Recently in War in Iraq Category

"Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terror camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States...'The United States faces a threat from Al Qaeda today that is comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001,' said Seth Jones, a Pentagon consultant and a terrorism expert at the RAND Corporation."

In the NYT, Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde explore how, despite all their endless bluster and unconstitutional behavior, the Dubya administration is losing the war against Al Qaeda, and has apparently given up on catching Bin Laden. "By late 2005, many inside the CIA headquarters in Virginia had reached the conclusion that their hunt for Bin Laden had reached a dead end...'You had a very finite number' of experienced officers, said one former senior intelligence official. 'Those people all went to Iraq. We were all hurting because of Iraq.'"

"'The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11, 2001) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,' intelligence committee Chairman John Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report. 'Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false pretenses.'"

In the stating-the-obvious department, the "Phase II" report by the Senate Intelligence Committee -- delayed by the GOP since before the 2004 election -- finds once again that the Dubya administration lied us into war. Y'know, back in the day, this would be considered an impeachable offense.

"We've seen this movie before,' Obama said at a town hall in Rapid City, S.D. 'A leader who pursues the wrong course, who is unwilling to change course, who ignores the evidence. Now, just like George Bush, John McCain is refusing to admit that he's made a mistake.'" One more from the past week: He already has trouble distinguishing Sunni from Shia. Now, it seems, GOP nominee John McCain is woefully unaware of our current troop levels overseas, and yet -- like a certain prez we could mention -- even refuses to admit he made a simple error. Uh, been there, done that.

"'Over that summer of 2002,' he writes, 'top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war...In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage ...What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.'" The other big political story of my move week: In a new political tell-all, former Dubya Press Secretary Scott McClellan turns on his former White House masters, accusing them of ginning up the case for war and lying outright to him about the Plamegate affair. "'Over time, as you leave the White House and leave the bubble, you're able to take off your partisan hat and take a clear-eyed look at things...I don't know that I can say when I started the book that it would end up where it was, but I felt at the end it had to be as honest and forthright as possible.'"

Welcome to the reality-based community, Scott. In the meantime, the White House is claiming McClellan was motivated by "sour grapes" (whatever that means -- why would he want to keep a gig he seemed to hate?) while other Dubya stalwarts, blindsided by the tome, have also gone on the attack. (But, don't fret -- of all people, McClellan knew what was coming.)

"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Do you remember the Iraq War of 2003? Remember those heady days of euphoria when it ended two months later, with only 139 American lives lost? Journey back with me -- TIME-LIFE style, if you will -- to the scene of our triumph: "Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a 'hero' and boomed, 'He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.' PBS' Gwen Ifill said Bush was 'part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan.' On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, 'The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing. This must be very meaningful to the United States military.'"

Well, today marks the five-year anniversary of our glorious victory, the day that "splendid little war" came to a close. Among those honoring the day, and the remarkable achievement of our Commander-in-Chief:

"In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access. A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis."

Another holdover from the weekend: The NYT exposes the Pentagon's platoon of professional pro-war pundits (or puppets, as the case may be.) "'It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,' Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said...Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as 'message force multipliers' or 'surrogates' who could be counted on to deliver administration 'themes and messages' to millions of Americans 'in the form of their own opinions."

"Judging from Gen. David Petraeus' Senate testimony today, our military commitment to Iraq is open-ended and unconditional...Their unwavering stance amounted to this: Further pullouts might trigger defeat; the costs of defeat are too horrible to ponder; therefore, we shouldn't ponder further pullouts." Slate's Fred Kaplan takes the measure of yesterday's Petraeus hearings, and the performances of Senators Obama [transcript | video], Clinton and McCain respectively. "Near the end of the afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' likely presidential nominee but a junior member of the foreign relations committee, finally got his turn to ask questions -- and he homed in on one of the administration's key conceptual failures...'I'm trying to get to an end point,' he said. 'That's what all of us are trying to do.' This is what many critics and thoughtful supporters of the war have been trying to do for five years now. The Bush administration hasn't addressed the issue. And, ultimately, neither did Petraeus or Crocker today."

The first family set, Oliver Stone's W picks up some Dubya admin hangers-on: namely, Thandie Newton as Condi Rice and Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair. Those are both solid. "Among the key "W" roles yet to be cast are those of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove."

"It's not a case of good vs. evil. It's just another crevice in the widening earthquake called Iraq." As violence flares up in Iraq once more, Slate's Fred Kaplan summarizes the current situation: "[I]t is 'a power struggle' between rival 'Shiite party mafias' for control of the oil-rich south and other Shiite sections of the country. Both sides in this struggle are essentially militias. Both sides have ties to Iran. And as for protecting 'the Iraqi people,' the side backed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (and by U.S. air power) has, ironically, less support -- at least in many Shiite areas, including Basra -- than the side that he (and we) are attacking."

"President Bush believes that every life is precious, and he spends time every day thinking about those who've lost their lives on the battlefield." And well he should: Following soon after our fifth anniversary in Iraq, a roadside bomb kills four soldiers on Easter Sunday, and the American death toll in Iraq reaches 4000, 3863 of which were killed after Dubya's declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003.

I said when the death toll hit 2,000 in October 2005 that " [t]wo thousand US men and women have been killed in the line of duty, and this blatantly amateurish administration still has no plan either to win or to disengage from a conflict they orchestrated, other than 'stay the course.'" Two and half years and 2000 lives later, it's sadly still true. Worse still, Dubya's heir apparent, John McCain, now advocates extending this administration's catastrophic incompetence into another presidential term. This is not a good idea.

"Senator Clinton says that she and Senator McCain have passed a 'Commander in Chief test' – not because of the judgments they’ve made, but because of the years they’ve spent in Washington. She made a similar argument when she said her vote for war was based on her experience at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. But here is the stark reality: there is a security gap in this country – a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions. A gap between Washington experience, and the wisdom of Washington’s judgments. A gap between the rhetoric of those who tout their support for our troops, and the overburdened state of our military...We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but refuse to follow him where he actually is."

On the fifth anniversary of the war, Sen. Obama delivers a speech on Iraq and national security in Fayetteville, NC, and takes time to poke McCain for his apparent and frightening misunderstanding of Mideast affairs. "Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades." Really, McCain's oft-repeated error smacks of Dubya-level incompetence, and would be all over the news today if we were in general election mode, rather than collectively continuing to assuage Sen. Clinton's vanity, by assuming she still has a chance. For shame.

It was announced earlier in the week that a new Pentagon study was set to confirm the obvious: "An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network." Big surprise there.

Well, apparently, even the obvious must be suppressed in the Dubya regime. According to ABC News, the report is now being hastily buried. "The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia. It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online." Instead, it seems, the report will be on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard."

Update: ABC News asks for and receives a snail-mailed copy of the report, after which they promptly scan it and post it online as a PDF. Bang-up job suppressing that one, guys.

"The situational forces that were going on in [Abu Ghraib] -- the dehumanization, the lack of personal accountability, the lack of surveillance, the permission to get away with anti-social actions -- it was like the Stanford prison study, but in spades." New scenes of vileness and depravity emerge from Abu Ghraib. NSFW, and, in any case, no way to start your day.

"One serious problem the study described was the Bush administration’s assumption that the reconstruction requirements would be minimal. There was also little incentive to challenge that assumption, the report said...Another problem described was a general lack of coordination. 'There was never an attempt to develop a single national plan that integrated humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, governance, infrastructure development and postwar security,' the study said...The poor planning had 'the inadvertent effort of strengthening the insurgency,' as Iraqis experienced a lack of security and essential services and focused on 'negative effects of the U.S. security presence.'"

The NYT reports that the Dubya Pentagon has systematically worked to bury an unclassified 2005 study critical of the Iraq war's conduct by the RAND corporation (the former employer of my ex-wife during my DC days, RAND also receives a memorable shout-out in Dr. Strangelove.) "The report was submitted at a time when the Bush administration was trying to rebut building criticism of the war in Iraq by stressing the progress Mr. Bush said was being made. The approach culminated in his announcement in November 2005 of his “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” Update: Slate's Tim Noah wonders: "Isn't this the story line of the Pentagon Papers?"

So, as you may have heard, George W. Bush delivered his final (a lovely word, isn't it?) State of the Union address last night. [Transcript.] I actually saw it two and a half times, as I had CNN running in the background while I websurfed well into the evening. And, maybe I've been getting ruined by the recent slew of memorable Obama-related speeches but, for the life of me, it didn't make an impression at all. Right around the time Dubya made that goofy and somewhat undignified joke about the IRS accepting checks and money orders, something in my brain went *click*, and all I could hear was a lame duck quacking. So, if Dubya actually managed to say anything of substance, or discuss a program that might actually happen this year, please let me know. Update: Sen. Obama's response. Update 2: James Fallows offers his usual worthwhile post-mortem.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida...In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

A new study by the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism counts up the staggering number of falsehoods made by the Bush administration in the lead-up to Iraq. "The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period...Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida." (Via Dangerous Meta.)

"Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' to use the constitutional standard." Not to be lost in the New Hampshire shuffle: Former Senator and presidential candidate George McGovern makes the case anew for Dubya's impeachment.

"Today the Australian people have decided that we as a nation will move forward." Dubya loses an important conservative ally on the international front as long-standing Australian PM John Howard is voted out of office, to be replaced by Kevin Rudd of the Labor Party. "Rudd, a Chinese-speaking former diplomat, has also promised to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, leaving the U.S. as the only industrialized country not to have joined it...Rudd promised to pull Australia's 550 combat troops from Iraq in a phased withdrawal, and to quickly sign Kyoto. Howard had rejected withdrawal plans for Australia's troops in Iraq, and refused to ratify the pact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions." Ozzie ozzie ozzie! Welcome back to the reality-based community, y'all (and here's hoping we catch up with you next year.)

"'I hear you're looking for me,' he said. 'You wanna go mano a mano right here?'" In excerpts from his new book, Fall of the House of Bush, published in Salon, Craig Unger examines the ideological divide between Bush father and son and tells the true story of Dubya's coming to Jesus. "One way of examining the growing crisis could be found in the prism of the elder Bush's relationship with his son, a relationship fraught with ancient conflicts, ideological differences, and their profound failure to communicate with each other...According to the Bushes' conservative biographers, Peter and Rochelle Schweizer, family members could see [Bush 41's] torment. When his sister, Nancy Ellis, asked him what he thought about his son's plan for the war, Bush 41 replied, 'But do they have an exit strategy?'" This goes a long way toward explaining the elder Bush's recent spate of (really depressing and hard to watch) public crying jags. (See also Joan Walsh.)

"'The train is derailed and off the tracks,' said Stephen P. Cohen, author of 'The Idea of Pakistan.' 'We have to give ourselves a share of the responsibility for this. We placed all of our chips on Musharraf.' At this point, Cohen added: 'I don't think there is anything we can do. We are not big players in this anymore.'" Dubya diplomacy takes another huge hit as a power-hungry President Musharraf declares martial law in Pakistan to ensure his continued reign, sparking nationwide protests and leaving the Bushies between a rock and a hard place. "One adviser traveling with Rice saw a silver lining in the rapid turn of events. 'Thank heavens for small favors,' the official said. Compared to Pakistan, 'Iraq looks pretty good.'" Oh, joy.

Update: Slate's Fred Kaplan weighs in. "The state of emergency in Pakistan signals yet another low point in President George W. Bush's foreign policy -- a stark demonstration of his paltry influence and his bankrupt principles. More than that, the crackdown locks us in a crisis -- a potentially dangerous dynamic -- from which there appears to be no escape route...The Bush foreign policy was neither shrewd enough to play self-interested power politics nor truly principled enough to enforce its ideals."

"Service in Iraq is 'a potential death sentence,' said one man who identified himself as a 46-year Foreign Service veteran. 'Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now,' he said to sustained applause." Want to join the Foreign Service? Here's your chance...US diplomats appear to be on the verge of mutiny over forced postings in Baghdad. "Foreign Service officers swear an oath to serve wherever the secretary of state sends them, but no directed assignments have been ordered since the late 1960s, during the Vietnam War...A poll conducted this month by the American Foreign Service Association found that only 12 percent of officers 'believe that [Secretary of State Condaleeza] Rice is fighting for them'."

"In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld argued that Muslims avoid 'physical labor' and wrote of the need to 'keep elevating the threat,' 'link Iraq to Iran' and develop 'bumper sticker statements' to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war." The WP surveys the "snowflakes" composed by ex-SecDef Donald Rumsfeld during his tenure. "Rumsfeld, whose sometimes abrasive approach often alienated other Cabinet members and White House staff members, produced 20 to 60 snowflakes a day and regularly poured out his thoughts in writing as the basis for developing policy, aides said." Uh, Rummy, get a blog.

"Is the military's top spokesman in Iraq a loose cannon who routinely fires off angry, impetuous e-mails to bloggers who criticize the war and the spin surrounding it? Or is Col. Steven Boylan, instead, an innocent victim -- an online wallflower whose identity has been hijacked by a pro-war hacker who has managed to break into the most well-fortified space on the planet in order to taunt lefty critics? Neither scenario paints a comforting picture of the situation in Iraq -- and even though the e-mails in question are coming from military servers in Iraq, the military seems strangely uninterested in solving the mystery of who is writing them." Speaking of ominous "snowflakes" emanating from the Pentagon, Salon's Farhad Manjoo summarizes the recent bizarre and troubling behavior by Col. Steven Boylan, most notably his unsolicited letter and subsequent denial to Salon's Glenn Greenwald. Hmm...perhaps Boylan is a drailer?

"'We screwed up and left Saddam Hussein in power. The president [then George H.W. Bush] believes he'll be overthrown by his own people, but I rather doubt it,' he quotes Wolfowitz lamenting [in 1991]. 'But we did learn one thing that's very important. With the end of the Cold War, we can now use our military with impunity. The Soviets won't come in to block us. And we've got five, maybe 10, years to clean up these old Soviet surrogate regimes like Iraq and Syria before the next superpower emerges to challenge us ... We could have a little more time, but no one really knows.'" According to Salon's Joe Conason, Wesley Clark's new book suggests the existence of a smoking-gun 2001 memo that outlined in full the neo-cons' delusional ambitions for the Middle East before the Iraq War. "'Six weeks later, Clark returned to Washington to see the same general and inquired whether the plan to strike Iraq was still under consideration..."Oh, it's worse than that," he said, holding up a memo on his desk. "Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years." And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.' While Clark doesn't name the other four countries, he has mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan."

"In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran...The President’s position, and its corollary -- that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians -- have taken firm hold in the Administration." With that in mind, and with Secretary of State Rice citing Iranian "lying" about their nuclear program, here's one from a week or so ago: The New Yorker's Sy Hersh evaluates the current prospects in the administration for a war with Iran. "I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the 'execute order' that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning...'They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,' one recently retired C.I.A. official said."

"If you're really worried about Iran, do you want to put your faith in the United States, the country that bungled Iraq? If you really care about Islamic fundamentalism, do you want to be led by the country that, distracted by Iraq, failed to predict the return of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan?" Why has the world soured on America of late? The real reason, argues Slate's Anne Applebaum and the data she surveys, is that, thanks to seven years of Dubya, we're starting to look incompetent. "And even if the surge works, even if the roadside bombs vanish, inept is a word that will always be used about the Iraqi invasion."

Blackwater grows murkier: It seems the private security firm in Iraq has a long and sordid history of troubling incidents to its name, and that the initial State Dept. report on the firefight of a few weeks ago was originally written by a Blackwater contractor. (Indeed, the State Department tried to intervene in today's Congressional testimony by Blackwater head Erik Prince until forced to back down as a result of public pressure.)

How deep does this rabbit hole go? Salon's Ben Van Heuvelen traces the financial connections between Blackwater and the Bushies, while P.W. Singer, an expert on private contractors, explains what Blackwater has cost us all: "When we evaluate the facts, the use of private military contractors appears to have harmed, rather than helped, the counterinsurgency efforts of the U.S. mission in Iraq, going against our best doctrine and undermining critical efforts of our troops...According to testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Defense Contract Audit Agency has identified more than a staggering $10 billion in unsupported or questionable costs from battlefield contractors -- and investigators have barely scratched the surface."

"More than nine months after taking power, about all that Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have achieved on the Iraq front is to unfairly share in the blame for mismanaging the conflict...Pelosi, in particular, erred in unduly raising antiwar expectations when she took over as the first Democratic speaker in a dozen years. It was the Gingrich Revolution in reverse, this time with Democrats failing to appreciate the balance-of-power realities of a congressional showdown with an unyielding president, however wounded." Salon's Walter Shapiro puts forth an explanation why Democratic attempts to change direction in Iraq have failed.

[Review, take 2.] Every day I think I'm going to wake up back in the desert... I must say, I went in expecting not much more than an over-the-top "message movie" schmaltzfest, or at best a harmless helping of mediocre, inert Oscar Bait like Cinderella Man or A Beautiful Mind. But Paul Haggis' In the Valley of Elah, the first of four(!) movies I caught last Saturday, turned out to be quite a bit better than I expected. Rather, Elah is a melancholy rumination on the hidden casualties of (any) war and a somber inquiry into the heavy toll exacted on the wives, parents, and children of military men. (The families of military women will likely get their due in John Cusack's forthcoming Grace is Gone.) The David and Goliath nonsequitur of its title notwithstanding, Elah more often brings to mind the questionable sacrifice for an unknown higher purpose in Abraham and Isaac, or the bloody fate of erstwhile brothers Cain and Abel. But, Biblical exegesis aside, the film showcases the best work Tommy Lee Jones has done in years. (Well, I didn't see The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, and have high hopes for No Country for Old Men.) And it's probably the most engaging police procedural of the year this side of Zodiac.)

"Dad?" Roused from a dream he can barely grasp the edges of, grizzled Vietnam Vet turned mechanic Hank Greenfield (Jones) is awoken one Tennessee morning by a call from faraway Fort Rudd, informing him not only that his son Mike is back from Iraq but has gone AWOL since getting back stateside. This doesn't gibe with Hank, who's been receiving image-laden e-mails from his second son during his tour (his first son already perished in his nation's service), and so he packs his bags, kisses his wife (Susan Sarandon) goodbye, and drives straight through to New Mexico, looking to ascertain the score. The sergeant on duty (James Franco) and Mike's returning platoon members all think he's jusr shacked up with a good time woman somewhere, but Hank's not so certain. And, just as he's beginning to tease clues off Mike's damaged cameraphone, a charred, mutilated, and dismembered body is discovered on the outskirts of town. Sure enough, it's Mike, and as the ensuing homicide investigation slips into the jursidictional crack between local law enforcement (most notably represented by Charlize Theron) and the Military Police (headed by bureaucrat Jason Patric), Hank takes it on himself to bring his son's murderer to justice. But, the dogs of war impart a moon-touched madness on those they've mauled, and Hank will be forced to confront some ugly truths about his son, and the man he became in Iraq, in order to get to the bottom of things.

Admittedly, the movie starts out kinda rocky (or perhaps I was just gunning for Haggis in the first reel.) Events occur early on that scream symbolic significance (you'll know what I mean), people speak in characterization shorthand -- "Someday, you'll just have to trust somebody, Hank" -- and some plot points just don't hang together. How did Hank ever find that (symbolically-named) computer guru operating out of a van, and why does it take him so ever-loving long just to do a defrag? But, for whatever reason -- my money's mostly on Jones -- Elah is a significantly subtler and more resonant film than I ever expected from the writer-director of the lamentable Crash. (Then again, a ball-peen hammer to the skull is subtler than Crash, a film which, as I noted in my review of Inside Man last year, feels like it was made by and for people who don't get out very much.) Tommy Lee Jones is really excellent here: Check out the scene where he has to ID his son's body in the morgue, or note how his early military rectitude seeps away as he sinks into the slough of despond. And Jones isn't alone. Sarandon is memorable in every short scene she's in, Theron is surprisingly believable as an ordinary (albeit beautiful) cop, and Patric -- a dependable actor who never quite made it as a lead -- seems to relish the freedom of his oncoming, paunchy Val Kilmer/Alec Baldwin phase. His "on a need to know basis" character in particular could've been way over the top, but Patric underplays him as a guy who really just doesn't want to do the paperwork. (There's also a brief but solid turn by Josh Brolin, Jones' Coen compadre, as the local sheriff.)

Elah isn't the best movie of the year or anything. But it is most of everything you'd want out of a fall film -- It's timely, sober-minded, well-acted and well-made. And, if nothing else, it shows Haggis has the ability to reboot after Crash.

"The problem is that no one seems quite sure what law, if any, would apply to security firm contractors, and any potential applications are untested and would be vigorously challenged." A murky incident involving Blackwater USA over the weekend, which resulted in the deaths of eight alleged Iraqi civilians, raises questions about the legality of private security firms working in Iraq (on whom the well-being of most American diplomats in the region depends.) "Should any Iraqis ever seek redress for the deaths of the civilians in a criminal court, they will be out of luck. Because of an order promulgated by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the now-defunct American occupation government, there appears to be almost no chance that the contractors involved would be, or could be, successfully prosecuted in any court in Iraq." Needed or not, having privately-held American militias operating outside the bounds of the Iraqi legal system isn't going to elicit much respect for the rule of law in the region.

"I said after I was elected in 1996 that 12 years in the Senate would probably be enough. It is...I will not seek a third term in the United States Senate, nor do I intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008." Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) announces his retirement, which may just mean a return to the Senate for Bob Kerrey. (So, he's not running...I guess the trial balloon popped.) In any event, I thought Hagel maddeningly buckled to party pressure more often than not when the heat was on, and I still hold his attempted poison-pill amendment to McCain-Feingold back in 2000 against him. But, he also possessed a definite maverick streak on the war and a penchant for speaking-truth-to-power every so often that'll be sorely missed on his side of the aisle. So, farewell, Senator Hagel, and please give yourself at least a few weeks off before commencing the fundraising for 2012.

Declaring that "the military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met" (an assertion which rests, of course, on how one jukes the stats and skews the benchmarks), Army General David Petraeus, Dubya's most recent man in Iraq, tells Congress he's recommending a drawdown of troop levels in Iraq to pre-surge levels -- around 130,000 troops -- by July of next year. [Transcript.] Not a huge surprise -- As Fred Kaplan noted both a few weeks ago and in his quality preview of today's testimony, the Army would run out of troops by April anyway, so this was a foregone conclusion. Also, obviously, not what you'd call a real withdrawal (although the WP story's cited experts suggest it may be taken as the "beginning of the end" by interested parties in Iraq...and Iran.) So, in effect, Petraeus punted to next July.

For his part, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker backed Petraeus' "Things are Getting Better" remarks in his own testimony, and intimated that the surge had staved off a near-total collapse. He also warned the nation about the nature of our continuing commitment there: "'There will be no single moment in which we can claim victory,' and any turning point will be recognized only 'in retrospect.'"

Are things getting better in Iraq? If so, it'll be hard to prove with the statistics lately offered by the US military, which critics claim once again have been cherry-picked and "selectively ignore negative trends." "In its December 2006 report, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group identified 'significant underreporting of violence,' noting that 'a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack'...Recent estimates by the media, outside groups and some government agencies have [also] called the military's findings into question."

In any case, it seems that, despite Dubya and Gen. Petraeus's claims to the contrary, Iraqi security forces are nowhere close to being able to handle the load in Baghdad, according to a new report by a commission of retired military officers. "The report expresses concern about what it calls the massive U.S. military logistical 'footprint' in Iraq and its effect on perceptions and problems. 'The unintended message conveyed is one of "permanence," an occupying force, as it were,' the report says. It recommends reconsideration of 'efficiency, necessity...and cost' and calls for 'significant reductions, consolidations and realignments" of U.S. forces.'"

"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again." Did Dubya know for a fact that Iraq possessed no WMD prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq? With two CIA sources to back him up, Sidney Blumenthal says so. "'The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused,' said one of the former CIA officers. 'The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear.'"

"There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001." Every time he thinks he's going to wake up back in the jungle...In a fit of self-serving revisionism, Dubya attempts to reinvent the lessons of Vietnam before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, arguing that our problems really began because we withdrew from Southeast Asia too early. (Also, apparently we lost the war because of Graham Greene's The Quiet American. So, on the bright side, it looks like Dubya is progressing along his high-school reading list.) As you might expect, this line of argument is not sitting well with many historians, among them the venerable Robert Dallek: "What is Bush suggesting? That we didn't fight hard enough, stay long enough? That's nonsense. It's a distortion,' he continued. 'We've been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It's a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out.'"

"'The British have basically been defeated in the south,' a senior U.S. intelligence official said recently in Baghdad. They are abandoning their former headquarters at Basra Palace, where a recent official visitor from London described them as 'surrounded like cowboys and Indians' by militia fighters." More bad news in Iraq: Once considered a comparative success story of sorts, the formerly British-held city of Basra now seems to be deteriorating as quickly as the rest of Iraq (except that, rather than experiencing sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, the more homogenous Basra is witnessing Shiite militias struggling amongst themselves.) "Much of Basra's violence is 'over who gets what cut from Iraq's economic resources,' a U.S. Army strategist in Iraq said."

"Call it the 'special relationship'; call it, as Churchill did, the 'joint inheritance'; call it, when we meet, as a form of homecoming, as President Reagan did. The strength of this relationship...is not just built on the shared problems that we have to deal with together or on the shared history, but is built...on shared values." Wanna know who (is Mr Brown)? So does Dubya...The new British prime minister and Bush held their first joint press conference yesterday (transcript), and -- so far -- it's all smiles. Still, "[t]he British leader did not hide his differences with the president, describing Afghanistan as 'the front line against terrorism.'...[He also] avoided using the phrase "war on terror" in describing the effort to hunt down and defeat Islamic radicals. He referred to terrorism 'as a crime' and 'not a cause,' though he went on to say that 'there should be no safe haven and no hiding place for those who practice terrorist violence or preach terrorist extremism.'"

"The White House report released today, on how far Iraq has progressed toward 18 political and military benchmarks, is a sham." Well, Dubya may point to the split-decision Iraq interim report as grounds for optimism, but Slate's Fred Kaplan, for one, ain't buying it: "[A] close look at the 25-page report reveals a far more dismal picture and a deliberately distorted assessment...The report card was rigged from the outset by how the White House defined 'satisfactory.'"

"I wish everyone, friend or foe, well. And that is that -- the end." So long, Tony (and good luck in the Middle East.) 'We're very glad to see him go, because he's the most dangerous opponent that we've had in a couple of hundred years,' former Conservative leader William Hague told the BBC afterward.'" That may have been true for awhile, I guess. Too bad Blair decided to pull an LBJ and mar his otherwise-sound progressive legacy with an exceedingly ill-advised foreign war. But, time marches onward, so, with that in mind, Hello to Gordie and the New Labor Order.

By a count of 14-0 (Russia abstaining), the UN Security Council votes to shut down their inquiry into Iraq WMDs. Well, so much for that particular casus belli. From the vaults: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." -- Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 29, 2002. (There's another one for the impeachment file.)

"'Here...comes...that famous General Taguba -- of the Taguba report!' Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice." Well, the agency and the time may have changed, but it's increasingly clear we still have a lot to answer for, thanks to the actions of those who would claim to protect our way of life. The inimitable Sy Hersh of The New Yorker (who also played a role in 1974 in getting the CIA docs released -- take that, Woodward) reports in with the tale of General Antonio Taguba, the head of the Army's original investigation into Abu Ghraib who, like so many other truth-tellers in the administration, was eventually hung out to dry for his candor. Hersh's frightening and sadly plausible piece not only makes clear that Rumsfeld, Dubya, et al had more knowledge of the nightmare of Abu Ghraib than they've pu