Democrats Part One
…Continued tomorrow!
political, political cartoons, satire, cartoons, Democrats, Biden, Lieberman
Scrutiny Hooligans has a couple of excellent posts about voting reform. Your vote is no good if it isn’t counted properly, if it gets counted at all. There’s a petition to sign to help get a resolution passed that would make voter verified paper trails for federal elections mandatory, among other reforms.
Psuedo Live Blogging Of The President
This morning President Bush delivered a speech to the US Naval Academy in Annapolis Maryland regarding the US Policy in Iraq. As an experiment, Goose and I did a running commentary on chat, and here I provide it in its entirety for you. Click here for the transcripts of the speech courtesy of CNN.com. Please give us feedback in the comments.
[09:42] mr_m_lofc: Welcome to our psuedo live blogging of the president.
[09:44] mr_m_lofc: OOOH, immediately evoking 9-11. Some memes just won’t die will they?
[09:44] goose3five: It is impossible for him to give a speech without bringing up 9/11
[09:44] goose3five: I would think that if he were giving a speech about school lunches he would still bring it up.
09:45] mr_m_lofc: Which, let’s not forget the “missing class” quip. For those not in the know, Bush is delivering this speech at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis Maryland. I think it’s interesting to note that Bush is still playing bubble boy as it is a pretty well known fact that Officers are traditionally conservative.
[09:46] goose3five: I think it is worth noting that the last time we saw Bush giving a speech in front of a Navy audience it was two years ago in front of a banner reading “mission accomplished” - how ironic.
[09:47] mr_m_lofc: “In the years ahead, you will join them in the fight”? Doesn’t sound good for the timeline crowd does it?
[09:48] goose3five: In watching this speech M, the American public should be looking for the President to say something new.
[09:48] mr_m_lofc: Which he’s not.
[09:48] goose3five: not yet that’s for sure
[09:49] mr_m_lofc: Again he ties the war in Iraq to the GWOT.
[09:49] goose3five: Does he really expect us to believe that the insurgency is made up of former Saddam loyalists?
[09:50] mr_m_lofc: Here is something new, and that’s the coining of the term “Saddamists”
[09:50] goose3five: Ah, sorry he is now saying that the suicide bombings, beheadings and other attrocities are all being carried out by Al Qaida
[09:51] mr_m_lofc: Well, at this point he is dividing the insurgency into three groups. Militant Sunnis, Saddamists, and Al Qaida.
[09:51] goose3five: Ok I see where this is going, the claim is that Al Qaida wants to take over Iraq and use it as the core of their totalitarian Islamic state.
[09:52] mr_m_lofc: Which is still nothing new.
[09:52] mr_m_lofc: I find it incredibly interesting that he does not significantly address Iraqi nationalism.
[09:52] goose3five: 9/11 again
[09:53] mr_m_lofc: Ileology
[09:53] mr_m_lofc: Man this guy is a master debator
[09:54] mr_m_lofc: As Bush goes into the same old saw of “we fight them over there so we don’t fight them over here,” I’m forced to ask this question: How significant is it that Bush is giving a “major speech” in front of a traditionally conservative audience at 10:00 am when most people are at work?
[09:55] mr_m_lofc: Three elements of victory
[09:55] goose3five: I would call this one a dry run for some future prime time speech.
[09:55] mr_m_lofc: Make a politically free Iraq[09:55] mr_m_lofc: Keep the coallition on the offensive against the enemy.
[09:56] goose3five: Ok, I am convinced that there is really nothing new[09:56] mr_m_lofc: Economically, rebuild Iraq.
[09:56] mr_m_lofc: I so far agree.
[09:56] mr_m_lofc: Which is on par with a typical Bush “major spreech”
[09:56] goose3five: Ok, he just said the focus of this speech is to address the training of Iraqi security focres.
[09:57] goose3five: Happy talk.
[09:57] mr_m_lofc: And still he says nothing new.
[09:57] goose3five: no substance
[09:58] goose3five: now he is saying that at this time last year there were only a handfull of Iraqi battalions trained…time to check what they were saying last year.
[09:58] goose3five: If I recall correctly that is not at all what they were saying.
[09:58] mr_m_lofc: I digress at this point because I do think Iraqi Security Training is VITAL. It is vital not only in allowing us to come home, but also in the developing of Iraqi nationalism which I think is the key part to winning this thing.
[09:59] mr_m_lofc: No last year they were estimating over 100,000 troops I believe.
[09:59] goose3five: Note, the assertion is 120 trained Iraqi battallions
[10:00] mr_m_lofc: Now Bush is comparing the difference between Faluja, and Tel Afur
[10:02] goose3five: 90 square miles of Bagdad province have been turned over to Iraqi security forces.
[10:02] goose3five: A dozen bases have been turned over.
[10:02] goose3five: How many bases do we have in Iraq anyway?
[10:04] goose3five: I have to say that it is going to be very difficult, regardless of what milestones the Administration chooses to set, to define victory in Iraq.
[10:04] mr_m_lofc: Well, that’s the problem.
[10:04] mr_m_lofc: First victory was just invading (”mission accomplished”)
[10:05] mr_m_lofc: Then it was elections
[10:05] mr_m_lofc: Now it’s training up their military.
[10:05] goose3five: What happened to a Jeffersonian Democracy?
[10:05] mr_m_lofc: The biggest problem with the Bush Administration’s rhetoric is that it has been displaying its milestones as victories.
[10:06] mr_m_lofc: To answer that question, if you remember the inaugural address at the beginning of the year, Bush did say that, “their form of democracy may not look like ours.”
[10:06] goose3five: Hey look, I have no desire to play Monday morning quarterback here. The real problem is that they spent so much time blowing happy smoke up everyones ass that the public has unrealistic expectations.
[10:08] mr_m_lofc: An important thing to see here is the definitely misleading continuing assertion that the people that we’re fighting over there are terrorists. This actually goes against the statement Bush made earlier on in the speech that Al Qaeda makes up the smallest part of the insurgency.
[10:08] mr_m_lofc: Again, I say that the POTUS is ignoring the nationalistic element of the insurgency.
[10:09] goose3five: He has ignored the fact that, as recently as last week, the Iraqi leadership called for a withdrawl of our troops.
[10:09] mr_m_lofc: As Bush goes through and outlines the training of Iraqi troops, he builds up this high standard for future troops, and then goes back and says they don’t really have to meet them.
[10:09] mr_m_lofc: Did I really hear that right?
[10:09] goose3five: They recognize that this thing will never settle down enough until we are out of the way.
[10:10] goose3five: I think you did.
[10:10] mr_m_lofc: Iraq has a Navy?
[10:12] mr_m_lofc: In quoting an Iraqi officer, the second on the ground quote Bush uses brings up another aspect of the president that I don’t like, and that is the extremely anecdotal evidence that he uses to prop up his arguments.
[10:12] mr_m_lofc: The only serious numbers we are given are current Iraqi troop levels, but when he compares that to the past, he uses the term “handful.”
[10:13] mr_m_lofc: Giving one no real idea of true growth.
[10:14] goose3five: And the annecdote he used was that they “Iraqi’s are better equiped and trained than they once were.”
[10:14] mr_m_lofc: “We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission”
[10:14] mr_m_lofc: Politically speaking, that is a coffin nail.
[10:14] mr_m_lofc: Americans don’t want to hear that.
[10:14] goose3five: He is certainly sticking to his guns - no timetables
[10:14] goose3five: Funny how he attacks politicians in washington
[10:14] mr_m_lofc: And this speech is a great indicator as to why Bush is currently experiencing record low approval numbers.
[10:15] goose3five: the entire war is being run by politicians in washington
[10:15] goose3five: Oh boy, invoking Lieberman…isn’t this the man they called Loserman five years ago.
[10:16] mr_m_lofc: But Bush says “[the war will end] by commanders, not by artificial timetables set up by Politicians.”
[10:16] mr_m_lofc: Yep.
[10:16] mr_m_lofc: Now, I’m personally against the publication of a timeline… But for an interesting take on a published timeline, go check out Newshog’s latest post.
[10:16] goose3five: I can tell you this, after five years of trashing the left it certainly doesn’t do any good to invoke them as a political stunt.
[10:16] mr_m_lofc: Zell Miller.
[10:17] mr_m_lofc: “America will not run in the face of terrorists and car bombers so long as I am your Commander in Chief.”
[10:17] goose3five: Does that mean we will see more purple fingers come the State of the Union?
[10:18] mr_m_lofc: No.
[10:18] goose3five: sorry, he mentioned the elections
[10:18] mr_m_lofc: We will not.
[10:18] mr_m_lofc: The ideology put forth by this speech is rapidly becoming more and more unpopular.
[10:19] goose3five: Here is my problem with this President, his supporters seem to like him because he is “genuine.” Unfortunately, I see nothing genuine in this guy.
[10:19] mr_m_lofc: And with the fracturing of the GOP along moderate/conservative lines, as well the further plaguing of scandal, you will not see the Republicans pull another purple finger stunt.
[10:19] goose3five: His speeches are so scripted I feel like I am listening to him reading an article.
[10:19] mr_m_lofc: That’s because he is.
[10:20] goose3five: I get no sense that he is speaking to me. Counter that with any speech by Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, or John Kennedy.
[10:20] mr_m_lofc: An interesting note on Bush’s style, he reads directly off the page, with the exception of the last line or two on each page.
[10:21] mr_m_lofc: With the exception of exposition parts, that last line is typically an applause getter, so he reads that in advance so he can deliver it well enough and eye to eye enough to garner applause.
[10:21] goose3five: You know what, the only way he will be able to win over the American public again is to do one on one interviews with friendly news organizations.
[10:21] mr_m_lofc: Not really.
[10:22] goose3five: He will have to show that, in conversation, he can explain himself.
[10:22] mr_m_lofc: I mean, that will help him a little.
[10:22] mr_m_lofc: But what he really needs is some results.
[10:22] goose3five: It is the only way he will seem genuine again.
[10:22] mr_m_lofc: People hired him because he was genuine.
[10:22] goose3five: Of course results would make it all moot.
[10:22] mr_m_lofc: They wanted genuine because they thought genuine would get results.[10:23] mr_m_lofc: After 5 years, people are feeling a little owed.
[10:23] goose3five: define genuine
[10:23] mr_m_lofc: The antithesis of our current Chief Executive.
[10:23] goose3five: thank you
[10:24] goose3five: I like the backdrop “PLAN FOR VICTORY”
[10:25] mr_m_lofc: Is that anything like the slide “To Be Determined” under the heading of “Exit Strategy.”
[10:26] goose3five: He looks like he is going to cry.
[10:26] mr_m_lofc: You can tell he’s starting to wrap up the speech because he just got finished with his “they’re evil” part of the speech, then he moved into the “freedom freedom freedom” speech, and now he’s on to the let’s pray for the fallen soldiers bit.
[10:26] goose3five: talking about the letter found on the laptop of Corporal Star who died in Iraq.
[10:26] goose3five: yep
[10:27] mr_m_lofc: And he is getting choked up
[10:27] mr_m_lofc: And the tears are gone.
[10:28] mr_m_lofc: You know what we should have done?
[10:28] goose3five: what
[10:28] mr_m_lofc: We should have done a freedom and terrorist tally.
[10:28] mr_m_lofc: That would have made this totally lackluster speech at least a little more entertaining
.[10:28] goose3five: lol
[10:28] mr_m_lofc: So, that was that, any final thoughts
[10:33] goose3five: Look, this speech was nothing new. The biggest thing it did was reitterate the words PLAN FOR VICTORY that were used in the allegedly declasifiied document released this morning.
[10:33] goose3five: I get the impression that they would rather run a pile of 15 second ads that say “Hey, we have a plan for victory - believe us.”
[10:34] mr_m_lofc: And that’s actually a very important statement.
[10:34] goose3five: sure
[10:34] mr_m_lofc: I don’t know if Bush has caught on, but the campaign time is over.
[10:35] goose3five: are you kidding, he has not stopped campaigning since 1999
[10:35] mr_m_lofc: But it seems as though he thinks that the only way to aid his failing numbers is to go back on the stump.
[10:35] goose3five: that is his greatest strength, happy talk
[10:35] goose3five: This IS the cheerleader president don’t forget.
[10:37] mr_m_lofc: Now this wasn’t exactly a stump speech, though it did have many elements of one. He did provide some substance, particularly with the training process of Iraqi troops. But, the substance wasn’t nearly enough. The president still relies much too heavily on anecdotal evidence, analogies, and anecdotes mixed with stats to tilt the stats in his favor.
[10:38] goose3five: The question is, understanding his speaking style, is he even capable of giving a substantive speech?
[10:38] mr_m_lofc: That’s to be determined.
[10:38] mr_m_lofc: I would call this speech on par with his post Katrina speech.
[10:38] mr_m_lofc: It wasn’t a terrible speech.
[10:39] mr_m_lofc: But it wasn’t a good one either.
[10:39] mr_m_lofc: His stance on Iraq is not the right one, not logistically, and not politically.[10:40] mr_m_lofc: And in the long run, this speech will not have any positive impact on his numbers
[10:41] mr_m_lofc: And that’s about all I got to say about that.
Time stamps have been left in in case you want to try and track where we were in the speech. And because I’m lazy.
President Releases "Iraq Victory" Document
In a prelude to what is being billed as a “major speech” by the President this morning, the White House has released a document entitled Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq: Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State. Interestingly all the cable news folks have picked up the White House talking point claiming that this document has been the playbook by which the President has prosecuted the war since 2003. I have no way of verifying that but it would seem quite odd for him to release now instead of two years ago.
A quick scan of the language of this document shows that it reads more like an attempt to deflect criticism than a strategy document. Take for example this one liner, “No war has ever been won on a timetable.” Sound familiar? I find it hard to believe that this line, which has been repeated daily since the President’s poll numbers dipped below freezing, was part of a victory plan hatched in 2003. With that said, it is promising that the President has decided to address the growing concerns of the American public in some fashion.
According to this morning’s Washington Post, the President will kick off his defense of the war with speech this morning to yet another captive audience in Annapolis, MD.
Along with the report, Bush is making a personal appeal to shore up wavering support for the war in remarks Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy. It’s the first in a series of speeches Bush is delivering between now and the Dec. 15 election in Iraq to outline political, security and economic strategies for Iraq.
I will reserve judgement as to whether this marks a real change or whether it is yet another in the multitude of PR stunts that have characterized this Administration since the beginning after watching his speech which is set to begin at 9:50 AM EST.
The Ronco Vote-a-Matic!
political, political cartoons, satire, cartoons, Diebold, Nixon
And The Hits Just Keep On Coming
Crying like an itty bitty baby, San Diego area Republican Congressman, Randy Cunningham, has admitted to tax evasion and accepting bribes.
The Duke, apparently, has accepted at least 2.4 million dollars in bribes. The most awesomest quote of the story comes not from the disgraced congressman himself, but from U.S. Attorney Carol Lam; “[Cunningham] did the worst thing an elected official can do — he enriched himself through his position and violated the trust of those that put him there.”
In the greater scheme of things, there is now only one puzzle piece missing, and we hope for that piece to fall into place after the first of the year. Americans aren’t happy with the GOP based on policy, particularly with Iraq. This scandalized congressman only further locks in the “culture of corruption” that Nancy Pelosi has been trumpeting (a political move I must admit I’m a little wary of). Pa. Democrat Murtha has given congressional Democrats a measure of credibility on Iraq that no other could have. The only thing missing is a strong comprehensive agenda that is not offputting to the base, but also embraces the middle.
They get that, and 06 is a lock
Disaster, Inc.
Categories: Toons
Troop Level Scenarios: A Deeper Look
The typical cant from President Bush is that as Iraqi forces stand up, US forces will stand down. Some have taken the recent announcements that the US is planning to go from a baseline Iraq garrison of 17 brigades down to a baseline Iraq force of 16 brigades as a metric of success in training and standing up Iraqi combat forces to replace US forces. I disagree, as I believe it is a reflection of reality that there are no more troops available without either complete mobilization or intentionally breaking units for at least a reconstiution cycle. But there has been very little talk about the presumed effectiveness of the Iraqi units and the desired end state for the level of acceptable violence.
However the Contra Costa Times is running a Washington Post article that has a couple of interesting nuggets in them that can give us some rough guesstimates of what way the brass is thinking. The first is that under a “moderately” optimistic scenario, the Jan. 1 2007 US troop strength in Iraq would be roughly 10 brigades. This is important because it is a quick refutation of the six brigades and declare victory crowd in ‘07. It is also about the maximum deployable force that can be assembled without paying the costs that I noted above.
The really interesting nugget is at the bottom. Let me quote extensively now:
To help gauge the particular impact that growth of Iraq’s security forces might have on the pace of a U.S. drawdown, military planners in Baghdad have devised a simple formula — what one general called a “rough rule of thumb.”
The formula estimates that for every three Iraqi battalions and one Iraqi brigade headquarters achieving a readiness rating of level two, a U.S. battalion can be dropped.
Such a rating, on a scale of one to four, indicates that a unit is able to take the lead in operations but still requires some U.S. military support.
The withdrawal formula is a planning tool, several officers stressed, not a definitive predictor (emphasis mine) of how many U.S. forces are likely to leave when.
The Iraqi military, which has seen rapid growth in combat units this year, continues to suffer from much slower development of transportation, engineering and other critical support elements.
The typical Iraqi unit will outperform the typical US unit on language skills and cultural intelligence which should reduce the fog of war. These two attributes are the greatest advantages that the Iraqi units have over US units. US units on the other hand are better armed, armored, trained, led, professionalized, supplied, supported with direct and indirect fire support, integrated into a comprehensive sensor environment and supported with aviation and other high capital means of support. They are also tactically more mobile. The above story indicates that these advantages will not dissipate.
If we take this 3:1 Iraq:US as a rough marginal metric, we can do some very quick back of the envelope calculations on the effective force levels. Typically a US brigade will have three combat maneuver battalions, and then several battalions of support troops (artillery, aviation, headquarters, supply/repair etc). (There are exceptions; for instance the 173rd Airborne Brigade is composed of two infantry battalions, but the 2cd and 3rd Armored Calvary Regiments tend to have 3.5 armored squadrons/battalions. Three battalions in one brigade is a good assumption) We are only concerned with the combat maneuver battalions. Therefore seventeen US combat brigades (baseline force) will have fifty one combat maneuver battalions. That is roughly equivilant to 153 Iraqi Army battalions at the moment. Assuming that the roughly 8 British battalions are as good as US units, that provides another equivilant of 24 battalions, or a total of 177 Iraqi Army battalion equivilants (IABE). Throw in the remaining 12 or so foreign battalions at a 1:1 equivilancy , that leads to at least 189 foreign IABE.
The entire Iraqi Army is supposed to be composed of 115 battalions. Thus entire order of battle is 304 IABE. Not all of the Iraqi battalions are trained, or even formed up at this time.
As of November 7, 2005, the Defense Department announced that “One Iraqi army division, four brigades and 23 battalions currently have the operational lead in their areas.” The active component of the counter-insurgent force therefore is roughly between 176 (US+Iraqi only) to 200 (US+UK+Iraqi units) IABEs. This is the force level that is capable of keeping the chaos from getting worse in Iraq but not in actually winning the counter-insurgency campaign.
The same DOD press release states that “Another division, nine brigades and about 50 battalions are expected to be ready to assume lead responsibility by January.”, so the baseline force for the next year before any additions due to increased training of Iraqi Army units or subtractions due to US/UK drawdowns to due to force pool constraints, is between 226-250 IABE.
So let us run out four scenarios with force levels over the next year in terms of IABEs. In all but the last scenario, I am assuming that the British will be forced to drawdown to no more than 4 battalions by Jan. 1 2007 (there is a non-zero probabilty that they pull out entirely). I am also assuming that the Iraqi Army will go from 73 trained battalions at Level 2 readiness in January 2006 to all 115 battalions at Level 2 readiness or better by Jan 1. 2007 in the first three scenarios. Therefore the major variable is US force levels.
The best case scenario has Iraqi units taking the vast majority of the combat power and combat unit flags by January 2007, while the worse case scenario sees a drawdown in British forces and a stagnation in effective training and field usage of Iraqi units, thus neccessitating the US to bear the brunt of the traditional fighting.
The first three scenarios see a steady build-up in combat power from January 2006 to roughly August 2006. It is during this time that the most active counterinsurgency and clear and hold operations will need to take place, for after August 2006, the US will draw down due to force pool constraints, and it seems unlikely that the Iraqi Army can afford to expand any more. The last scenario sees a long term plataeu in combat power with most of it provided by the US, even as it wrecks the force pool for future use.
BIG DRAWDOWN/ Best Case
This scenario is the Opinionated Bastard plan. It has the US going from a 17 brigade baseline to roughly 6 brigades by Jan 1. 2007. It also has the British cutting their committment in half, and Iraqi units fully training up. This leads to a force level on Jan 1, 2007 of 181 IABE of which 63% of the combat power is Iraqi and 84% of the combat units are Iraqi units. Combat power will slowly increase from January 2005 as the remaining forty two Iraqi Army battalions come on line. At the same time, I project that the British drop their strength from eight battalions to six battalions to support operations in Afghanistan. The other two UK battalions would leave in the fall. The peak combat strength level is probably in August 2006 when almost all of the Iraqi Army units are declared to be at level 2, but the US drawdown has not started. This level is most likely 277 IABE.
The basic assumption of this scenario is that the insurgency will walk straight to the ballot box and lay down their arms. After the December election the spring offensives can clear and hold all of the major cities in Al- Anbar of all hold-outs from the political process and that the Iraqi Army as a whole is motivated, well led, professional and accepted as the sole legitimate user of violence in Iraq by all ethnic groups. At the same time the six US brigades will be needed to provide a force that can actually hold the borders of Iraq togther, and as a rapid response force.
Medium Case –”Moderately Optimistic”
This is the glidepath that the US has to hope works out as this is about the biggest committment that the US can make without completely destroying the ground forces. This has the US going from seventeen brigades today to sixteen brigades in January. This has already been announced, and then it holds this force structure until September 2005 when the next rotation starts and six brigades pull out without US replacements. The British drop from eight battalions to six battalions by September 1, 2006 and will pull down to 4 battalions by Jan 1, 2007. The Iraqi Army finishes spinning up to all 115 battalions at Level 2 or better.
The peak combat strength is again in August 2006 with roughly 277 IABE. The drawdown is a little bit more gradual with a Jan. 1, 2007 force strength of roughly 217 IABE, of which the Iraqi Army makes up 53% of the combat power, and 77% of the unit strengths. This is a scenario that assumes progress is continually being made but that the insurgency is not breaking yet despite the increased ability of US units to sweep a town and Iraqi follow-on units to hold a town. Ten US brigades can be sustained for the August 06-July 07 rotation, and after that, the breakdown looks straight into the Pentagon’s face unless there is a national partial mobilization of the Guard.
Muddling Through —”Moderately Pessimistic”
This is a scenario for those who did not think that retaking Fallujah (first or second time) or Najaf or Tal Afar or Operation Lightning or River Gate or Scorpion as the decisive backbreaking operation. In this scenario, the British behave as they have before, and the Iraqi Army continues to successfully train up. The US decides to damn some consequences and pushes some National Guard units as well as active formations that were in Iraq during 2005 forward to maintain 14 brigades past August 2006. This leads to a peak strength of 277 IABE in August 2006 and an end-strength going foward on Jan. 1 2007 of 244 IABE of which Iraqi units make up 45% of the combat power and 71% of the unit counts.
The scenario assumes more of the same; increased ethnic tensions and sectarian shadow wars of mutual assainations, car bombings on a daily basis, continual sniping, IED placement, and intimidation even in the “secure” cities such as Fallujah. It has the cost of destroying US strategic mobility for at least another three years out, and completes the hollowing out of the National Guard.
Oh-Shit — or a case for the truly pessimistic
This is the scenario that is no fun for anyone involved. I am assuming that the British rapidly go from eight battalions to two battalions by April 2006 due to their need for manpower in Afghanistan. At the same time, the US holds steady at seventeen brigades (1st Brigade from the 1st ID gets deployed in March 2006) and the training and handover process does not proceed smoothly. So instead of having 73 ready Iraqi Army battalions in January and an additional five or six battalions adding themselves to the effective roster every month, the Iraqi Army levels off at 75 battalions for the year. Some units become effective, other units drop off due to corruption, insurgent intimidation, combat losses etc. It is a steady state force where the most effective units are the sectarian based units that are defending their own neighborhoods. Therefore there is good security in Kurdish dominated areas, and the Shi’ite dominated areas, although rampant criminality and disorder reign. The fracture points are still heavily conflicted and the Sunni Arab units in the Army are really good at avoiding trouble while getting paid. At the same time, the foreign brigades, in conjunction with the Badr Brigade units, that are holding the US supply chain to Kuwait open begin to withdraw, pulling US and Iraqi government security forces away from the central part of the country where the current combat is and towards the south into defensive positions. So next August, the US is faced with an insurgency that continues to grow and expand, a populace whose political leadership already has declared that shooting at US forces is an acceptable action, and a political process that is still designed to explicitly screw the Sunnis. Combat power peaks in February 2006 with roughly 243IABEs and stays there until the US makes the decision to either fully mobilize the National Guard or run like hell.
Pull Points
These four scenarios are rough guesstimates and assumptions that are contigent on the 3:1 ratio to be relatively close to valid. The first three scenarios see a heavy surge of fighting and then various amounts of peace breaking out sometime next summer so that the US can begin to significantly drawdown starting next fall, and then dropping to a sustainable force by Jan. 1 2008 of three or four brigades to insure Iraqi territorial integrity. The three scenarios assume that training goes great for all Iraqi units and that primary loyalties are towards the nation state and not to one’s narrower but deeper interests. The final scenario is a more of the same scenario.
The key take-away point is that currently there is a small window of force strength increase (+35%) from today to sometime next summer, and after that point, force strengths either plateau or decline. The greatest sustained force strength going into 2007 is +20% of current force levels, and the lowest is -10% of current force levels, and with the exception of the last “oh shit” scenario, these levels are probably optimistic due to the assumptions I am feeding into my mental model.
Unless the insurgency is crushed by the temporary surge in force levels between now and next August, the correlation of forces will continually run against the United States. It is very easy to imagine a scenario where only 75 IA battalions are certified level 2 and supported by a sustainable US presence of 6 brigades and air power. This would be a force level of roughly 125 IABE or a 40% reduction in strength against an insurgency that is can move up and down the violence ladder right now. Political solutions and painful concessions will be needed to run down the amount of violence in Iraq.
Categories: National_Security
Are They Still Screaming?
Categories: Toons
Justice
“If you’re daughter was raped and brutally murdered, wouldn’t you want the person who did it to be executed?”
This was a question posed to me some time ago by someone who was violently pro-death penalty. So much so, in fact, that he said that if he were wrongly convicted, he would, “take one for the team,” and still go forth with the execution because he believes capital punishment that much.
As someone who is vehemently anti-death penalty, I found this question initially unfair. It is an emotionally charged question, an obvious attempt not to get me to see what is right with execution, but instead to break with my own personal moral code.
I’m an emotional guy. I cried at the end of Old Yeller, Rainman, as well as at the end of an episode of Highway To Heaven where a poor, orphaned, mentally retarded, homeless boy had gotten in trouble for stealing food not to feed himself, but his only friend in the whole world; a cat.
But emotions are not morals. If anything, our moral codes are an attempt to master emotional impulses. We accept as a moral that stealing is wrong despite the fact that our desire for somethings would emotionally lead us to do so. We accept as a moral that killing is wrong despite the fact that the jerk that just cut around you on the freeway on ramp almost put you in a ditch and REALLY deserves it.
In 1988, presidential hopeful Michael Dukakis was sunk by a very similar question. In an attempt to melt the “Ice Man” image Dukakis had picked up through the campaign, Bernard Shaw asked whether the Democratic candidate would seek the death penalty for the hypothetical murderer/rapist of his wife. Dukakis immediately jumped into a manufactured answer that only solidified his emotionless image.
And so it became evident to me that to just consistently say “no” to the death penalty without looking into my own emotions just wouldn’t be enough. When I was asked that question, I have to admit that I thought it unfair because, yes, initiallyI would turn my back on my own belief. So instead of just brushing off the question put to me, I sought to answer it.
And the question I found myself really asking was, “what is justice?” Does the death penalty provide justice? To me, justice is a very abstract ideal, but it does entail reparation. In the case of murder, true reparation is impossible. My daughter cannot be returned to me.
The Death Penalty, incapable of resurrecting my slain daughter, could not provide reparation, and therefore does not provide justice. The Death Penalty provides revenge, it provides punishment, but it does not provide justice. In further delving into reflection, I asked myself what does come of the Death Penalty? More death. That is all. We have hopes and dreams for our children, aspirations. If my child’s life is cut short, those dreams are lost, and if all I have for recompense is more death, not only would I not feel satisfied, but also I would feel a little guilty.
So what’s the answer? What, to me, would provide justice? Atonement. My daughter’s life was full of promise and hope, full of the possibility of touching lives and making the world a better place. That is what I want from the murderer of my child.
If you would like an example, I present to you Stanley “Tookie” Williams. Stanley is currently on San Quentin’s Death Row, and is scheduled for execution on Dec. 13th. Convicted for murder in 1979, Tookie is also a co-founder of the infamous “Crips” gang. He’s also, since first put on death row, been nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize.
See, Tookie has dedicatedhis life after death to redemption. Even more remarkably, he has fought continuously to repair the greater sin of creating the Crips gang which has for decades lead to countless young deaths all throughout America. He has been instrumental in the facilitation of a truce between the Crips and the Bloods in LA, and with only a matter of two weeks before the end of his life, he’s still working to complete two books. One is a political book, but the other is another addition to his 10 book children’s series encouraging youths to avoid the gang lifestyle.
That, at least to me, is justice. I only hope that Gov. Schwarzenegger sees it as such too.
Categories: Wedge_Issues
Perfect Capture on my Sentiments
I am a bear on the economy. I know that. I am a bear right now because I am convinced that the American consumer can not forever increase their debt load to prop-up consumer demand, and that the housing market is shutting down the great ATM in the sky that we have been relying on for the past couple of years.
Elaine Supkis captures this sentiment perfectly:
Categories: Economics
Join Us Tonight for "Barry Gordon From Left Field"!
Tonight (Sunday, Nov. 27), I’ll be joining Barry Gordon on his KRLA talk radio show “From Left Field”: That’s from 6 to 7 p.m. Pacific Time on 870 AM in the L.A. area or via http://www2.krla870.com/listen/ on the web.
We’ll be talking about the politics of the year that’s ending and the year ahead: I think that given all that’s happened and is still happening — in Iraq, the Gulf Coast, the Plame Affair, Congress, the Supreme Court, Bush’s plummeting popularity, immigration policy, etc. etc. etc. — we’re at a watershed moment in our nation’s history, don’t you? It should be a wide-ranging discussion of issues with others in studio and on the phone.
And if you’d like to join in, just call (866) 870-KRLA; we’d love to hear from you!
As Charles Osgood says, “See you on the radio!”
Categories: Misc.
CIFA, Surveillance and Security
“We think a wiser policy is for Congress to set up a Joint Congressional Committee on Domestic Surveillance by the Federal Government. The committee could prevent domestic surveillance by the CIA and supervise domestic surveillance by the military and the separation of Army intelligence files from Army security clearance files.”
With these challenges in mind, every branch of our government is actively reinventing their security strategies. Of course, domestic surveillance is a touchy subject in the “land of the free” and one that should always be treated with the utmost transparency. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has begun this process in a less than open manner that is causing many people express concern. In February 2002 an organization within the Pentagon going by the name of Counter Intelligence Field Activity or CIFA was born by Department of Defense Directive 5105.67.
The lack of transparency surrounding CIFA has many civil libertarians and legislators up in arms.
The proposals, and other Pentagon steps aimed at improving its ability to analyze counterterrorism intelligence collected inside the United States, have drawn complaints from civil liberties advocates and a few members of Congress, who say the Defense Department’s push into domestic collection is proceeding with little scrutiny by the Congress or the public.“We are deputizing the military to spy on law-abiding Americans in America. This is a huge leap without even a [congressional] hearing,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a recent interview.
As I said earlier, it is my opinion that any security strategy missing a domestic surveillance component would be foolish but the question becomes how much power should we give our government to spy on it’s citizens? There is most definitely a fine line between empowering our security apparatus and infringing on the privacy rights of American citizens. So I ask you, how much power do you think the government should have in domestic surveillance? Are you willing to be spied upon if it will ensure a safer America? For that matter, do you believe that domestic surveillance will make us safer?
Categories: National_Security
Sketchbook Saturday
I’m experimenting with some new pens. I can’t seem to find any Bic X-Fine 0.5 mm ballpoint pens, in stores or catalogues. My stash, picked up the Philippines a year and a half ago, is running out. The stores do have 0.5 mm needle point pens, but they aren’t ballpoint. The ink is much thinner, and it bleeds on some of the papers I use. They work OK on bristol board and the white paperboard packaging material from things like new shirts. The ballpoints can get a greater range of greys depending on how much pressure is applied. The needlepoints are much darker.I can still get the Bic round stic fine points, but they are a little thicker than the X-Fines, and a little more prone to blotting.The bottom sketch is on a napkin from the coffee shop, because I forgot my sketchbook.
cartoons, drawing, illustration, sketch
Categories: Toons
Defund the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
In a sad attempt to push forward it’s ideological agenda, the editorial page of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has gotten into the habit of spreading misinformation and half truths. In a piece today entitled “Defund the CPB” an anonymous editorial writer (could it be Mr. Scaife?) makes a flimsy defense of former Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, claiming the sole reason for the controversy over Tomlinson was based on his effort to put “The Journal Editorial Report” on PBS.
His effort to put “The Journal Editorial Report” by The Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page on the public airwaves drew the greatest scrutiny.
Pardon me but this is simply a load of crap. There are several reasons why Tomlinson was unfit to head the CPB but none of them in my opinion had anything to do with The Journal Editorial Report.
Here is a little reminder for our anonymous writer. In February 2004 Tomlinson decided, without consulting the rest of the CPB board, to spend $14,170 to monitor the program NOW for liberal bias. His excuse for not consulting the board was that the study was approved by CPB President Kathleen Cox. Unfortunately for Tomlinson this excuse did not hold water since Cox was did not become CPB President until five months after the study was commissioned.
The Times reported that, in a May 24 letter to Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND), Tomlinson stated he saw no need to consult the CPB board of directors about hiring an outside consultant to monitor bias on PBS’ NOW with Bill Moyers, because, he wrote, the contract was “approved and signed by then CPB President, Kathleen Cox.”But the Times reported on June 22 that a copy of the contract obtained by the paper shows that Tomlinson signed it on February 3, 2004 — five months before Cox became CPB president. Tomlinson declined to comment to the Times on the apparent discrepancy.
CPB paid the consultant, Fred Mann, $14,170 to monitor bias on NOW. Mann worked for 20 years at the National Journalism Center, an organization founded by the American Conservative Union and M. Stanton Evans, a conservative columnist, that counts among the alumni of its training programs Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund and right-wing pundit Ann Coulter.
Interestingly the results of this study, paid for by the American taxpayer, were never released but they were used repeatedly by Tomlinson as proof that PBS had a liberal slant. While this mystery study has yet to be seen by anyone other than Tomlinson, Senator Dorgan apparently saw the raw data and had this to say about it,
In a June 20 speech on the Senate floor, Dorgan said that he had received the “raw data” Mann provided Tomlinson and was “struck and disappointed” by the methods he used in conducting the study. For example, Mann labeled certain segments of the show “anti-Bush,” “anti-DeLay” and “anticorporation.” In addition, Mann classified all the guests appearing on NOW as either “conservative” or “liberal,” labeling Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as “liberal.” Dorgan inferred that Hagel had “apparently said something that wasn’t completely in sync with the White House” and concluded: “That is not the prism through which someone should evaluate whether something makes sense.”
Furthermore, in his effort to uncover liberal bias Tomlinson revealed himself to be the epitome of bias. This man who consistently claimed to be working to simply level the playing field at PBS actually took his journalistic training from one of the worst propagandists to ever have his shrill voice heard across our public airwaves, McCarthy protege Fulton Lewis.
What’s interesting about Lewis now is that two men at the forefront of the effort to rid public broadcasting of its presumed liberal bias both learned journalism at his knee. One, CPB chief Tomlinson, worked as an intern for Lewis. The other, William Schulz, whom Tomlinson recently named as one of the CPB’s two ombudsmen, was a writer for Lewis.To some, the idea that these two are in charge of promoting objective journalism in public broadcasting is appalling. “It’s shocking and disgraceful,” says former New York Times columnist and reporter Anthony Lewis, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage during the McCarthy era. “If both men wrote for Fulton Lewis it means they were dedicated to an extreme-right position that should disqualify them from determining somebody’s objectivity.”
Ultimately though, it was the fact that Tomlinson consulted with the White House in his efforts to stack the CPB with conservatives which lead to his resignation. It would see