Of all of the things to catch up with in the political cosmos, I’m going to be bringing my blog back to life with a spirited discussion about the Kurds.

“Why the Kurds?” you ask.  Because, out of the entire deck making up the house of cards of global politics, the Kurds are the card that could send the whole thing crashing down.  Not the situation in Afghanistan; that’s a sticky wicket we won’t be batting out of soon.  Not the turbulence of retrenching rogue states like North Korea and the Russian Commonwealth; those bad boys can be bought off or it’ll come to blows way down the line.  Not even the global economic crisis - on that point, I assure you we’re heading south in the months to come, and the best we can hope for is a parachute.

But the Kurds could topple the whole mess even faster.  They are the weakest link.  And while everything else is sliding down, it is the Kurds who can pitch us over the edge in the months to come.

The reason why, is because the Kurds have long been the red-headed step child of the Gulf region.  Allies against Saddam by virtue of necessity, they went back to doctrine-based in-fighting as soon as the statue fell in Baghdad. They have since resisted any form of democratic control - from the Iraqi capitol or from the possibility of local parliaments. Now that elections have taken place, the Kurds stand to be as marginalized a party in politics as they were ethnically.

This leaves them ready, willing and able to do what they’re used to - take up arms and seize back their scrap of land from the Iraqi state, our ostensible ally.  Things could turn into a shooting war very soon.

So what? Well, it wouldn’t just be an internal conflict.  Iraq isn’t the only nation that the Kurds seek to draw into a firefight.  The Kurdish claim to space extends over two other states the USA definitely doesn’t want caught in this tug of war - one because it’s an ally; the other because it’s as close to a sworn enemy as America gets these days: Turkey and Iran.

Israel may be the US media sweetheart of the Middle East, but it’s Turkey that bends whenever the US asks an ally in the region to grab ankles. Though we couldn’t sign them up for full access rights when the Coalition of the Willing was preparing to tangle with Saddam, Turkey allows us everything from military bases to political crackdowns.  The few lines in the sand they draw and mean it involve their dealings with ethic minorities inside their borders - most significantly, these days, the Kurds who’re trading bullets and bombs with them over the southeast end of their country.

Iran is also locked in skirmishes with Kurds from time to time.  And Iran would be none too keen on having to grapple with the USA - or a US ally - in the Kurdish-run regions of its state.

The likelihood goes grim, and it goes like this: The Kurds resist the Iraqi capitol.  The Iraqis respond with military force.  In order to do so, they need to attack into Iran and Turkey.  Iran and Turkey mobilize in kind.

The result is a super-sized Charlie-Foxtrot in a state where the US was just beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel.  It means having to talk at the same table with Turkey and Iran.  It means a possibility of permanent instability in Iraq’s north.

So, no, it doesn’t mean you’ll be bankrupt.  It doesn’t mean global nuclear warfare.  But it does mean that yet another flashpoint could flare up in a big way, at a time when the US desperately needs a way out.

Last week was the RNC bump.

Yesterday, Democrats were wringing their hands over rising Red polls, and Independents were listening to commentators wonder whether the skinny scholar was tough enough next to the War Hero.

Today, continuing what they began last night, the Democratic ticket hit back hard.

Obama, in Dayton, gave due criticism to the foreign policy:

Obama accused Bush of “tinkering around the edges” and “kicking the can down the road to the next president” with his plans to remove 8,000 US troops from Iraq in the coming months and send 4,500 to Afghanistan by January.

He mentioned the unstable status quo - a situation truly on a razor’s edge: The Islamic-fundamentalist Shia in power in Baghdad arresting the Sunni tribal leaders who were and are helping us to fight al-Qaeda; the Taleban ascendant and US-Coalition deaths climbing.

He mentioned the expense of the war - approximately $10 billion a month - and the $79 billion surplus Baghdad is sitting on.

And he summed up Bush’s recent decision to deploy the exhausted forces out of Iraq and into Afghanistan:

“The Illinois senator said that on Afghanistan, he was “glad that the president is moving in the direction of the policy that I have advocated for years.”

But he added: “His plan comes up short — it is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency.”

This could not be more right. We need to remember the lessons of Iraq - that showing up to a fight short on resources will be worse than not showing up at all. For years, the country was pat on the head and told that everything was alright; that the only critics were internal enemies who hated the country and were fixated on its faults. Meanwhile, the insurgency worsened, our troops were worn down and bloodshed blew out of control.

Finally 2006 made the White House admit mistakes; finally Petraeus stepped in and acted in defiance of stated policy; at long last, after hundreds of thousands of lives needlessly and forever lost, we adjusted strategy, provided the resources necessary - albeit still on a shoestring, but we have nothing left due to the grand strategic decisions made - and began to stabilize.

We can only hope that Obama’s criticisms now compel the administration to take action in Afghanistan sooner rather than later - that the White House remembers the fundamental flaw in its Iraq strategy, that it was under supplied and ignorant of the local powers, and adjusts in Afghanistan.

If not, our only hope is that America remembers that war critics are better friends to this country than those who ignore its faults at the expense of American lives and treasure.

For, according to John McCain, all things are going just peachy overseas.

It ain’t broke. There are still periodic suicide bombings, but that’s as natural as sandstorms. The Iraqi government wants Obama’s timetable, not long-term bases, but that’s no reason not to keep advocating digging in and building Burger Kings behind concrete walls. Afghanistan sees a resurgent Taleban, but we just need to send in enough troops to break the deluge, not to actually staunch the threat. And as for ‘remember 9/11,’ well, McCain said he’d follow Osama to the gates of Hell, but he draws the line at actually following him to where he is.

“…seven years after 9/11, we are still fighting a war without end in Iraq and we still haven’t taken out the terrorists responsible for 9/11. We heard no explanation for why (Al-Qaeda leader) Osama bin Laden is still at large, because that’s where George Bush and John McCain’s judgment has gotten us.”

And that’s where it will continue to get us - a long way off from getting the people who attacked us, closer and closer to getting disastrously worn down with an average of three-tours served and climbing among our troops, and getting deeper and deeper in debt.

To that, today, and in a bold voice, Obama has declared, “Enough.”

Here’s hoping that message will echo strongly from now until November.

Here’s hoping that the people remember the courage of the troops, and are brave enough to admit the government’s mistakes and vote for something new to give them a winnable war.

Here’s hoping for “enough” to bring us an end in sight.

The war in Iraq now has an end in sight.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are “very close” to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here.

It may be over. In three years, it may be over.

After under-supplying our forces. After no planning for reconstruction or protection. After believing the intelligence that was a lie and ignoring the intelligence that was true.

After Scowcroft and Baker, closest friends of Bush’s father, bravely spoke out against going in. After the UN inspectors asked for more time. After a million people on a single day worldwide protested the war.

After the annihilating force of Shock and Awe. After the awesome courage of the troops like the famous “Generation Kill” 1st Recon and the brilliance of field leadership by commanders like Petraeus. After the battles of Nasriyah, Al Qut and the Thunder Run into Baghdad.

After every ministry was left to the looters - except the oil ministry. After treasures and palaces that had survived over six thousand years, from the earliest civilization, went unprotected and were lost forever to destruction and looting. After Shiite death squads began working even before the Saddam statue toppled.

After the Iraqi Army was disbanded. After the weapons caches were left open and unguarded. After nearly every official in public service prior to the war was banned from operating in public service ever again.

After things really began to fall apart.

After the UN presence was destroyed. After mass detentions began dragging Iraqis indiscriminately into dungeons like Abu Ghraib. After the Corporations - Blackwater, Halliburton, DynCorp - showed up and began acting without legal penalty.

After over $11 billion in overcharging to the American taxpayer by those corporations went unpunished. After faulty wiring began electrocuting troops, Blackwater convoys fired at civilians without warning as a matter of routine, buildings scheduled to be built were built late and broken.

After our soldiers paid out of their own pockets to employ Iraqi builders and to send themselves body armor. After “IED” became a household word. After we were told not worry.

After the “only real patriots” didn’t ask questions about the war. After everyone else was said to hate America. After political discourse in our country turned to poison.

After the complex atlas of hostile parties in Iraq were just “a few loyalist hold-outs.” After criticizing the war became “defeatist.” After the Iraqis were going to stand up, so that we could stand down.

After the Iraqis rose up.

After burning bodies in Fallujah. After the brutal battles of Sadr City. After Nasriyah exploded.

After we learned about Abu Ghraib sex torture. After we learned about the Haditha massacre. After we learned about the Mahmudiyah rape killings.

After we built oil lines that were blown up. After we shipped aid supplies that disappeared in the hands of the government. After the veteran suicide rate spiked.

After purple fingers on election day. After Saddam swung from the end of a rope with a Howard Hughes beard. After you stopped hearing people ask about WMDs.

After the Samarra mosque bombing turned slow massacres into all out war.

After Halliburton was investigated, found guilty and still employed. After Abu Ghraib was investigated, the soldiers were imprisoned and the DynCorp architects of torture never even charged by name. After the body counts shot up again.

After Rumsfeld.

After Petraeus.

After the Sunni butchering our troops were paid to become our agents against al-Qaeda. After Sadr was tricked into a ceasefire. After our troops attacked the very Iraqi government we had put in power, killing and capturing agents of Iran within it.

After the Surge forces arrived and began rolling back al-Qaeda. After security and commerce soared. After the body counts dropped.

Now, we might get to go home.

Things in the Two-Front War are not going well. I doubt things will take such a dive that we’ll hear other than the trumpet blasts of victory at the RNC, but take note, for I’m saying it now: The good days are going to sour soon.

In Iraq, we’re going to get a show of just why and how “The Surge” succeeded in its operational objectives - the Sunni Awakening will be waking up to the fact that we have just sold them down the Euphrates.

First it was the Shiites. Then the Kurds. Now the Sunni we told to “rise up” are getting their necks stomped by both sides - by al-Qaeda and by the Shiite fundamentalists running Baghdad.

Shiite-led government is cracking down on U.S.-backed Sunni Arab fighters in one of Iraq’s most turbulent regions, arresting some leaders, disarming dozens of men and banning them from manning checkpoints except alongside official security forces. …

“The continuation of the Awakening Councils as they are now is unacceptable,” said Ali al-Adeeb, a close al-Maliki aide and a senior member of his Dawa Party.

So much for our “brothers in arms.” They were the chief reason that our troop increase was other than just a super-sized order of body bags, but they’re on their own now. And with Maliki eager to sell the farm to Iran and the mullahs pulling the strings, the Sunni are well and truly screwed.

They have no intention of suffering in silence.

“We fought the Americans for four years and we fought al-Qaida, too,” said al-Safi, a former Iraqi army commando during Saddam Hussein’s regime who fought in the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war. “We are an experienced armed group. We are fully capable of bringing the house down.”

With that kind of barbed rhetoric laying the terrain, its no surprise the Baghdad response has been swift and scattershot. They’ve started grabbing major players in the Awakening before the organization can wake up to the fact that they’re under fatal attack.

The troops stormed the office of the provincial governor, Raad Rashid al-Tamimi, triggering a gunfight that killed his secretary and wounded four of his guards, police said.

The Sunni head of the provincial council’s security committee, Hussein al-Zubaidi, was arrested, police said.

Later, troops raided the home of the president of Diyala University, Nazar al-Khafaji, handcuffed him, placed a hood over his head and led him away, his nephew Ismail Ibrahim Sabi said.

So now another enormous question mark sits like the reaper’s scythe on Iraq’s neck - much like when Maliki pounced on Sadr back in spring. Sadr chose to roll over after a few decisive scraps showed he and his civilian base had nowhere to scuttle to. The Sunni, however, are accustomed to running operations spread across hell and gone.

And unlike Sadr, who always had to deal with communities split between Maliki’s Hakim loyalists and his own Mahdi army, the Sunni are all united in their contempt for the government. If they feel the time has come to do damage before they get cuffed and dumped, the dispatches from Mesopotamia may start running red again.

This could be a major reason why the US is eager to sign on to signing out of the Iraq conflict. A time horizon - read “time table” - is already drafted, and talks are beginning in earnest between the US State Department and the boys in Baghdad to work out the little details.

This could mean that the White House wants to set us on a track that gets us out before the real shooting starts. It could mean that they’re confident that the Iraqi Army can crush any paroxysm of payback from the backstabbed Sunni. Whatever it means, this much is certain:

The Iraqi Civil War is about to enter a new and fatal phase.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear further commentary coming from a leading architect of the new Iraq strategy - a man who seems like a character from one of my novels; a former Australian officer and current counterinsurgency expert know for rough words and deeds, David Kilcullen.

Kilcullen is a clever savage, and was instrumental to constructing Petraeus’ critical counterinsurgency strategy. He has since been hired by the State Department as a top advisor, and his advice is well needed. He gets Iraq; understands its people and understands the obligations of those aiming to occupy their land. This is evidenced in his statement about the idea to invade:

Kilcullen, who helped Petraeus design his 2007 counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, called the decision to invade Iraq “stupid” — in fact, he said “fucking stupid”

That kind of forthright insight is much needed in a muddle like Middle East nation building. It may just sound vulgar, but that’s not the point - dissembling and distracting has only compounded the problems we face. After nearly a decade of strategic geniuses like Scowcroft, Powell and Baker talking into their sleeve while Rove and his ilk get the masses howling, we find ourselves sunk 100,000 corpses and a trillion dollars down.

Blunt talk is now a matter of survival.

For more of Kilcullen, check out his appearance on Charlie Rose.

McCain has a glaringly stupid idea to balance the budget. The analysis of it, cogent and thorough, is here.

I will just synopsize here:

He’s going to take the borrowed money used on the war - which we’ll “win” in his first term, somehow maintaining an indefinite presence overseas while not spending any money on it - and use it to pay off the defecit. Yes, the borrowed money will be paying off our borrowed money.

Now here’s our favorite bi-partisan commentator, James Kotecki, to make that idea sound even funnier than it is:

The Presidential candidates have staked out their terrain on the war issue, and so much of America’s White House future depends on the course of events overseas.

For John McCain, a lot of his vaunted war cred requires things to continue to go well in Iraq, while Afghanistan remains a foul-tasting afterthought. For Obama, proof of his claim that being right is more important than being experienced at making mistakes has to be borne out by continued fumbling in Iraq coupled with growing military interest in Afghanistan.

It’s no shocker that I find McCain’s position the less tenable. The news is, however, giving him some notches on his belt. Tactically, Iraq’s not the crucible of chaos it was a year ago, and major efforts are being made by those Iraqis that stood up - the factious but currently firm coalition of government forces and the Awakening - to garotte what’s left of al-Qaeda.

[Al-Qaeda in Iraq] has been reduced to hit-and-run attacks, including one that killed two off-duty policemen yesterday, and sporadic bombings aimed at killing large numbers of officials and civilians.

This is big news. Al-Q with its spine broken is still a mean and desperate creature, but nullifying its effects on the map of Iraq seems a possibility. But bigger news is happening in the big picture, and could spell things seriously souring for McCain’s soaring talk of a “Korea-like” presence in the fertile crescent.

Namely, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki said definitely today that he wanted just what the Democrats consistently call for - a timetable for withdrawal.

“One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time.”

Meaning, short of an official entry in his dayplanner, Maliki wants at least two things: One, for Americans to put it in writing that they’ll leave. And two, that critical elements of American operations in Iraq be manacled to Iraqi governance: Legal culpability and detentions.

This is not sunny news for the old soldier, McCain. He could, and rightly, note that the Iraqis are only able to flex such sovereignty because the US ignored the Congressional bleating for a timetable and surged instead. But voters will want this debacle over, and chances are they’ll hear a disparity between McCain’s line and what Baghdad will soon be banging its gavel for.

What’s more, the fewer bombs go off in Baghdad, the more the barrage in Afghanistan will be heard. Considering that’s Obama’s pole of concern, voters may hear prescience in his constant insistence that while sewing up the suppurating wound of Iraq is key to America’s future, Afghanistan needs to be cauterized - not just stuck under a band-aid and ignored by the administration and McCain.

Escalating events - from the Taliban assault last month to the horrific bombing in the capitol, Kabul today - bear this urgency out.

A car bomb ripped through the front wall of the Indian Embassy in central Kabul on Monday, killing 40 people in the deadliest attack in Afghanistan’s capital since the fall of the Taliban, officials said.

Voters will - media allowing - begin to take notice. If they do, they’ll ask questions along the lines of the one that comes immediately to mind when a hard look is taken at today’s bombing: “Why India’s embassy?”

The answer is, because India is the enemy of Pakistan. Quick math follows for those who know the integers involved: An enemy of Pakistan means an enemy of the Taliban, because Pakistan is the private friend of the Taliban. Pakistan is also the country that the US has given sole authority to go after the Taliban and al-Qaeda in their mountainous tribal area.

This all adds up to a typical Central Asian beartrap for the US. It also means points for Obama - not because it’s another Bush war circling the drain; or not just because - but because he’s long insisted that we not only need more forces in Afghanistan, but the will to use them across Pakistan’s border as well.

The final geometry of the Presidential battle lines over the war is coming clear:

McCain is the guy with good tactical ideas - simple, surge-theory stuff; the kind of problems that can be solved by sledgehammers. But for all his bang, he’s weak on the buck - from crosstalk on the big picture in Iraq, to sweeping the toxic stain of Afghanistan under the carpet, McCain’s showing himself a nimwit when it comes to strategic investment of military force. That, or a namby-pamby, poll-driven double-talker who just talks the talk of permanent bases to sound like his pair swings lower than Obama’s.

Obama, on the other hand, knows there’s no sense in keeping one hand tied behind your back in a fight. If we’re putting blood and money into Afghanistan, we best see a return of peace, Pakistani borders be damned.

If proper reporting applies, the American voting public will see their military choices defined clearly: Between the guy who keeps focused on the daily polls and PAC reports, and the man who has his eyes on the grand scheme of our global war.

UPDATE:

Throughout my post, I repeatedly intoned statements along the line of “media willing,” “media wiling,” as though it were my version of “inshallah” (the ubiquitous “God willing” of devout Muslims).

The reason why comes from no respect for the media. Rather, a furious disrespect. Today’s news media has been catastrophically insipid when it comes to covering anything political. A new video on the media’s treatment of Obama’s war stance by stranahan.com amusingly points this out:

Obama responded to McCain’s snide accusations that he didn’t know about Iraq because he hadn’t been there in two years with customary grace and vision - by rising above them, and announcing he will not only be visiting Iraq, but Afghanistan as well.

Obama has said before he was considering a trip, but his comment to reporters Monday was his first clear confirmation. He said more details will be announced shortly, and that he also plans a visit to Afghanistan.

The inclusion of Afghanistan is politically wise for a number of reasons. The most obvious reason is that it raises the stakes with McCain. I considered it a foolish expectation that a candidate visit a war zone, but now that expectations game plays in Obama’s favor, demanding that McCain announce a trip to Afghanistan in order to keep pace.

More importantly, it underscores Obama’s message and strategic outlook that Afghanistan is as critical - if not more so - as Iraq in the War on Terror.

It has always struck me as somewhat ironic that the very personification of the War on Terror’s objective, Osama bin ladin, has been able to cool his heels and operate with virtual impunity in Afghanistan’s border regions outskirts, without raising the ire of the most fervid supporters of the war. Considering the tendency - even the eagerness - to invoke the specter of 9/11 when challenged in their foreign policy beliefs, the right-wing has been stunningly numb to Osama’s continued prosperity.

This best change. It has to. And yet, we do not see it changing with McCain.

First off, we don’t hear McCain’s rhetoric changing from the Bush administration’s standard saws. Just today, his campaign criticized Obama for a “September 10th mindset.” That is a profoundly empty statement, not only relying that the listener react emotionally rather than rationally, but requiring they not question it.

For instance, the particular issue McCain contrasts with Obama on was the matter of whether Guantanamo detainees should have Constitutional legal protections or not. Now mind you, all of our prisoners customarily do, foreign or not. And the administration has made plain that the Gitmo crowd were not covered by the Geneva Convention like an enemy army would be. Mind you, the majority of detainees have been found to have had no links to terrorism, instead having been turned in for money by mercenaries or rival governments.

So in essence, Obama was criticized for giving the captives some form of legal rights, whereas McCain considered the smart, proper thing to do was to give them no rights at all.

If this position wasn’t cynical and stupid enough, McCain’s comments on Afghanistan raise further questions as to how sensible he is about matters of war. Asked by conservative media figure Michael Smerconish why we couldn’t invade the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas to pursue bin Ladin, McCain tried to sound erudite and reasonable:

“…there is a reason why [the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region] hasn’t been governed since Alexander the Great. They are ruled by about, as my understanding, 13 tribal entities and nobody has ever governed them.”

Unfortunately for McCain, that explanation is neither erudite or reasonable. In the first case, it’s not erudite because that area has, in fact, been effectively pacified, by rulers from the aforementioned Alexander, to Mahmud, to Tamerlane. In one form or another, it has proven it can be stable and prosperous.

Even more to the point is why it’s not reasonable: For while Afghanistan’s factious, backward and corrupt rulership might be a good reason not to invade in the first place, we passed that decision point awhile ago. Now we’re there, and we have a job to do.

That job is narrowly defined: Get Osama, and cut off the head of al-Qaeda. But even on that matter, McCain complains that we can’t just violate Pakistani sovereignty. To that, I ask, why not? The War on Terror was predicated on the notion that we couldn’t let little things like international law keep us from zapping the terrorists before they hit us with “another 9/11.” And while I actually refute most of that, I have to ask the question:

“If we marched some troops quietly into Pakistan’s border region for the sole purpose of hunting Osama, would Pakistan really complain all that much?”

Given that doing so would only make us isolate them further, cut off the oodles of aid money we fountain them in, and inspire us to beef up India, I doubt it. Obama does too, which is why, though McCain sneeringly accuses him of being out of touch with military matters, he remains firm on his policy that we would put boots on the ground in Pakistan whether they like it or not if it would bag us Osama.

Who’s got “September Ten Head” now, McCain?

This is precisely the kind of leadership we don’t need - the kind that so clouds the actual events of the war with the smoke of emotional drama that we don’t see that they, and not their critics, are the ones standing in the way of victory. For years under Bush, complaining about a lack of troops, armor or an exit strategy in Iraq was declared tantamount to treason, and a wide population of the American public accepted that. Now McCain is doing the same to mask his own mistakes.

He needs to get the facts right. First off, lacking a permanent troop presence in Iraq isn’t “surrender,” it’s obeying will of the government we installed and saving us hundreds of billions. Secondly, the War on Terror’s answer isn’t to hem and haw about how many tribes Afghanistan has - it’s to see its mission through by getting Osama no matter what the cost. And in that second case, it would be high time, what with the Taliban hitting back hard as ever.

Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defense said Tuesday that between 300 and 400 militants _ many of them foreigners _ took over the Arghandab region 10 miles northwest of Kandahar. The offensive Monday came three days after a Taliban attack on Kandahar’s prison that freed 400 insurgents.

Facts seem obscured by McCain at every turn, though; not just the military affairs he seems so vapid about. His latest answer to the agony of soaring gas prices was to beat the old drum of off-shore drilling.

Whether you oppose the moratorium or not, hoping to increase America’s 3% share of world oil to 3.25% or even 4% at the expense of our ailing oceans is not going to affect oil prices much. Furthermore, it would be ten years before any major output from offshore drilling could be expected.

Waiting a decade to shift our control of the market by 1% isn’t a plan to help the economic pain of today. It’s pushing an agenda through a gimmick while letting people continue to get screwed.

That - on the Iraq he wants to occupy despite its people’s will and so claims no less will be victory; on the Afghanistan he ignores even though our greatest enemy lives there and attacks with impunity; on Constitutional rights, economy, immigration - seems McCain’s only strategy.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama will be heading for the war front, with a lead in the polls and the solutions to make it worthwhile.

I’ve avoided the story of Marines handing out coins with Christian evangelical verse on them, largely out of hoping it’ll blow over, but a significant new development has taken place. Now a prominent leader of the famed “Sunni Awakening” has taken umbrage, stating in no uncertain terms that America could suffer a major backlash if this kind of behavior isn’t quashed, and for good.

“This event did not happen by chance, but it was planned and done intentionally,” [Sheik Abdul-Rahman al-Zubaie, an influential tribal leader in Fallujah] said. “The Sunni population cannot accept and endure such a thing. I might not be able to control people’s reactions if such incidents keep happening.”

We need the Sunni on our side. Before Petraeus breathed new life into talking with our most ardent terrorist enemies - the Sunni militias - and wouldn’t back down from political pressure, the majority of our casualties were being dealt by them. This map of casualties, by province, shows that it was in largely Sunni areas that we suffered worst.

Petraeus’ persistence in talking with the illegal, non-state actors that were responsible for the main part of our losses was revolutionary. It flies in the face of McCain’s babble about “preconditions”; the only precondition in this case was that they were killing more Americans than anyone else and promising to do it until we left. It goes far further than anything Obama’s said, as it wasn’t even talking to another government leader, but to the people who define the term “terrorist.” And it has done wonders for our cause in this war.

The possibility of them turning against us is chilling. With their prodigious influence turned against our enemies, we’ve been able to corner al-Qaeda and isolate the Shia militias, playing them against one another. It isn’t the Surge that’s holding Iraq together. The increased troop presence has allowed us to be effective as an offensive force against al-Q and the Shia. The Sunni were the ones who allowed us to go on the offensive in the first place. This is still the case.

Fortunately, the Sunni want to be on our side. Promise of funding and political power is still real and sweet for them. This incident with the coins - and the other recent controversy of a Marine sniper using the Koran for target practice - are real causes for vexation, but the US military still has plenty of opportunity to correct this kind of behavior.

They have apologized, and they’ve punished. What the Marine did was, of course, against the regulations. What needs to be done now is for commanders to send a clear message to the troops that these kinds of shenanigans are not just illegal, but inexcusably dangerous.

With the command we now have in place - one that has never flinched from what has to be done, no matter how politically unpopular - I am certain that message will be sent.

Tonight, a special comment from Keith Olbermann had me transfixed. Its subject, Bush and his feelings about Iraq. I present it here:

It is unforgiving and furious. No doubt this will offend some.

Yet whether one’s attitudes lean toward a reinforcement of our presence or a redeployment from that maelstrom to the other Bush war - Afghanistan - or home, this much seems certain: America grapples with disasters abroad, and bravely so. Perhaps we do the nature of the situation a disservice by being so polite about it. Perhaps, like is the case on the front lines we are indelibly engaged on, ‘unforgiving and furious’ is what is called for.

The most significant military genius of our times has been appointed to the most significant command in the world, as Army General David Petraeus was picked today by the President to head up CENTCOM. This is more than just a change of the brass on the shelf. This is the beginning of a new era of American war fighting in the toughest region of the world.

Petraeus is a figure of change because he is our American Pompey. Pompey was the Roman general who used a surge of resources and political will to win a tough war in the 60s BC not only by fighting better, but by winning the peace.

Pompey brought down an epidemic of piracy in the Mediterranean that made al-Qaeda look like the Falun Gong; his keys to victory were a phenomenal aptitude for organizing despite lean forces and a willingness to exercise amnesty over violence.

Petraeus has introduced the same to the American war in Iraq: He had to struggle as hard against a threadbare and mercenary Pentagon to get his Division, the 101st, into place in Iraq for the invasion as he did against Saddam’s forces, a conflict well recorded by Rick Atkinson’s “In The Company of Soldiers.”

Petraeus then took a page from Pompey’s book when, as Commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq, he masterminded and executed the “Sunni Uprising” - or, as it could objectively be called, the bribery and persuasion of our chief insurgent enemy to switch sides. Just like Pompey’s follow-up to the pirate campaign found him marching against the Greek King, Mithridates, buying off bandits and persuading towns to fly Rome’s banner in exchange for political agency, Petraeus offered the same to the Sunni provincial leaders. Often this demanded he undercut the Iraqi government in Baghdad, and even fly in the face of stated Bush administration policy.

In fact, if Petraeus, like his predecessors, had complied with Bush’s oath that we “do not negotiate with terrorists” and refused to recognize the militias as the dominant political forces on the ground, we would not have any measure of what success we have today. He cut deals with local leaders, feeding them funds long stymied by the corrupt Maliki regime set on starving them out. He worked out a backroom cease fire with Moktada al-Sadr, in direct defiance of Maliki. This has led to an unparalleled amount of public works in Iraq that actually stick. And, most importantly to the American military enterprise against its dogged enemies, it has allowed him to systematically focus on those opposed to our interests - first, al-Qaeda, and now, al-Sadr.

So what will Petraeus bring to the total command over Africa and the Middle East that comes from CENTCOM leadership? The same ingenuity and defiant dedication to success that Pompey brought to his total command of forces in the same region:

He will opportunistically circumvent stale, stubborn administration policies preventing him from talking to our enemies. He will focus on the core objective of counter-insurgency - eliminating the public support for the bandits - by whatever means necessary, including armistices and foreign aid. And he will continue to show a brilliance for organization - for making do with little and retaining the initiative against an adversary that is, by definition, unpredictable.

Pompey’s adventures were cunning above all else, and never let the stupidity of his government obscure his mission. His actions led to an era of domination that was the foundation of the future “Pax Romana” - the Roman epoch of prosperity, influence and military supremacy.

Petraeus, our Pompey, has the cards stacked against him too: A callow political leadership, a redoubtable enemy and awful terrain.

From what he has shown so far, his achievements will be no less legendary.

Some days, it doesn’t pay to get up in the morning. Others, manna and shekels rain from on high, but you’ve got holes in your pockets. This would be one of those days of overwhelming abundance, smothering my fatigue-enfeebled self under a political cornucopia.

Iran. Nukes. Al-Sadr. Petraeus. Obama. A new vision, old threats, good times.

I’ll give you the trimmed down version of this momentous day, with quotes and an offhand comment or two, and then go nurse the helium-headed insomnia I’ve got going on.

Iran wants nuclear fuel because they can get no energy from the copious amount of oil they have but cannot refine. Or they’re building a bomb. Whichever, they’re doing it fast, with 6,000 new centrifuges. Yes, that is a lot.

Iran has about 3,000 centrifuges operating at its underground nuclear facility in Natanz - the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that is past the experimental stage and can be used as a platform for a full industrial-scale program that could churn out enough enriched material for dozens of nuclear weapons over time.

He called the development a “breakthrough” and the “beginning of a speedy trend to eliminate the big powers” dominance in nuclear energy.

Everybody except Russia is less than enthused.

Obama suggested talking to Iran about Iraq too, because someone has to give them a talking to about acting like its cool that they’re a major broker in the nuke market, and besides, they run Iraq anyway. They got appointed by the Dawa Party now ruling Iraq back in ‘79, now we install the Dawa Party to be better neighbors than Saddam was. It’s June Cleaver Diplomacy.

“I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that” said Obama, adding that a plan for US troop withdrawals was needed to force Iraqi factions to work together.

“I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind, and this is where we disagree, includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal.”

I look forward to reviewing the whole kit-and-kaboodle of the Petraeus/Crocker briefing audio, tomorrow. The last time was such fun, with pictures, so that you can see that though all the Congressmen sound alike, they are each a different kind of homely.

Petraeus, surprisingly, didn’t advocate a precipitous withdrawal either.

Petraeus said his approach takes account of the fact that security gains achieved over the past year are fragile and reversible, and he said it is intended to “form a foundation for the gradual establishment of sustainable security in Iraq.” But he did not say when he thought that goal would be reached.

“Withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the past year,” Petraeus said.

Conclusion: Apparently the Democrats and Petraeus are in agreement. Neither wants an early withdrawal that will shatter the fragile peace and prosperity.

Moktada al-Sadr agrees with that too. No precipitous withdrawal for him.

[al-Sadr] urged the government to “demand the withdrawal of the occupier or a schedule for its withdrawal from our holy land.”

As for the fragile security that ruptured last week at a stamp of al-Sadr’s foot, Moktada is tired of getting shot at.

“I call on the Iraqi government, if it exists, to work to protect the Iraqi people, stop the spilling of its blood, and the abuse of its honor,” al Sadr said in the statement.

“If it exists.” Oh, snap!

In any event, even our former arch-enemies don’t want us to leave too hastily.

Sounds like a plan. Gee, it’s easy for people to get along.

Just when you think a war zone won’t surprise you, it does. Iraq proves it’s no exception to this rule as today Moktada al-Sadr announced that he will disarm and disband his militias if none other than Iraq’s leading religious figure, Supreme Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani tells him to.

It was the first time Sadr has offered to dissolve the Mehdi Army militia, whose black-masked fighters have been principle actors throughout Iraq’s five-year-old war and the main foes of U.S. and Iraqi forces in widespread battles over recent weeks.

It’s shocking enough that Moktada is in a mood to fold his hand considering many believe he won the last round, when last week he called Prime Minister al-Maliki’s bluff and showed his tactical superiority. More shocking still, however, is Moktada’s appointment of al-Sistani as arbiter of his fate.

Read the rest of the article »

In continuation of his, shall we say, “unpredictable” tactics, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki had Iraqi Army forces launch raids into the Basra cauldron. These stabs into the siege may have been meant to net the seizure of critical arms caches, but if they struck pay dirt, we’ve yet to hear about it. All that it has been sure to accomplish is provoking rival Shia Islamist Moktada al-Sadr to step up the rhetoric, driving him closer to a fight he clearly does not want.

Read the rest of the article »

Prime Minister Maliki, true to form, did next to nothing when his extended deadline passed this Friday night, and has claimed that as a victory. This is in keeping with his legacy in the Iraqi Parliament, where he has been “victorious” at drawing out the process of emergency legislation into a morass that makes pet rocks look spry.

Read the rest of the article »