I didn't realize Wilkerson had taken along such a huge trove of (unclassified) materials when he and Powell left the State Department, though I guess that's a lot easier to do in the age of electronic documents and emails. Is he planning to release any of this 'archive' publicly?

Not sure about his plans with the archive Greg -- but I have to say that you amaze me. How did you get on to hear so quickly? Very impressive. Steve

Complete coincidence... Just happened to be checking the blogs before heading out for a walk on the C&O Canal for the rest of the afternoon.

czyzu to dupa

any thoughts on the little nugget that made the rounds on the talk shows this a.m. re joementum replacing rumsfeld as sec of def.

andrew sullivan said just that on tweety's show; and it was also mentioned on schieffer's.

At least Bar's now found something worthy of troubling her beautiful mind..

Steve,

I read the Dreyfuss piece (“Getting Out of Iraq”) a few days ago and found it to be among the more realistic assessments. He’s basically saying that the United States should fix a date of departure from Iraq, negotiate with the Iraqis about how they should run things and bring other countries in to help them sort things out. That would indeed be a better exit strategy for the U.S. than some others. But I don’t think the Iraqis would be amenable to the pressure or advice of the countries he mentions (Jordan, Syria, Iran). Besides, if the United States were to set a departure date, I don’t believe that major Iraqi factions would care a great deal for American advise – except the Kurds, the only Muslim community in the world in which an overwhelming majority (70%) has favorable views about America.

the Dreyfuss piece (“Getting Out of Iraq”) .. among the more realistic assessments.

Don't miss also Yahia Said on the same topic.

Johnnybutter,

Thanks for recommending Yahya Said’s piece. His diagnosis of the problem is even better Dreyfuss's. Having roots in Iraq he obviously has a better feel for the place than most of us, foreigners.

But he seems to have a much taller order for the United States than does Dreyfuss. Said asks America, for example, to “intensify efforts to bridge the differences on constitutional issues,” recommit itself to preserving “Iraq’s territorial integrity,” and so forth. I hate to disagree with a native Iraqi, but I don’t know what leverage the Americans have over the Sunni Arabs or Shiites to goad them into bridging their differences on the deeply divisive constitutional issues. And I don’t think the United States is interested at all in integrating the Kurds into Iraq to the extent that the Sunni Arabs or Shiites would like them to. Said’s prescription calls for a deeper American involvement in Iraq, which I don’t see helping either Iraq or America. On this point, my views are closer to Dreyfuss’s: Find a face-saving way to get out.

"I've been alerted that he's interested in the Barbara Bush story."

Huh?
You mean the whole Barbara Bush thing wasn't just a fun diversion?

Sure we all can understand Bush's mother might be sore...
But you can't possibly be implying that the President of the United States
needs his mom to bail him out of his chosen personnel?

This is all a running jest, right?

We've all had a chuckle at the absurdity.
Time to move on.

Right?

Come up to Edinburgh, Steve, and I'll give you a pub tour of the city (or cafe tour, if you prefer).

Did Barbara Bush play Harvey Keitel as the "Cleaner" in Pulp Fiction?

In the meantime AND semi-off topic, the Houston Independent Media Center is reporting a Cheney appearance at a Delay fundraiser tonite/dec 5 in the Galleria area in Houston. apparently this Galleria area is beeeg Bush country.

Mustapha -

I do see your point, but....a good diagnosis is a big deal (at least to me!).

Mustafa:
Looks like Dean agrees with Dreyfuss.

Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq

http://tinyurl.com/btovm

(SAN ANTONIO) -- Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

Dean made his comments in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio.

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Dean says the Democratic position on the war is 'coalescing,' and is likely to include several proposals.

"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarkawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.

Dean didn't specify which country the US forces would deploy to, but he said he would like to see the entire process completed within two years. He said the Democratic proposal is not a 'withdrawal,' but rather a 'strategic redeployment' of U.S. forces.

"The White House wants us to have a permanent commitment to Iraq. This is an Iraqi problem. President Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein and that was a great thing, but that could have been done in a very different way. But now that we're there we need to figure out how to leave. 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, and it's their country."

Dean also compared the controversy over pre-war intelligence to the Watergate scandal which brought down Richard Nixon's presidency in 1974.

"What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate," Dean said. "It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war. The President said last week that Congress saw the same intelligence that he did in making the decision to go to war, and that is flat out wrong. The President withheld some intelligence from the Senate Intelligence Committee. He withheld the report from the CIA that in fact there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq), that they did not have a nuclear program. They (the White House) selectively gave intelligence to the United States Senate and the United States Congress and got them to give the go ahead to attack these people."

“Barbara Bush is allegedly TICKED off at Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Andy Card, nearly all of them -- except Karen Hughes -- for how her boy is faring in the hearts and minds of Americans.”

Steve,

I know now why the First Mom thinks Karen Hughes is the only one in the administration who’s serving her son really well.

Look how ingeniously Ms. Hughes’ public diplomacy outfit is promoting Bush in the Muslim world!

Excerpts from a BBC online story today:

Pakistan's government is to remove a poem from a school textbook after it emerged the first letters of each line spelt out "President George W Bush".

The anonymous poem, called The Leader, appeared in a recent English-language course book for 16 year-olds.

Officials cannot explain how the poem entered the curriculum:

THE LEADER
by anonymous

P atient and steady with all he must bear,
R eady to meet every challenge with care,
E asy in manner, yet solid as steel,
S trong in his faith, refreshingly real.
I sn't afraid to propose what is bold,
D oesn't conform to the usual mould,
E yes that have foresight, for hindsight won't do,
N ever backs down when he sees what is true,
T ells it all straight, and means it all too.
G oing forward and knowing he's right,
E ven when doubted for why he would fight,
O ver and over he makes his case clear,
R eaching to touch the ones who won't hear.
G rowing in strength he won't be unnerved,
E ver assuring he'll stand by his word.
W anting the world to join his firm stand,
B racing for war, but praying for peace,
U sing his power so evil will cease,
S o much a leader and worthy of trust,
H ere stands a man who will do what he must.

Mustafa;

You start by saying that someone has a better grasp of the Iraqi situation than you, then you disagree with him on a fundamental tenet?

You say the US has to find a face-saving way to leave and do it? Do you think

1) This is possible to do without Iraq collapsing into the hands of civil war, Iran, a secular strongman, an Arab nationalist or a combination of all of them?

2) If it is not, you should still leave?

I don't believe anyone should pull out until we can guarantee a safe and truly free society for the Iraqis. I don't even know if this is possible (certainly seems unlikely) but above all what we need is the fuckwits who dragged us into this to be held responsible, and then make changes that mean one aggressive nation cannot wage war whenever and wherever it wants.

This story at the Grauniad

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1358966,00.html

sums up Bush for me.. He spends his days in some sort of mental reverie, bemused by all around him. "A submarine could take this place out" indeed.

I don't speak for Mustafa Ben, but I like to give my opinion anyway. :)

What makes you think that if the Americans stay in Iraq, any of 1) will be prevented?

My guess is that if we pull out, the air will be let out of the countries largest problem and Iraqis can focus on solving their own problems.

Despite ties with Iran, I think Shiites will want to be their own country. Kurds don't want to have anything to do with anyone else anyway, but have to work with the other Iraqis to keep Turkey from invading. And too many Sunnis live with Shias successfully now for those two groups to become too violent.

All we're seeing now is an escalation in hostilities. By staying, what do we really hope to gain? And are those expectations realistic?

I don't think any expectation would be realistic at this point, but I do believe we (and I mean all decent people in the World) have a duty to the Iraqi people to give them at the very least the freedom to determine their own path free of violence.

To pull out would be a second betrayal, and IMO could lead to just as much blowback as the US is no doubt facing as a result of what's happened thus far.

All I'm saying is that to pull out of a country we broke just because it's suddenly politically expedient back home is to my mind a repulsive notion. It's yet another tragedy that this even has to be considered 30 years after Vietnam, and those responsible need to accept responsibility for their criminally inept offences against humanity.

Unrelatedly, how is Condi Rice saying rendition never happens where there is a guy living in Canada who was taken to Syria and tortured? Maher Arar or similar, from (a patchy) memory.

I think in future, instead of saying "America said x" or "The United States did y" the phrase should be

'The Republican Party, acting on behalf of and in the name of the US, is doing x and y'

I think it makes what is going on more obvious.

Pulling out because it's politically expedient would be a betrayal.

But that's not what Murtha and other people, myself included, are saying.

A majority of Iraqis see the US troops as an occupying force and Iraqis themselves are asking for a timetable that shows a definite withdrawal.

So lets call it giving them back their country. Rather than colonizing ala Britain by building new bases that signal an indefinite occupation by a group historically hostile to their culture.

On a side note (I know this isn't the open thread, but since we're here) the announcement that Russia is selling $1 billion dollars worth of weapons to Iran certainly brought back memories. This comes after an announcement by Russia that they have missiles that the US anti-ballists program can't defeat. Then there's Syria and Iran partnering with Russia, Russia partnering with China, China moving into space and building their military capability, the US partnering with Iraq, Israel, and some of the eastern block countries, and military industrial companies reaping large non-competitive contracts ($10 million dollar parties by a contractor whose product was recalled?), it sure feels like the old days of the cold war.

Rice is a Soviet expert and half of the current NSC are Team B old timers - what did you expect? Pre-9/11 this admin was coming to be defined for bullheaded ABM statements and other bluster 12 years out of date.

With regard to colonisation, do you really think there's not going to be at least a dozen huge US bases left on Iraqi soil? Ask the Saudis how that worked out for them...

Susan and Ben,

Sorry I was busy all day and couldn’t get back to you earlier.

Yes, Howard Dean knows that the United States not only can’t win this war but is a destabilizing force in Iraq. Obviously, being the leader of a political party that’s divided maniford on the issue, he has to keep things vague.

I meant it, Ben, when I said Yahya Said’’s “diagnosis” of the situation is pretty good, but I disagree with his recipe to tackle it. I don’t think we, Americans, can fulfill any of the serious commitments that he wants us to undertake in Iraq.

You ask what I think we should do in Iraq now. Oh, boy, Where are Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, et al, when we need them!

I don’t have a good solution to the crisis now. I thought America had a chance to have a national covenant worked out before the elections and constitution-making. I still believe it might have worked, if anything could work:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_ID=10&article_ID=4916&categ_id=5

But, as I said, the first reason we need to get out of Iraq is that our staying doesn’t contribute to its stability. Instead, by arming and training a mostly Shiite army and police force, we run the risk of fomenting a deadlier Shiite-Sunni Arab civil war than it would otherwise be.

Yes, the Shiite and Sunni Arabs may be able to resolve their differences, but they may not. If a real civil war breaks out in Iraq, many Arabs suspect that it may spread to neighboring countries (so Islam finally has its own Thirty Years’ War!). Those who fear such an eventuality point to Iran’s ambition to have a kind of “Holy Shiite Empire” encompassing Shiite Iran and mostly Shiite Bahrain, southern Iraq, eastern Saudi Arabia and southern Lebanon. Not that all these areas would split from existing states, they say, but that in the event of a Shiite-Sunni conflict, Muslims in the region would align along sectarian lines. (Indeed there are no “nation-states” in the region except Iran, Yemen and Egypt. All other states were artificially created by colonial Britain and France. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the whole eastern border was redrawn by Britain. Hence people’s primary allegiance remains with their tribes and sects, as we see in the fighting and voting patterns in Iraq.)

I don’t have a crystal ball, but I have a slightly different take on the situation. I do believe that the Iraq war has unleashed forces that will stalk the region for at least a decade, but that their primary focus may not be sectarian; it may be political. These forces likely will campaign -- peacefully and violently -- to roll back what they call American “hegemony”: (i.e. bases, troops, etc.) from the region and democratize their governments. Islamist groups will be in the vanguard of this struggle. The process could be rather long and messy.

Regarding Iraq, what may prevent the outbreak of a bloody Shiite-Sunni Arab civil war is not a sudden outbreak of goodwill between the Shiite and Sunni Arabs but major intra-Shiite splits between the indigenous, anti-Iranian Shiites led by Moktada al-Sadr and the pro-Iranian Shiites led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim’s Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. I don’t believe secular pro-American Shiite parties led by Ahmed Chalabi and Ayad Allawi will be in the game very long.

The Kurdish provinces already have practically seceded from Iraq. I hope the rest of the country will stay in one piece, maybe after a mayhem. The United States can make little positive contribution to the process. On the contrary, in the name of creating a “national” army and other “national”” security forces prior to a national political settlement, we are, as I said, in effect arming the pro-Iranian Shiites to engage the anti-Iranian Sunni Arabs in a really bloody civil war. This is why I am all for a face-saving strategy that allows us to get out.