Classified Analysis

Ok, exactly how clear does it have to be made that the administrations case for the "surge" is absurd, without actually saying it in so many words. Nearly every analysis of the security situation in Iraq generally and even Baghdad specifically, indicates that the situation is no better and probably getting worse since the start of the surge. In fact every analysis except one. The lone exception, the White House report about to be talked about by Gen. Patraeus. This one report has two distinctive qualities, however:

1. The analysis indicates that the situation is distinctly improving.
2. The method of analysis and the numbers used are all classified.

Not only are the raw numbers classified, but everything is classified except the final claim, according to Josh Marshall:

The best we can tell the methodology Petraeus's staff is using to tabulate the numbers also remains classified.

In other words, it's not just a matter of getting the numbers from Petraeus and his staff and deciding whether you believe them or not. They won't even tell us what the numbers are -- let alone how they came up with them. All they'll say is that they're very good. Or in some cases that there's X percentage drop over the course of the surge. Or an isolated number here or there.

But actual hard numbers? Going back over the last couple years? For some reason we're not allowed to see those.

Now this is ridiculous. One basic principal of drawing conclusions from data is that independent agents be able to look at what the data are and how they are analyzed. This is not just some elevated scientific principal, it is just common sense. Look, if your stock broker told you that you weren't able to look at any of the number involved with the investments he'd made, but that his analysis (which you aren't allowed to look at) shows it growing by leaps and bounds, you'd be a fool to just accept this. If he's honest he must show you something that can confirm his claims. The same applies to Patraeus and the White House.

Giuliani and Iraq

Although the mainstream press has ignored it for the most part, folks on the left have kind of taken notice of the report in Newsday on Monday that Rudy Giuliani was booted off the Iraq Study Group commission for failing to attend any meetings. Apparently, he had more lucrative speaking engagements to attend. For the details see Fred Kaplan's piece in Slate, or Kos, or TPM. One thing about ditching the ISG, coupled with another recent comment of Rudy's, has struck me as particularly ironic, but I haven't seen anyone highlight this particular irony.

Recently Rudy released his "12 Commitments" to highlight the issues he will consider most important. It was noted that among those commitments there was no mention of Iraq and his response when asked about this omission was

“What I was trying to do was to look at the things, as best as you can predict it now, that are going to be there a year and half from now,” he said. “iraq may get better. Iraq may get worse. We may be successful in Iraq. We may not be. I don’t know the answer to that. That’s in the hands of other people. But what we do know for sure is the terrorists are going to be at war with us a year, a year and half from now.”

Now many others have commented on the callousness of any presidential candidate simply dismissing the most important issue facing this nation, the war in Iraq, as somebody else's problem. But what strikes me is that when Giuliani agreed to be on the ISG it became, to some extent, his problem as well. It has since become "somebody else's problem" only because he didn't bother to show up for meetings to address the issue. Why would any sensible person expect that he will ever take the responsibility for this war seriously, whether he becomes President or not.

Bush Iraq Policy

Josh, at TPM, points up the central contradiction in the Bush Administration policy toward Iraq at this point, and this contradiction should get a great deal more airing and discussion. Current policy toward Iraq rests on two central points. On the one hand the Administration insists that to leave Iraq is to hand the terrorists a victory that would threaten western civilization. On the other hand, when confronted with the failures of the Iraqi government to get their own control over security, Bush or Rice will insist that our patience is not unlimited. However, the former point precludes the later. Our patience running out has no meaning unless it is followed by our withdraw of our military forces from that country. Alternately, if staying in Iraq is the only hope we have of staving off the terrorist threat, then our patience must be quite without limit.

The fact that George Bush specifically, and conservatives in general, cannot seem to even perceive this contradiction, let alone resolve it, speaks volumes as to the inability of conservatism to even approach foreign affairs and national security. Furthermore, of the two options I listed for resolving the contradiction

• Our patience will some day run out and we leave Iraq
• Leaving Iraq will destroy us so we will stay indefinitely

I contend that the later option is absurd. The notion that there exists absolutely no policy for containing and combating terrorism and Islamic extremism other than staying in Iraq, is beyond ridiculous. Even if we pull out of Iraq, no terrorist organization or group will achieve such dominance as to be able to put the United States in any danger much greater than we currently face. By rebuilding our alliances, relying more on international cooperation and police efforts and by rebuilding our military forces we can, in fact, improve our ability to defend ourselves against terrorist attack. This leaves to the obvious conclusion that our best strategy with regards to Iraq is to use the treat of our actual departure to motivate the Iraqi government to achieve something along the lines of stability and, if they cannot, to begin departure immediately.

Time to Leave

Read what Kevin Drum has to say about Iraq. He pretty much sums up my thinking on our presence in Iraq.

Al Quaeda is growing stronger in Pakistan. The primary factor making this resurgence possible is the US presence in Iraq. The presence directly drives recruitment. More than that, however, is the absence of security in Iraq makes possible a robust industry of kidnapping for profit as well as a host of other illegal activities that are being used by Al Quaeda groups to fund their resurgence. Our invasion of Iraq has been from the beginning an ill-conceived, poorly planned military operation that has long since ceased to provide the US or Iraq any substantial benefit. The resources put into Iraq would serve us much better if they were withdrawn from Iraq and directed elsewhere. It is now clear that our presence in Iraq has become a huge detriment to the US and to Iraq. The only purpose still served by our forces in Iraq is to save American conservatives from having to admit that they were profoundly wrong and screwed up.

War Czar

Josh Marshall has a very good post on our new War Czar. I've been mostly snarky in my comments so far, but this is a serious matter and raises some important issues. In the first part a knowledgeable TPM reader comments on some little noted but important features of the appointment of Lt. General Lute. He notes that

It’s not that the administration had to lower their sights to a 3-star. The amazing thing is that they had to fall back on an active duty general – a guy they could order to take the job. All the previous names floated were retired folks who had the luxury of turning the offer down.

If this is supposed to be an important position needed to coordinate these two essential fronts on this war of such monumental importance to the nation, the inability to find someone who is willing to take the position voluntarily is striking and is bad. Clearly there are few people who actually believe that the position has any prospect for success. No one would turn down the chance to take such a high profile position if there were any substantial chance of success. The value of being that successful leader is simply too great. History shows unless the odds are long indeed there will be no shortage of men willing to try for the glory. Yet this Administration can find no such men to fill this position. But consider this too. When a country is in a desperate situation and it faces ruin or destruction, there are again many who will take the chance, however long, to be the nation's savior. The glory again outweighs the odds. But again this position has no takers. The inescapable conclusion is that the odds on success are very long and the potential benefit to the nation is slim. This war is simply not the matter of national existence that the conservatives would have us believe it is.

Another problem raised by this appointment and discussed by TPM's knowledgeable reader is the chain of command problems raised by having a three star general in this position.

I’ve never met Lute, but his resume is solid. It’s particularly noteworthy that his last three jobs have all been joint positions. He will probably be an effective organizer. But as a currently serving 3-star, he will be at best a coordinator, outranked by many of the key people he needs to coordinate.

There are some additional serious issues with regard to this whole idea. Issues beyond the questions of current competence in the White House if the President needs to appoint someone else to run the war (he is the commander-in-chief after all) the time taken to fill the post (the fact that no one wants the job indicates that we have a problem) and the evidence from experience that this is just a means, on the part of the President, of ducking responsibility for his lack of leadership to date. But more than that the very position is problematical.

This country has been very successful and very fortunate in keeping its military forces under civilian control. We have been blessed with a long tradition of dedicated officers who have not fallen to the temptations that have bedeviled other nations. Officers are trained to give orders, but they are also trained to follow them. A military organization works best when it is given objectives to achieve and the resources to do so, but when those objectives are set by another, civilian entity. As I said above, the United States has been skilled and blessed to have achieved something so very close to the most proper balance between civilian and military leadership throughout its history.

But this balance does not come without effort and a number of principals and guidelines need to be followed if the balance is to be maintained. This War Czar position seems to not only be conceived without proper regard to these principals, but to be blithely ignorant that they even exist. For one thing, the position is reported to be responsible for coordinating both military and civilian affairs. As such Lute, an active duty officer, will be overseeing the operations of civilians in the State Department. The proper role is to have the military responsible to the civilian leadership, not the other way around. The earlier search for a retired General to take the position did not raise this concern as a retired General is no longer in the military chain of command. He is essentially a civilian. An active duty general officer with responsibility to direct the State Department is a new precedent which should be given serious and careful consideration before being implemented.

This is not just a problem, however, of potential overreach of the military. The ability of the military to function effectively in the future is also put in jeopardy due to the ever increasing responsibilities heaped upon it. Our system works well by keeping the roles of the military and civilian leadership distinct, not by conflating them. Overextending the military by including in its mission tasks that are best run by civilians runs the risk of serious long term damage to the effectiveness of our military forces. To quote from Josh's readers again

What we hear repeatedly expressed as the danger now...both with this nomination, and with constantly rhetorically making Gen. Petraeus responsible for "the plan" in Iraq...is that the military will be held accountable for the policy. As a military friend privately comments, "This is simply wrong".

There's also a serious debate going on within military circles about what might be termed Constitutional issues...a debate which could well get to the Congress, since the Senate will be required to hold hearings and to approve Lute's nomination. Here's the private comment of a very well-known retired general, which has resonance for Japan's debate over revising Article 9:

"The czar business is certainly unprecedented and is either a tacit admission that the in-place structure does not meet the needs of the time or is a political maneuver by a desperate president shuffling the deck chairs.

This is serious stuff, indeed, for it calls into question the basic construct of the US military for over half a century.

It remains to be seen what Lute's brief will be and given Title 10, what authorities he is given. In any case POTUS is tampering with fundamentals and it will have serious consequences that I hope have been fully analyzed and understood.

Certainly the Congress which gave birth to the National Security Act and all the legislation that followed has to weigh in on this.

Given the anti-Bush temperament of that body, I find it stunning that the President has given it another reason to attack him for not knowing what he is doing.

The days ahead will be most interesting."

It is clear that this Administration will not give the due, serious consideration that the implementation of this position requires. Let us hope that Congress will, and let us put pressure on our Senators to give that proper oversight.

Reid Feingold Goes Down

Well the proposed Senate Reid-Feingold bill to cut off funding for the war was defeated today with the failure to achieve cloture. The vote was 67-29 against the bill, so it was not at all close. Interestingly though, the Presidential candidates were, for the most part, with the bill. The pressure generally for ending the Iraq mess is growing.

We Have a War Czar

Well a nominee at least. And I was so skeptical that they White House would be able to find someone for the job. Of course, they weren't able to find anyone very high profile

Lute is a widely respected officer, but is by no means a high-profile player in Washington. Before assuming his position at the Pentagon, he was the director of operations for Central Command while Gen. John Abizaid was the commander.

But for the oversight of the Afghan and Iraqi wars do we really need to worry about getting the best that the Pentagon has to offer?

Filling the position had become a priority for the White House, after a handful of retired generals told the White House they did not want the job. Among them, retired Marine Corps four-star Gen. Jack Sheehan, who proved an embarrassment to the White House after he wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post saying there were "huge shortcomings" in the White House view of the strategy in Iraq.

Now of course, he will still need to confirmed by the Senate, so that will be a hurdle. Those Senate Democrats might try and insist that the person in charge of running the war perhaps ought to be the commander-in-chief, but George could still get his man. Then he will be set with someone official to blame for the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To be a bit less flippant, it will be interesting to see if Gen. Lute will have any authority to shape our military policy in Iraq at all. I'm betting that the answer is no. This war czar position is created to provide cover for George Bush and Dick Cheney, they can now point to this guy to blame. Also, the appointment and confirmation process will help drag out for a few more months discussions of bring the war to an end. Well, the White House will try to use it this way. The new Czar won't get to Iraq with his new title until August or September. Yet the White House and Congressional Republicans will be insisting that we give this new Czar six months to can produce success.

I should point out that the White House's political strategy runs directly counter to sound military strategy. The political strategy is to keep dragging out the process. A small build up and new offensive last year before the elections, then a surge early this year, then a bit more surge, then a war Czar and a bit more time. Each step is designed to keep the ball in the air for a bit more time. The thing is that the basics of military strategy are to assemble your maximum forces and one point in time and one place and strike with all your strength at once. Attacking piecemeal is much, much less effective that attacking in force. Yet to try and satisfy the Bush/Rove political calculations, we are following the worst of possible military strategies.

Exit Strategy

From Senator Mitch McConnel with Wolf Blitzer talking about the ineffefctiveness of the Iraqi government

BLITZER: And if they're not going to do what they need to do, what happens then?

MCCONNELL: Well, the Iraqi government is a huge disappointment. Republicans overwhelmingly feel disappointed about the Iraqi government. I read just this week that a significant number of the Iraqi parliament want to vote to ask us to leave.

I want to assure you, Wolf, if they vote to ask us to leave, we'll be glad to comply with their request.

So the Republican leader in the Senate is saying that the disposition of American troops overseas is in the hands of this Iraqi parlament. The attitude of the Republican leadership is to hand over the decision making regarding the disposition of our armed forces to the Iraqi government. With the current conservative administration and leadership the military forces of the United States of America are left jumping to the commands of the Iraqi government, coming or going at their command. How low this crowd can bring the mighty.

King George

So now George Bush is saying he will veto the latest measure that House Democrats are proposing for Iraq war funding.

House Democratic leaders are now putting together a proposal that would pay for the war through September but come with a different set of conditions: About half of the money would be dependent on Bush reporting to Congress this summer on the Iraqi government's progress toward meeting security goals.

Even this degree of oversight and accountability is too much for this President.

President Bush would veto the new Iraq spending bill being developed by House Democrats because it includes unacceptable language restricting funding, White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday morning.

Apparently any restrictions whatsoever on George Bush spending will draw a veto. Keep in mind that he is threatening to leave our troops without support in the field (it is questionable how true this is, but that is his claim) unless he gets everything he wants. Furthermore, this latest proposal would not, in any way, hamper the ability of our military to function. No, this President is simply being petulant and insisting that he get his way. More significantly, he is indicating that he can't function if there is going to be any review of his work. This is simply intolerable. The American people are sovereign and have every right to hold their President accountable for his performance as commander-in-chief. We must do exactly that. Pressure needs to be brought upon our Republican members of Congress to no longer support the childishness of this President.

Democrats are Holding Firm

The AP reports that Democrats are holding tough on the Iraq funding.

Bush and Congress have been discussing a possible compromise on a war spending bill needed to finance combat operations through September. The president demands the money without strings attached and so far has found strong Republican support. But Democrats say Bush eventually will have to accept some conditions on the U.S. commitment in Iraq because of the war's unpopularity among voters.

So earlier rumors that Democrats were going to cave were premature. That is good. The Democrats need to hang tough, they are on the right side of this issue and the country needs resolution to this war. It appears that the Democrats are leaning toward a short term funding bill, perhaps with limited restrictions on the President. I believe that is an excellent tactic and has a great chance of success.

Republicans will try their best to portray this issue as one of Democratic intransigence.

Congressional Democrats have signaled they're not ready to back down in their confrontation with President Bush on Iraq, spurring Republicans to accuse them of causing political gridlock.

However, the fact is that the Democrats are providing funding for our troops, the President is refusing to spend the money provided. That is how the matter stands. It is clear too from much of the commentary on this issue that the Democrats are expected to back down first. I can only conclude that it is widely believed that Republicans have so little regard for our troops welfare that they will never give up their perceived political objectives in order to support our men and women in uniform and in harm's way. Indeed it is far more reasonable to expect that the Democrats in Congress will deviate from their political objectives out of concern for and sympathy for our men and women in the field. They will do so far sooner than Republicans ever will. However, the Democrats in Congress and in particular their leadership do understand that the ultimate welfare of our troops depends upon getting funding with the appropriate controls on our reckless President. With that kept in mind, the Democrats will get a bill through that supports our armed forces and brings this war to a close.

To My Representative

I just sent the following off to my representative inspired by Matt Stoler.

Yesterday, George Bush vetoed the supplemental spending bill approved by both Houses of Congress. The bill as originally passed was a good bill and should have had the President's signature. The timelines and restrictions in the bill simply reflect the will of the American people. George Bush has no right to demand a blank check from the American people for his war. Therefore, I am concerned to hear that some members of the Democratic leadership are talking now of removing those restrictions from the next version of the bill. That should not be done.

First I urge the Democratic leadership to put the bill up for another vote to overturn the veto. Let those who support the President go on record that they would deprive our soldiers of needed supplies in order to support George Bush's unreasonable demands. Secondly, a new bill should be passed providing funding for only two months. Let the issue be brought up and debated so that we, the American people, can be assured that progress is indeed being made in Iraq.

Finally, the Reid-Feingold proposal should be the basis of the Democrats position from this point forward. Clearly state that the war will not be funded after a set date in the future and stick to that position.

Let yours know how your feel. Your representatives contact information can be found here.

Desperate Bush

John Aravosis sees another indication that Bush is feeling desperate these days. Bush is at Camp David for the Abe visit. Bush does not want to veto this bill. Note that "The White House has not said whether Bush plans a quiet veto or a public ceremony." They are not all that keen on making this a public issue. The veto, and the showdown are not attractive to this Administration. They are loosing this fight and they know it. As long as the Democrats stay aware of that fact, a decent funding bill will become law.

Maybe a Good Compromise

The Iraq War supplemental spending bills have been reconciled. The House and Senate have reached a deal. As John Aravosis puts it, "it's the House benchmarks and the Senate timetable for withdrawl." Looks like it might be a fine compromise. No caving to George Bush. Congress needs to stick to its guns and make the man sign it with the imposed restrictions, or follow through on his threat and veto it. There had been some talk around the internet that the reconciliation bill might be quite watered down. It seems like that is not the case.

Update: Via mcjoan at daily Kos here is a WaPo article on the bill. It looks like it is headed for a veto. The bill should reach Bush's desk by late Thursday. If it does get to Bush's desk on Thursday then he has until May 8 to veto it.

Powered by ScribeFire.

What is wrong with these people?

I mean Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). Why in the name of all that's holy is he offering to cave on the Iraq war supplemental. Bush has not yet vetoed the bill. Do not offer Bush something better before he vetoes the bill. Even if you are going to cave, which the Democrats really should not (see Talk Left on this) at least make the President veto the bill. Everyone in the country wants the Democrats to hold firm and everyone in the country will see Bush's veto of the bill as Bush refusing to support the troops. Do not give the man an out. There is absolutely no reason at this point to be offering anything to George Bush on this issue. Harry Reid has it right (via Greg Sergent)

Harry Reid is now on C-Span responding to the President's speech today demanding that Congress defy the American people and give him a bill funding his war with no withdrawal timelines. Asked by a reporter if Congress would be making some kind of offer to Bush in the quest for a compromise, Reid said:

"The offer is that the President sign our bill."

That is absolutely the only offer that should be made at this point.

Iraq Insurgency

The Washington Post reports on the current state of the Iraqi insurgency. The insurgency has long consisted of a large number of dispirate groups. Most operate in some local area not nationally. There has not been much in the way of national coordination. The article quotes

Many of the insurgent groups, however, are reluctant to unite. Abu Aja Naemi, a commander of the 1920 Revolution Brigades based in Duluiyah, north of Baghdad, recalled a meeting among various groups to discuss forming an umbrella organization. The idea fell through, he said, over concerns about turf.

"Every commander of an organization said, 'I have my own method that I am following, and so I am going to follow it,' " said Naemi, who said his fighters have clashed with al-Qaeda in several cities, including Haditha and Husaybah. "If there is greater organization, they worry that in the future they will lose power in their areas. So they work separately."

His own group has splintered in recent weeks, leading to the emergence of a faction of mostly Palestinian fighters calling itself Hamas, after the radical Palestinian organization. Naemi said that for now, the new group was still allied with the 1920 Revolution Brigades and serving as part of its military wing.

These groups seem a likely to splinter as to unite.

Still, it would seem that there is a growing serious split between the bulk of the Suni insurgent groups and al Quaeda. The al Quaeda groups are more deadly to the Sunni population than are the Americans and so their welcome in Iraq is all but gone. This is very good news. Removing al Quaeda's influence in the country will be a good thing. But it does point up the foolishness of this entire operation. Our invasion of Iraq has only served to increase the number of enemies we are fighting. Al Quaeda was able to become strong in Iraq because of our invasion and in addition we added a large fraction of Sunni Arabs, who were not earlier supportive of attacks on the United States, to the ranks of those who were attacking Americans. In short we have spent thousands of lives and billions of dollars to separate these groups who should never have been joined together in the first place.

Extending troop deployments

So on Tuesday President Bush addressed the American Legion and, among other things, took the opportunity to lay into Congress over the war funding supplemental

The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country.

This is what Bush was saying on Tuesday. Now set aside for a moment the absurdity of him claiming that because Congress has passed a bill that will require him to bring troops home sooner than he wants, he will veto the bill, forcing the troops to stay there longer, and this will be the fault of Congress. Let's for a moment believe that there is some plausible reason behind his basic claim. On Tuesday he is claiming that if Congress presents him with a bill with a time line, then because of the time line he will be forced to extend troop deployments. Ok.

On Wednesday the Pentagon, you know the Pentagon ultimately answerable to and run by George Bush, announces that troop deployments will be extended by three months. This is you know, well before the bill from Congress is presented to him. So, this increase in the troop deployment time is not being caused by the form of the bill presented by Congress, because you know there is not yet a bill being presented by Congress. This in spite of the fact that 24-hours earlier the President was saying that Congress was, maybe, going to force the increase in the troop deployment time.

Something is a little fishy. It gets worse.

It turns out that the announcement on Wednesday was forced because someone leaked the increase in the troop deployments to the press.

In terms of why we're announcing it simultaneously with the unit commanders, I'll be very blunt. Some very thoughtless person in this building made the unilateral decision yesterday to deny the army the opportunity to notify unit commanders who could then talk to their troops 48 hours before we made a public announcement. And, I can't tell you how angry it makes many of us that one individual would create potentially so much hardship not only for our servicemen and women but their families, by letting them read about something like this in the newspapers.

So it would seem that the Pentagon was expecting to increase the length of the troop deployments, and would need to increase those deployments whatever form the funding bill from Congress took.

Mind you from President Bush accusing Congress of forcing this to happen depending upon the form that the funding bill takes, until Gates is announcing the new policy, takes approximately 24-hours. But that is only because "some thoughtless person in this building" leaked the information. Could it be that the White House plan was to sit on this information until the bill came from Congress then make the announcement and blame Congress, even though they were planning this change all along? I wonder.

Mind you it gets even worse. The "good" explanation, the one that the White House wants you to believe is that George Bush doesn't know what's going on.

Dana Perino explained the timing by claiming that President Bush had been in the dark about the troop deployments until the morning it was announced:

Q So why did he tell the American Legion that people would be staying in Iraq longer because of the Democrats, when his own Pentagon, 24 hours later, was going to keep people there longer?

MS. PERINO: Well, one, I don’t know if the President knew about the — the meeting — remember, yesterday morning is when Secretary Gates came and talked to the President. […]

Q And so the President didn’t know about his own policy until Wednesday?

MS. PERINO: I’m not aware that the President knew that there was going to be — that Secretary Gates had come to any decisions.

So, the best explanation, is that George Bush was so concerned about the possibility that the form of the funding bill might force troop deployments to be extended, but was unaware that his existing policies were doing exactly that anyway. Now that he knows that his current plan is going to force these extensions, which on Wednesday were a real concern, does it matter any more? Apparently not. And this is the "good" explanation.

Bush is getting very weak

As reported by Think Progress the Bush Administration invited senior congressional reporters to the White House last week in order to pressure them into reporting more on "divisions" within the ranks of Iraq war critics. The fact that they are doing so, and the fact that it is being leaked out and reported on, shows the growing concern the White House has over vetoing the spending bill. As I've been saying, the White House does not want to veto this bill and furthermore the Democrats are starting to understand that the White House doesn't want to veto this. This is more and more becoming a fight, like Social Security reform, that the White House will loose. This report is important on two fronts, one it shows the growing desperation of the White House on this issue and as Think Progress points out it highlights the unity of the Democrats

In fact, congressional opponents of the war are remarkably united on efforts to set a timeline for redeployment, bolstered by consistent public opinion polls showing broad public support for withdrawal. Meanwhile, conservatives are splintering. This week, a “diverse collection of House Republicans has formed an ad hoc group” to encourage the White House “to compromise on negotiations with Syria and Iran and on setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq.”

The White House is in a losing fight and wants the media to help them carry water. We’ll be watching to see if any congressional reporters fall in line and write up the White House spin.

Rahm Emanuel calls for Democrats to hang tough

This is a piece of very welcome news. Here is a memo from Rahm Emanuel urging all Democrats to hand tough and continue to pressure Bush on the war funding resolution. Now Rahm Emanuel has not been one of the most progressive and anti-war members of the Democratic caucus. Indeed he has come under considerable fire from the left side of the party for being too centrist, too DLC. So, if Rahm Emanuel has adopted this position then the Democratic leadership is united and we are in an excellent position to keep the rank and file similarly united. In other words, even the Blue Dogs should be willing to go with what he is saying. Here are a few choice quotes from the memo

We find ourselves in a strong position because the American people support our policy objectives and our plan for Iraq, especially as they measure up against the failures of the administration’s policies. As we continue through the process of sending an Iraq spending bill to the President for his approval, we need to go beyond the debate about the funding for the war, and remind the American people of the policies we are recommending -- benchmarks for the Iraqis, support for our troops through training and equipment, and a plan for a responsible and strategic redeployment of our troops. It is also important that we remind the country of the policy position of Congressional Republicans on Iraq – their rubberstamping of the President’s Iraq policies, and their refusal to conduct responsible oversight.

...

President Bush has continued to demand Congress provide him with a blank check for an open-ended commitment of American troops in Iraq. Democrats and the American people agree that we must change direction in Iraq by providing our troops with the resources and protection they need, while planning for a strategic and responsible redeployment of US troops.

...

As we move forward, we should not lose sight of the fact that nearly 70% of the country supports our plan for Iraq. The country is more engaged in this issue than any other, and has paid close attention to the plans offered by Democrats and the President. The country has made a conscious decision to support our approach.

...

Given the Republicans' unwillingness to offer their own alternative or plan for funding our troops and changing direction in Iraq, Democrats must remain resolute while publicly urging the President to join us for meaningful negotiations on the supplemental. While we will never reject out of hand any offer from the President to meet and discuss the supplemental, we must insist on meaningful negotiations with the White House.

Read the whole thing but these are exactly the kinds of things I want to hear from the Democratic leadership. Given the position Bush is in over this funding bill, I am absolutely convinced that the Democrats can win this fight if they do just hang tough. With members of the Democratic caucus such as Rahm Emanuel articulating these ideas, we should be in good shape.

War Czar?

Great, the White House is now considering appointing a War Czar to oversee the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but can't find anyone who will take the job. The Washington Post reports

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

and

The idea of someone overseeing the wars has been promoted to the White House by several outside advisers. "It would be definitely a good idea," said Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Hope they do it, and hope they do it soon. And I hope they pick the right guy. It's a real problem that we don't have a single individual back here who is really capable of coordinating the effort."

Which, of course open up the obvious comments along the lines of "Don't we already have such a person, gets elected every four year, has title Commander-in-Chief?" But then one does have to see the point in saying that "The White House doesn't have a single individual who is really capable of coordinating the effort." So they do have a point.

But I find the issue even more pathetic than the above suggests. Because if you read the article there are a few more points, that ley you know why they can't find an outsider to take the position. For example there is this

The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq.

and this

In the course of the discussions, Sheehan said, he called around to get a better feel for the administration landscape.

"There's the residue of the Cheney view -- 'We're going to win, al-Qaeda's there' -- that justifies anything we did," he said. "And then there's the pragmatist view -- how the hell do we get out of Dodge and survive? Unfortunately, the people with the former view are still in the positions of most influence." Sheehan said he wrote a note March 27 declining interest.

It seems pretty clear from these comments, and this administration's history, that no one put into this position will have the authority to make actual, substantive decisions. It will continue to be "stay the course" and run things as the President (or Vice President) wishes. In short this is not a position to coordinate the military and civilian operations of these conflicts, but rather a position to take the blame for the President's failure to coordinate the military and civilian operations of these conflicts.

Bush's invitation to Congress

Apparently Bush has a new proposal for resolving the impasse between the White House and Congress over the funding for the Iraq war. His proposal is to have leaders from both parties in Congress come to the White House where he will explain what he wants again and will refuse to negotiate or compromise in any way. Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum are covering it so far. Needless to say this is classic Bush style, my way or the highway. What reason Democrats would have to take this offer up is a complete mystery as is what the White House really expects to accomplish with it. But it strikes me that there is something implied by this as well. If the White House really thinks that vetoing the existing bill is such a winner for them, why make any kind of offer (however worthless). It seems to me that this offer, as it is, is driven by two things, the White House refusal to compromise or cooperate on anything, but also, the White House does not want to veto the existing bill. It is finally sinking in that their old talk tough approach has lost its appeal to the American voter and they stand a fair chance of being crushed if they do veto the bill. This is a clear a sign of desperation on the part of this White House that you will ever get so Democrats, please stand tough.