyone in the immediate vicinity of an attack that owns a black Honda if the attack involved a black Honda, for instance.

The point, at this point, is only partly the end result of this kind of policy. That’s a tragic equation to be sure – detentions plus legalized torture equals innocent people tortured in mass numbers. The other significant point of this seesaw on torture policy is that it’s another sickening indication that the Administration can’t be held accountable.

During the years of the Republican-led Congress, any and all attempts to investigate the torture memos, the domestic surveillance program and the use of Private Military Contractors were so thoroughly quashed that a casual observer from the citizenry would hardly know they had been issues. Now that the Democrats are in control, we have hearings, but hearings with ignored subpoenas and direct orders from the White House not to comply that go unchallenged.

Perhaps the Congress is making some headway – some slow, rather vague headway. Most certainly, they are exhausting our patience. But at least the facts they are bringing to light are also exhausting what false pretension to competence and nobility the Administration maintains.

Other highlights to the Blackwater hearings came when the State Department – which was even more evasive and unprepared than Blackwater – took the stand. They include:

* Claiming there was enough State Department oversight, even though there have been no investigations into over one hundred incidents of violence. Why? “There was no reason to look into them.”

* Completely dodging anything to do with the event when a Blackwater guard, drunk, shot the Iraqi VP’s bodyguard, and was shipped out of the country immediately and the bodyguard’s family paid off on the recommendations of the State Department, save to say it was, “following proper procedures.”

* Having absolutely no documents whatsoever that pertained to any investigations, cover-ups or expenditures from 2004 onwards, but could state definitely that there was a proper analysis of candidates for Blackwater’s “sole source”, noncompetitive contract.

The hearings closed with a fitting note, after the State Department reps were thanked for their time. The Chairman of the Committee summed this situation up as “paying more and getting less,” and pointed out the reason why we’re hearing that.

He noted that now, Congress members from both sides of the aisle are expressing concern and looking into this matter. Yet in the years before, these investigations never even happened, and those that called for them were derided as shameless, even treasonous, political shills. That difference is, to me, inescapable, and says much about the personal and collective character of the party that did all it could to cover up this mess, at the expense of so much for so long.

To the credit of this hearing, numerous proposals to fix the situation were mentioned: A bill to establish a functional mechanism of US legal oversight for PMC operations abroad; a bill to “safely phase out” private security operations in the combat zone; a bill to audit the PMCs more aggressively. Though the leadership in Congress has been thoroughly disappointing, something may come of this. At least now they have a chance, and people will hear about them as solutions to a real problem, rather than the political slander from a leftist conspiracy – unless those people are getting their news from the AM band.

“It seems to me that fiscal Conservatives should be most horrified by this,” were the words from a Congressman speaking when I tuned in to the hearing. And yet, such was not to be. From that point, we began to hear the evidence that supported this opening statement. By the end, one got the impression evidence was beside the point of this evidentiary hearing.

As the hearing progressed, numbers were laid out by the irked Congressman:

A platoon leader in Blackwater – head of a 34 man team – makes double the tax-free salary Petraeus does. Each Blackwater operative costs at least 6 times as much as an American soldier. The Blackwater contract for 2006, entered as $300 million to begin with, has surpassed half a billion in charges to the government.

Blackwater’s CEO, Erik Prince, countered that Blackwater makes no more than 10.4% profit. But that’s a deceptive indicator. Company profit isn’t at issue. Overbilling is not counted as profit. Executive salaries are not counted as profit. Expansion of liquid holdings and material assets is not counted as profit. In fact, these factors reduce reported profits – they’re “costs” – while vastly increasing the worth of the company and of its executive’s personal coffers. When viewing the gains of contractors, one has to dismiss the notion that “profit” is the objective. Growth is the objective. If anything, large profit margins are antithetical to what they seek to achieve – the acquisition of more work and the distribution of higher salaries.

Then the politics began. A Congresswoman used her time to fume at Prince that Blackwater was doing a job that the military should be, inspired by the situation of not having enough troops. Considering that the Rumsfeld Pentagon was appointed for the primary purpose of creating such a situation – low investment in manpower, high in munitions – I think this is a resolved argument. She exhausts her time with hollering, and we then move on.

The next politician, tag-teaming with Prince, tells a glowing history of how independent security has been around since “the dawn of the Republic.” This is a terrific distortion. There’s been no time in American history when so many mercenaries have been employed with so much firepower in so dangerous a situation with so little – read: no – legal accountability. He then launches into how this is all a smear campaign by Democrats against a Republican contributing company.

The next Congressman – I’m guessing one of those Democrats – talks about how Blackwater’s employ of Special Forces soldiers is basically like the Navy bidding against itself: The Navy trains them, then buys back their training at three to six times the price. More numbers are discussed about the cost-effectiveness of this, which is the stated purpose of this hearing. That purpose doesn’t float.

“Let me explain why you are here,” says the next Congressman. “There is a party in Congress that doesn’t like when companies show a profit.” He goes on to repeat that this is not about Blackwater’s performance, which he calls “a fine job,” but about how the Democrats are working towards their goal of “the distribution of wealth, so that the worth of the earners can be given to the takers of this nation.” The rest of his time extolls Blackwater’s job of protecting Americans abroad.

Next comes the legal issue. A Congressman tries to pin down Prince on what laws he’s accountable to. He asks whether Prince is subject to the uniform code of military justice. Prince says he abides by it. This is not true. Prince is then asked whether his company is accountable under war zone law. Again, he isn’t; it’s not a war, it’s a “contingency operation.” Prince is then asked if he could be held accountable under war crimes acts. If he’s operating without the presence of the military, or employing foreign nationals rather than just Americans, it wouldn’t apply. Prince says he’s “not a lawyer,” and then gives evidence to the contrary by saying he couldn’t say if either conditions were met. Therefore, we’re to gather that he doesn’t know whether his people work out of the presence of the military or employ foreign nationals. He earlier said he did both.

The hearing goes on. We now listen to the ratio of Blackwater operators in the field (gunmen) to administrative staff. It comes out to, given Prince’s estimate, 1,000 to 50, or 20 to 1. The Congressman then asserts that, given that our military has a much larger “tail” – with some 1 infantry shooters for every 8 support staff, or even 1 for every 12 – then it’s cheaper to get contractors. Again, this is a total distortion. I feel my blood go to hot sauce. I will explain why as I cool down:

We employ Blackwater to do security, “military police work.” We get Titan and CACI to do similar work, and also database and translator work. We employ Kellogg, Brown and Root for all manner of support work. In short, we’re not buying infantry – we’re buying even /more/ of the support staff that the Congressman said our infantryman needs to function, only at a much higher cost!

The next Congresswoman asks about Prince’s statements about accountability under the military code of justice. She asks, “You say you’re under the code of justice, but you work for the State Department, right?” He says he does. She asks, “so is State under the uniform code of military justice?” He says it’s not. “So,” she asks, “you’re not really under the military code of justice.” He admits he’s not. He says it’s his “feeling” that he is. He then is asked if any of his people, in the entire checkered history of Blackwater, have ever been charged with anything. At all.

He cites that a contractor working for the CIA was tried in North Carolina. For actions in Afghanistan. Not even working with Blackwater. In essence, he said, no.

This is followed by another Congressman, talking about how a bio about how Prince has ties to the White House and the GOP shows this is all a smear.

And so it goes.

General Petraeus’ Report hearing has begun. So far, if this was a TV script, the writer would be severely criticized for being too predictable. Then again, as I noted in an entry this past Friday, the drama in this is likely all going to be scripted – Petraeus probably won’t be revealing anything worthy of a “gasp” moment, and already outlined the situation with characteristic candor and insight in his letter to the troops.

On cue, a few Code Pink protesters said something unintelligible and strident, and were promptly removed. So far, so metaphoric. No doubt it’s going to be a day for allegory and irony. My kind of day.

Then the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, had some words. Most talked about how the Administration’s predictions haven’t been credible, how the Maliki government is unreliable, and how Petraeus’ foresight and strategy has been superb – if only it had been taken seriously years ago. The usual accolades were showered on him and the troops by Skelton and by Lantos.

One wouldn’t know it from Duncan Hunter and Ros-Lehtinen’s comments – two Republicans. They talked of how criticisms of the General’s credibility by the Left are just shameful, and asked for every Democrat to apologize for the ad MoveOn.org put out that called Petraeus “General Betray Us”. They then equated 9/11 to Pearl Harbor and called this effort “the new Greatest Generation”. Right there, their credibility takes a nose dive. Yes, there’s a “War on Terror” on, but it has about as much similarity to World War II as the War on Drugs has to Medicare.

So now that the Democrats established themselves as biased and the Republicans as diversionary and deranged, we move on. More protesters – some black-shirted veterans against the war. They said, “Tell the truth, General” and got hauled away.

This early period ended with a note of yet more allegorical irony as it was discovered that Petraeus’ microphone, and Crocker’s, is not working.

After a break, Petraeus will begin talking. We’ll update following that.

 

_________________________________________________

 

Petraeus begins by talking about how local support and increased troop activity – “kinetic” he calls it, and that’s a very appropriate term – is making substantial security gains. He whips out a chart.

Monthly attacks in the show pony, Anbar, have gone from 1,300 to 200 or so. He also mentions that, since December, ethno-sectarian killings have dropped by 80% in Baghdad. IEDs are down. Suicide bombings and car bombings have gone from 175 in March to 90.

Thing is, he’s talking about al-Qaeda and the Sunni kinds of violence. Suicide bombings are the fare of the foaming shaheed al-Qaeda sends in, not the Iranian thugs or Shi’a militias. IEDs are down, it’s true, but roadside bombings using Iranian built explosively formed penetrators are up.

He then talks to how the Iraqi security forces are growing, with 140 in the fight and some 90 being self-sufficient. He says this is in spite of a dearth of COs and NCOs and sectarian influence. However, that’s a false indicator. As proud as Petraeus can be about getting a viable Army intact, more forces “in spite of” sectarian influence just means more traitors who’re more effective within the ranks of the police.

Along that same disturbing point, Petraeus talks about how Iraq is one of the biggest customers of American arms, spending $1.6 billion annually on them. Let’s hope that they’re only selling tasers and gym whistles to anybody in the Interior Ministry.

Then we had a flash of Petraeus genius – a special section of his report emphasizing the critical nature for a comprehensive cyber-space offensive against al-Qaeda. And this is where he’s aiming for the aorta of al-Qaeda – terrorists are a recyclable resource, born of outrage, and victory comes down to crushing their information assets more than their physical forces. This is a War on Anger more than it is a War on Terror, and Petraeus knows that in such a fight the message is a better weapon than a missile.

This is where he stands to overcome expectations that his report will have no effect on the postures of our legislature’s political parties. He speaks to the interests of both sides, both parties, and explains why they have merit.

Petraeus understands the situation, and he conveys this by recognizing that neither party’s opinions are made of whole cloth – both have facts behind them. The facts encourage a reduction. They also demand determination and endurance for the short term. These are keys to defeating al-Qaeda. But more than anything, the facts require a new direction.

Petraeus has talked about the new need to employ technological capabilities like UAVs, IED-proof APCs and cyberspace, and that’s how he’s encouraging new direction. However, that’s a change in operational direction, not strategic, and the problems are largely strategic – “political” as the favored parlance goes. Cyberspace touches on it, especially so far as the larger War on Terror is concerned, but it doesn’t touch Iraq’s principal dilemma for America’s interests: Iran and the sectarian, venal Shi’a domination of Iraq’s government – the very government we’re supposedly there to defend.

 

_________________________________________________

 

Code Pink goes code red right after the General’s done, and have to be dragged out, literally kicking and screaming. Nothing like pitching a tantrum to bring credibility to your message. Call me old fashioned, but I’ve never quite cottoned to this polite new breed of protest – “complaint by installment”. Storm a hearing en masse and chain yourself to Republicans, and you’ll raise some real newsprint. Speak up only when Robert’s Rules of Order has ordained a pause in proceedings and you end up a fussy footnote.

Huey Newton rolls in his grave.

Behold the fate of sourpuss soccer mom protesters. Note the distinct lack of tear gas.

 

_________________________________________________

 

Crocker comes on board and talks about how things are, despite most a lack of legislation, financial aid implementation or infrastructure repair in underserved areas, things are actually looking up.

He speaks proudly about the democracy in Iraq. I can’t nod along. The democratic system led to the election of the Dawah Party, the political paralysis of minority communities and an ad hoc dictatorship. The purple fingers are losing their luster. 2009 can’t come fast enough for everybody but the thugs in power, I assure you.

Yes, Crocker goes on at length at talking about how seriously the Iraqi legislators are taking the nurturing of their fledgling democracy, with “a deep sense of commitment and patriotism”. As an example, he speaks, after some portentous preamble, about how the ruling coalition – minus the Sunnis – took a big step in resolving to talk about drafting reconciliation legislation. Call me cynical, but if the Republicans announced that they would exclude the Democrats and were now determined to meet at some point to talk about what they might draft that might be passed and might be funded to implement universal health care, most people would not take it very seriously.

Then he says something that actually sends one of my eyebrows up. Muqtada al-Sadr is shuffling away from extremism…

Al-Sadr most certainly did issue an order freezing attacks on Coalition troops and fellow Shia after the pilgrims to Karbala were assaulted. I had assumed this was due to the reduction of British troops from the Shia bastion of Basra that had sparked a spasm of inter-Shia turf warring. In any event, it is true that al-Sadr has called for the Shia extremists to not be so darn extreme for a little while.

Apparently Iran missed the memo, as we’re continuing to lose troops to roadside bombs. As I thought at the time he issued the order, al-Sadr may stand to lose, not consolidate power, by issuing the order to stay violence and see to reorganization. He’s more an opportunist, taking advantage of the extremism and outrage, than he is the captain of it. This was borne out by his steep drop in power when he tried to join the government two years ago. I would expect that Sadr gets marginalized by his “consolidation”, as Iran seeks more reliable and “kinetic” clients to perpetrate their military agenda.

Crocker goes on about how governments abroad are gradually moving closer to Iraq. They, at least, are taking advantage of the settling of violence in the capital brought about by the Security Plan aspect of the Surge. But when he talks about how the Iraqis have been “given time to reflect what kind of government they want”, I’m not thinking “reflect” is what has been going on. Nevertheless, he is right that the stakes are Iranian conquest of the country if we pull out precipitously.

Only thing is, we need to be sure we’re fighting that conquest, not facilitating it. Right now, we’re just not racking up any of the right numbers that would indicate that, and seeing plenty of the wrong.

And speaking of wrong numbers, Crocker talks about organizing an international fund that would assist the Iraqis in considering how to budget for infrastructure rebuilding. That’s fine, but again, off topic. The point nowadays is not that they’re not getting enough money. It’s that the money’s not being spent, or is vanishing. Not accounting, but accountability, is the issue.

And speaking of accountability, it is time for the Q&A…

 

_________________________________________________

 

Skelton starts off by saying that the Iraqi parliamentarians have been sitting on their thumbs. He asks why, given no progress in nearly two years, we should expect anything’s going to be different. In essence, “why should we take it that they’re serious about this whole ‘Democratic progress’ thing?”

Crocker says that everybody’s frustrated, but that the resolution of the ruling coalition to at some point talk about how they might draft reconciliation legislation back on the 26th shows they’re serious. And that’s it for evidence. He goes on to reassure that the Iraqis are indeed serious.

You work with what you have.

 

_________________________________________________

 

Next is Lantos, who is saying, “Petraeus, you think we should withdraw slower than other military commanders – who are not serving as commanders in Iraq. Why should we believe you?”

Petraeus cuts off the spirit of the question most riki tiki – he notes that the withdrawal he suggests for the next year will be quite substantial. He specifically states that Iran’s the reason we need to stick in there in a more serious way than – in Lantos’ words – “responsible military leaders”, active and retired, have noted we might. Lantos is asked which reports, and can’t cite anybody but Admiral Fallon, who Petraeus knows and says supports him.

He really doesn’t know what Lantos is talking about and, it seems, neither does Lantos. Someone needs a new assistant, or to remember to get printer toner before they go to the most significant hearing of the year so that they can print out reports.

Lantos isn’t done yet, though.

He notes that the current Administration would not be so keen on engaging in diplomacy with certain unsavory countries. He notes North Korea and Libya as cases where legislative pressure has compelled the White House to talk with them; that we would not “be as far down the road” with them were that not the case.

Considering that Libya is making huge bank off of freer trade with the West despite no change in their human rights record or ties to terrorism, and that North Korea’s having their way with us in terms of its nuclear program, I am not thinking Lantos should want the credit to fall to Congress. Furthermore, I don’t think it has to do with the legislature at all, as, well, there’s been no legislation to this effect.

But the question leads to, “will we talk with Iran?”

Crocker gives a lengthy “yes”, along with the caveat that the Iranians have done jack-nothing but string us along with diplomacy. They have sworn up and down that they want a stable Iraq, but say that there can’t be a stable Iraq with us in the country, and then prove their point by using the Police we trained to blow us up. Crocker sounds a bit pessimistic about Iranian diplomacy. Right there with you, Ambassador.

Lantos follows by noting that Maliki has said that he has “other friends in the region” if the US leaves – namely Iran. He asks if Crocker recognizes this and considers it a threat.

Crocker talks of all the nice things Maliki has said about the US and about how important we are to stability there. He then notes that Maliki criticized the wild violence that seriously screwed up the pilgrimage of his fellow Shia to Karbala. Lastly, the PM doesn’t speak Farsi. Crocker notes that a lot of people think that just because Iran’s Shia and Maliki is a Shia, it doesn’t mean they’re in cahoots – after all, remember the Iran-Iraq War?

This is true. But that Maliki is a long-time member and leader of the party that brought the Islamists to power in Iran in 1979, defeating the secular revolution there, is more evidence that they’re in cahoots. That and the Iranian bombs in the Ministry of the Interior his party controls that are blowing us up, and his personal efforts to mask such abuses and corruption from oversight.

And Ambassador, I do remember the Iran-Iraq War. It was started by Saddam, and seriously galvanized opposition by the Shia and Kurds against his government. I doubt Maliki celebrates it.

 

_________________________________________________

 

Duncan Hunter asks about what improvements in the Iraqi Army might be cited.

Petraeus says that more Sunni are signing up, and that the Army’s doing pretty good. Small elements in the force need to be “dealt with” due to sectarian influence in their ranks. This is, indeed, what most reports indicate. He notes that it’s a bit of problem to find officers, but that more are being trained and that a few former Army are being called to duty.

Hunter asks if Iran’s sending more equipment and troops in.

Petraeus’ answer, in short: “Yes indeed.”

 

_________________________________________________

 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen speaks next, and, after yet another request that the Democrats all apologize for the MoveOn.org ad, asks what will happen if we withdraw troops too soon from Iraq. She goes on at length about how unstable and shiftless Syria and Iran are, and the tendency of Arabs to blame Israel for the ills of the region.

I’m not quite sure where she’s going with this. And I’m not sure if Petraeus tries to answer.

Petraeus responds by saying that shifting the policing of Iraq’s municipalities from a national force to local forces has calmed things appreciably. This has allowed the national forces to interdict the flow of bullets and bully-boys from other countries. That is true, and yet, only addresses the aspect of her question that pertained to other nations having a hand in Iraq’s fate – not about the consequences of a premature reduction, not about Israel or the Arab street’s opinions thereof, and not about MoveOn.org. This is all for the best, I think. Yet I would like to know if he would apply or dispel the specter of The Killing Fields.

Now comes the long awaited break.

 

_________________________________________________

 

I return to find Ackerman, a Democrat, exploding in a very arcane way about how Iraq’s not really part of the global war on terror, because if it is, we’d stay and kill every terrorist.

That’s insane on a number of levels. Petraeus seemed genuinely confused, but persisted in saying that wiping out al-Qaeda is both reasonable and key, whereas tamping down sectarian violence is another matter.

 

 

_________________________________________________

 

Now Burton, a Republican, asks a similarly slanted question – “would leaving Iraq early be a success or a failure in the war on terror?”

Simply by qualifying it as “early” kind of determines, by simple logic, what the answer is. Petraeus answers objectively by saying that allowing Iraq to be so unstable as to be a haven for al-Qaeda would, indeed, be a bad thing in the war on terror, but as far as asset management on a global scale, that’s not his fortee. If you need info on hunting Osama, go to the Special Forces.

More on al-Qaeda from Petraeus, talking about how it’s the “wolf closest to the sled”. They’re losing sanctuaries and strength, but they’re working to reconstitute. Putting emphasis and due pressure on them is the way to go, Petraeus says, and that’s true. He then nails the truth by saying that the long-term threat is Iran. Long-term and short-term in my opinion, as Iran’s attacks on us are now the majority of our losses. He goes on to note that the capture of the Lebanese Hizballah 2800 and an Iranian Special Forces officer have given us some alarming insight into the extent, lethality and determination of Iran’s infiltration of Iraq.

Where he throws my perspective for a loop is saying that Maliki is the most concerned about that problem. “Concerned” as in, “has a concern in it”? In any event, taken at his word, the government in Baghdad and the Pentagon are on the same page as far as Iran. I’m just not so sure.

 

_________________________________________________

 

Taylor, the next questioner, remarks rather sneeringly that he doesn’t see the Iraqis “standing up” – literally, according to his anecdote of visiting Petraeus’ HQ. Petraeus goes into how there were plenty of Iraqis just down the hall. This I’d believe. Taylor’s not impressed. He presses Petraeus for dates on when the Iraqis can take over.

Petraeus tells him there is a projected timeframe and rattles off some samples – after Ramadan; January 28th. Always, he’s ready with the details and direct in delivering them. In some ways, though, he’s trying to keep the focus on the immediate. I can understand this; he’s trying to get people to support him for real, short-term gains, not panic because Iran’s infiltration has reached a seemingly insoluble totality. His focus is laudable; it allows him to speak with authority, and he uses every inch of that. It also keeps the small but substantial foundation he’s building from being cracked by the weight of potential disasters.

 

_________________________________________________

 

In a particularly long-winded and complimentary way, a Representative from Samoa notes that General Shinseki was humiliated and dismissed for countering the Administration’s flawed plans before the war. Shinseki – too brilliant for me to adequately honor here – had, chief among his comments, that we needed more troops than the Administration said. Now, the Samoan asks, do we still mean more troops?

Petraeus goes diplomatic – notes that every commander wants more troops, but that he’s not hurting for their lack. He goes into how he’s trying to run his Divisions at 120% readiness, and if anyone could, it would be him. I somewhat wish he had addressed the question more directly, as I’m wondering if the troops really are adequate. I’m thinking that they aren’t. But I’m also thinking that we’ve reached the bottom of the barrel, and that Petraeus knows it, and recognizes that is better not voiced.

 

_________________________________________________

 

The next two questions were odd. First, a Representiative from Maryland, asking whether criteria of measuring sectarian violence were skewed to an absurd extent.

Petraeus said they weren’t, to his knowledge.

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________

 

Then, Wallace inquires whether we’re able to sustain our military.

Petraeus noted we’re hanging on, reorganizing to augment that effort further.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 _________________________________________________

Royce asked whether al-Qaeda’s complement in Iraq were being substantially reduced in the country. And heavy come the facts in response.

Petraeus remarks that al-Qaeda’s definitely fueled from outside, and that foreign fighters are filling fresh graves all the time – three officers from Turkey just the other day, for instance. He mentions that the surrounding countries are doing a good job of staunching them too – the last Saudi they saw had to take his own bus. This seems anecdotal, but indicative of good trends. His description of infiltration of the National Police is less than rosy, but again notes that Maliki’s fired up about weeding out corruption. That is a bit harder to buy than the Saudi terrorist chartering a bus.

 

 

_________________________________________________

 

Representative Abercrombie from Hawaii points out that the rate of US troop deaths have increased since last year.

I think he doesn’t quite get the whole “war” thing – contact with the enemy tends to cause more deaths. He fails to mention that our deaths have dropped substantially since the battles in Diyala halted. He then addresses that the Kurds did a shady deal that poured their oil into the pockets of the corporations while acing out the National government. Fancy the Kurds being shady. There was no question here – except about Abercrombie’s management of facts in a straightforward way.

 

 

 

_________________________________________________

 

The Democrat who follows him lists the long and sordid excuses, mistakes and distortions committed by the Administration relative to this war, and then asked, “how much longer is this going to go on?”

Petraeus locks onto the only part of her question-cum-monologue and notes that, indeed, the military’s a bit peaked after all this relentless scrapping. He says that he’s giving that serious condition its due by reducing troops as soon as the situation allows for it. The Surge could, legally and terms of supply, be drawn on until April of ’08. He emphasizes he won’t be doing that, and yet that no steps backward will be taken.

 

 

_________________________________________________

 

 

Payne begins to ask a decent question – why is the Iraqi military so slow in gathering competence in fighting al-Qaeda and “bandits that came in”? Then he goes off on a bizarre tangent, wondering why they did decently back in the 80s against Iran, and expressing his perplexity that they seem to relatively inept. That it was an entirely different military, with different equipment fighting a different war against a far different enemy didn’t occur, I suppose.

Petraeus side-steps it. He goes off on his own tangent, talking about how the Sunni militias that turned against al-Qaeda were motivated by a desire for territorial authority over their own security and laws. He also says that the GAO’s reported numbers about attacks are about five weeks too old. This might not seem substantial, but check out your headlines. Those five weeks have made a substantial difference.

Finally he comes to Payne’s question about why Saddam’s Army of the 80s isn’t doing as well – Petraeus explains it’s not around any longer. He points out that it was pretty thoroughly annihilated in the last two wars with us, and that the disestablishment of it post-War was a total dissolution. He makes no bones about the fact that building an army from the ashes of a corrupt entity, while under fire, is no mean feat.

 

 

_________________________________________________

 

After the break, nobody could find Ambassador Crocker. I’m not even going near the scads of Men’s Room jokes that just came to your mind. For shame.

Then another Representative talked about how sad he was about the MoveOn ad again. Everyone’s just broken all to pieces that MoveOn opposes the war with nasty remarks paid for by its own money. What’s the country coming to?

The question was about whether the Army was broken. This rather set Petraeus up for a stirring story about soldiers re-enlisting. But rather have it be merely a sop to the Red State view of the world, he pointed out that the soldiers are not “starry-eyed idealists” and that “morale is an individual thing”. And in case Petraeus doesn’t come across with the reasons for these re-enlistments directly, I’ll point out a factor that is more present and powerful than some zealous faith in our foreign policy:

Nobody likes to leave their friends in Hell.

Then he does mention it – that it’s the men and women to the left and right of you that motivate you to stick this through no matter what. It’s got nothing to do with American policy, everything to do with being an American soldier.

 

 

_________________________________________________

 

I wrote more – believe me; it was amusing.

I covered Wexler’s rant full of lies that he used to denounce the lies of the war’s proponents. I covered Jones’ really, really nice criticisms. I covered Thornberry trying to put Petraeus into a logic puzzle that could only be solved by advocating a massive military assault on Iran.

And best of all, I covered Sherman, who had some very interesting ideas about al-Qaeda – namely that they’re tricking us into believing that Iraq is their central front – and wanted to know if Petraeus would disobey orders from the President. Good times!

A technical glitch on my blog ate it all.

Suffice it to say that the above trends held true:

Petraeus was competent, focused on getting support for his efforts in Iraq, and as direct as possible.

Crocker seemed like he was trying to pass a sow’s ear off as a silk purse in his portrayal of the Baghdad government as some kind of philosophical cadre of vexed-yet-noble founding fathers.

And the Congresspersons really, really liked to hear themselves talk and did all they could to stand out.

No shockers. No shifts in perspective – save that perhaps Maliki isn’t really a crony of Iran, but, on second thought, nah, he probably is. And no real problems with the General’s superb testimony.

Save that, for all this effort, it is all the more clear that it’s not Washington, but Baghdad, that lacks the resolve to end this conflict.

The news since Wednesday has been following a steady course. I felt at risk of beating the same tune out on the drumskin of the blog – treating you all to the old, dirgelike beat that has settled like a stretch mark into the flesh of our world’s history this long, indolent August.

So, rather that whip out the razor wit and cutting insight only to treat you to the same messy dish of dissected details, I thought we might do this nice and tidy. Consider the following a chicken nugget history of the past four days. Devour with whatever sauce of slant your partisan heart desires.

Hillary Clinton – Still as cloyingly negative as the Brewster sisters’ nightly tipple. Her comrades are finally beginning to catch on – or, more likely, smell blood in the water, since Obama weathered a rhetorical beating far better than she. She is also still sheet-white, knees-knocking afraid of hypotheticals:

It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’…

I’m sure if anyone informed Hillary that hypotheticals have been known to mutate into the larger, even more dangerous Hypotheses, she would flee with heel-snapping speed for the hills. Her quote was actually about how a terrorist attack in America between now and the election would “automatically hand” Republicans an advantage. And, indeed, that’s a scary thought – what will happen to the Democrats’ industrious crafting of a global utopia that they’ve been so glowingly successful at? It’ll be back to the dark ages, led by the flag-pin-wearing troupe of the 20-odd Republican Senators who still support the war, with people cheering for Bush’s third term on the grounds that he did such a bang-up job of protecting them this one.

Maliki – Still seeming like a shill for Iran. And, alright, I’ll be fair, we’ll stack up the chips and see who’s running his table. He’s a representative of the Islamic Dawa Party, which is not only wholly responsible for appointing and backing him, it could also be considered the godfather of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Funds that we give to him, not to mention heaps of arms, just seem to vanish. Could they possibly be going into the hands of Iraqi police and Army that, to account for the “counter-surge” of Iranian backed attacks, are blowing us into chunks with IEDs?

So let’s see…We drive al-Qaeda from Baghdad, by and large, and suddenly we’re being bombed by weapons known to have come from a government that is practically the same political party as the Prime Minister who rules Baghdad belongs to. Meanwhile, said Prime Minister sucks in aid money and weapons that are believed to be going to militias of the same nationality and religion as himself, his party, and Iran. He simultaneously blocks all efforts to shift power away from his federalist government, while lashing out at people who say he doesn’t want unity and should be replaced…hmmm.

To coin a phrase, “With friends like these, who needs Saddam?”

Petraeus – Still doing a terrific job. He’s politick, he’s powerful, he proves we’re unbeatable in the field. Now if only that was all that mattered, we’d have this thing sewn right up. But considering my perspective above about Maliki, it seems increasingly clear that Petraeus is, strategically speaking, just doing a terrific job killing off Iran’s rivals and earning more time to fund and arm Shiite militias masquerading as Interior Ministry troops and Army.

Those that turn their nose up at the Vietnam analogy are definitely right in one sense. In Vietnam, we didn’t fight the enemies of the Communists while a Communist regime squatted in Saigon, sucking up arms and aid, attacking us to keep us weak for the day when we’d leave and they could link hands with Uncle Ho to the North in an orgy of sectarian violence. That level of SNAFU and moral fracture is reserved for Iraq alone.

Iran – Still defiant. Why shouldn’t they be? They’ve got the region on a string and they’re sitting on Gravity’s Rainbow with their missile program. Sure, sanctions are stinging them, but the hardliners in government are happy to keep the people distracted with propaganda and soul-crumpling crackdowns on freedoms.

Darfur – Still dying. Just not quite so quickly.

Obama – Still tough and smart, gathering the backing from the right people while drawing gutless censure from the wrong.

His comments on Cuba, now controversial, are supported by Cuban-Americans who want to send money home, for it allows them to do just that and only that – it does not lift the trade embargo, but does open a dialogue to determine what human rights efforts would need to be made to do that.

“Until there’s justice in Cuba, there’s no justice anywhere,” Obama said. “We will talk to our enemies as well as our friends and both to our enemies and to our friends, we will tell them the truth and tell them what we stand for.”

Considering what half a century of silence with Cuba has done to the Castro regime relative to the people of Cuba, I think it’s not so much of a stretch that advocating a change of action has merit.

Bush – Still no sign of change of action.

Humanity – Still brutish, still weirdly tragic, still muddling on despite it all.

The power to legally spy on most of the other nations of the world’s electronic communications is now within the US intelligence community’s grasp.

The President wanted to expand the surveillance powers to include those communications after the FISA court ruled he couldn’t. The Democrats produced a bill to comply, but that included an oversight of the program. This didn’t float – the President said he’d veto it, and so support in the House dried right up. Then a bill largely developed by the White House was presented, has passed the Senate, and will reach the House just as soon as possible.

These measures do address a major opportunity our intelligence community was missing – namely, that a lot of the emails and other electronic traffic in the world rout through US-based providers, and so warrantless scanning those servers would be a gold mine. Not being able to was like extending our 4th Amendment protection to the world at large.

The element of oversight – some kind of legal provision to ensure that the Executive is being as trustworthy as it says – might have had a place in all this. Fortunately for any who don’t think that oversight’s due, or even allowable, the Democrats were the defenders of that measure, and have toppled over with their usual puling aplomb:

Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan largely crafted by the White House after Mr. Bush promised to veto a stricter proposal that would have required a court review to begin within 10 days.

The Senate bill gives Mr. Bush the expanded eavesdropping authority for six months. The temporary powers give Congress time to hammer out a more comprehensive plan instead of rushing approval for a permanent bill in the waning hours before lawmakers begin their monthlong break.

…In the House, Democrats lost an effort to push a proposal that called for stricter court oversight of the way the government would ensure its spying would not target Americans.

I don’t even really oppose the expansion of FISA powers. I do object to having to search this story out, then having to search for the details of the compromises and details of the bill’s powers. I do object to matters of Constitutional protections being almost an afterthought to the louder rows over such crucial legislation as the SCHIP program and cigar tax.

And though I often feel glad that the Democrats are so toothless, venal and flaccid, it is nevertheless a bit shameful to see them taking a kind of “whatever you want” attitude when it comes to oversight of the compromise of Constitutional civil liberties.

The situation in Iraq may seem a muddle, but only when viewed through the lens of expectations. If one views it as a failed military venture that can only produce decay, recent developments will seem unbelievable. If the assumption is that it is a noble expedition wherein a gain in one field means a gain overall, it will seem worthy of general optimism. With either perceptive, perplexity will linger, because neither grasps the simplicity of the situation – that Iraq, like any state or any conflict, has both revolutionary victories and cataclysmic inherent problems.

Here is a clear picture of what may seem mixed results.

The Surge Strategy is beginning to attain its initial aims. The spike in violence that resulted from increased, aggressive contact with the enemy has left their casualties mounting while ours have begun to level off. We effectively secure ground, while still maintaining an aggressive posture against enemy strongholds that the new focus away from Sunni extremists in general has permitted. At the risk of sounding trite or overly simplisitic, it is a fair assessment to say that al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia is “on the run“. This does not mean they cannot retrench. Additional forces are required to truly condemn them to a fate of eradication or effective neutralization. But these forces have been demanded and are being made available – both from the United States and from the Iraqi Army.

Military successes are certain. There remain three significant elements that will continue to plague Iraq, and all three are largely political. One is that Iran and Saudi Arabia continue to flood their “supporters” – read, armed extremists – in the country with arms and manpower. Without this problem staunched, the enemy’s numbers and strength will readily regenerate. The second is that bombings like the one today will continue to inflict mass civilian casualties, ruining any veneer of real security enjoyed by the Iraqis in mixed-ethnic neighborhoods, most notable Baghdad and its environs. This problem, funded by the prior element and facilitated by corruption within the security structure in that area, will be effectively impossible to truly end without cutting off its source. Lastly, Iraqi military forces lack two key components – experienced leaders, depleted by de-Baathification and attrition, and gear, withheld by the federal government’s executive, Maliki.

There is a trend in all of these injurious elements. Namely, that politics is to blame. Convenient as it is to say that the Democrats in Washington are “cutting the forces off at their knees” like Sean Hannity did today, they have not actually blocked any spending on the war. The goods have been slow in getting there, and to the Maliki government’s credit, the Iraqi budget does include defense spending. Nevertheless, Baghdad has been less of a conduit than a clogged funnel.

The sectarian violence of the streets pales in its damning effects to the sectarian will perpetuated in the Iraqi parliament. Those unfortunate enough to be unpopular with the government – notably the Sunni – are starved and deprived, according to the Inspector General of Reconstruction in Iraq.

How long will the American and Iraqi people be forced to endure this de facto tyranny? We must take a fierce look at the Iraqi government’s leadership and bear in mind that the traditional objective in warfare is to deny the enemy its means to fight. In Iraq, that means is born of poverty, fueled by desperate lack, and conducted by local extremists who see a sectarian showdown as the only real means of securing a fair existence. We need to recognize that the source of this problem is the deliberate stalling in government by a sectarian leader with near total power. And we need to demand of ourselves an answer to those who would fill the extremists’ ranks inspired by the question, “what else do we have to hope for but to secure a victory by force?”

Another question that will be far more audible and explicit in the days to come will be, “how long will this go on?” We are only now beginning the month-long recess of the Iraqi parliament. Even after their return, the frustration with no reconciliation legislation or measures being effective pursued by Maliki’s leadership shows no signs of abating. In fact, it is inspiring even legislators of the more extreme opposition to simply give up on the process. Petraeus’ report will not be redemptive or damning to the effort. It will show improvement in the war, but repeat the clear message about the situation given by the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, in his confirmation hearings this week: That the critical element is reconciliation and the diplomatic engagement of the countries surrounding Iraq.

So, “how long?” considering all these indicators show no sign of conclusion? Likely for a much longer time yet. And this is both good and worrisome.

It is good because the leading opposition to the war in the US Congress – the Democrats, have shown by deed and by leaked strategizing – that short of total submission to their proposed policy of a legislated withdrawal, they will not forcibly affect a change in strategy. Petraeus’ report cannot deliver a sense of total victory nor a promise of total defeat, and so anti-war Republicans will not be any more induced to simply toe the Democratic line. In short, Congress will do nothing different.

Sadly, it is not Congress who needs to do something different. It is good that they continue funding the war effort, for the military is doing good work. But neither solves the situation. Only the Executive branch’s direction can do that. We critics can grumble about Congressional callousness to the Iraqi plight or poll-driven ambivalence over war support, but we would be complaining about eventualities – Congress does not conduct the war, nor the diplomacy with Baghdad, Tehran and Riyadh. They may keep the ship sailing, and mutter mutinous things, but it is the captain who steers the ship.

And what is the captain doing? President Bush spoke with Maliki, who fed him platitudes about realizing how important reconciliation is. The State Department spoke with Iran, who also agreed on the importance of stability in Iraq. And nothing, forseeably, will happen. Many scoff at diplomacy with Iran out of a notion that Iran’s agenda would keep them an enemy of ours no matter what. Can a similar measure not be applied to Maliki and his Shiite DAWA party?

The course is clear. The military is doing great, but it is merely strengthening the skin of a cancerous body. If the United States does not prescribe some political surgery, and soon, Iraq will just continue to die and scores of men and women, American and Iraqi, will daily die along with it.

The surgery in question should be an irresistable political demand that high-level officials of the United States Executive meet with the key legislators in the Iraqi Parliament and not recess until all critical reconciliation laws are passed and the means to enact them established. Like the Constitutional Convention of the US’ history, the legislators and officials should be forced to remain in each other’s company until all objectives are reached. This need not be done with an “or else” – threats of withdrawing troops or aid need not enter into the situation. When the inner court of the leader of the free world comes to town with uncompromising dialogue, the Parliament will listen. Attendance will be mandatory for the same reasons voting was. And if both sides boycott the talks, the US should reserve the right to dissolve the government it created as fatally flawed.

There is but one authority on earth that can deliver that prescription.

Let us pray for the sake of the sick, desperate and dying that he decides to do so.

Since Congress seems to be putting on a theater production with its debate of the latest measure on the war and withholding of an important defense bill, I thought I would add some of my lines to the Chorus.

A comment by a visitor to this blog, Truth Hunter, characterized Congress’ performance succinctly: It is “shameful”. Both attitudes towards the war could and should agree on this.

For those that see no virtue in a military solution or demand a change of strategy backed by legislative will, it is shameful because it abandons effective, bi-partisan options to enact this in favor of a bullying, hubristic tone. The measure put forth by Lamar Alexander, a prominent Republican, would have written the “change in strategy” that polls show most of the American public desires into enforceable law. It would not have had set timetables for withdrawal, but it would have effectively taken the strategic conduct of the war out of the President’s hands and shown a bipartisan consensus to scale down troop commitment. Instead, the Democrats have in essence declared that unless the Legislature’s control of the war is done their way, by their word, it will only continue to be a source of fear and discontent for the public. This sounds rather familiar. But unlike President Bush, who many Americans invested great hope and solidarity in as Commander-in-Chief, reasons to trust the vacillating and compromising Democrats have yet to be presented. It is not their ordained role to direct military affairs, unlike the Executive Branch, but they act as though it is.

Their “my way or the highway to hell” attitude is petty, more interested in demanding submission from the opposition than achieving cooperation. It implicitly demands that the opposition and its present and former supporters in the public concede that the Democrats are right and the President wrong. This statement is not only irrelevant considering the urgency of the mortal struggle in Iraq, it is also empty. In the latter case, even staunch supporters of Bush have acknowledged he made serious mistakes in the planning and execution of the war. No one needs to be told his management of the war was poor – we’ve heard it enough times; it’s been proven. We now care to know how the management was poor and what to do about it. And this concern is unaddressed by the former assumption of the Democrats’ implicit demand – that they are right. For, in authorizing the war, in offering no resolve to achieve alternatives, and in presenting no allowances for the real, dire, human cost of what happens after a withdrawal, they have most certainly not been “right”.

And for supporters of a sturdy military presence in Iraq to secure the ailing government as best as it can be, Congress’ actions are shameful because they refuse to respond to the specific facts on the ground. They do not speak to how to manage the “political solution”. They do not give any credit to the narrowing of focus in our security operations that has occurred due to Petraeus, aiming at encircling and destroying the other major foreign influences in Iraq – al-Qaeda and Iran – rather than going after Nationalists. Most significantly in terms of the message the Democrats send, they are not waiting for Petraeus’ assessment on the Surge strategy, nor waiting to see how it plays out for its closing two months. In the bloody and confusing business of war, resolve is important – looking beyond the numbers – but it requires a political vision and will. Can anyone concerned with what a draw-down in troop strength will do to security in Iraq take comfort in what the Democrats have projected will be the result? Have they ever done an actual analysis of the result, and presented it? I don’t think even their supporters can answer that most crucial question about our reduction in fight against the insurgents: “What then?”

In “Hamlet”, an upstart monarch debates over which of his “bad dreams” – assumptions and fears – to act on when deciding whether to commit regicide. All the while, the bodies hit the floor and the madness mounts. In the end, only an orgy of violence and self-destruction settles the matter, leaving a country without a king, only a slaughter.

America’s course in Iraq is not a forum for the Democratic leadership to present itself as a dark hero in the maelstrom. It is a real slaughter, and daily, and it is real consensus, not uncompromising domination, that is required to end it.

Our best hope now seems to be that the Chorus – the classic theatrical role of the people’s voice – will roar loud enough to drown out their arrogant ramblings and force a united will to resolve this conflict.