President Bush will be asking Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malilki what his plan
is to end the sectarian violence in his traumatized land. When the president was
asked about the explosion in violence that has plagued his pet democracy project, he
pointed the finger at al Qaeda..

According to Bush, it is a simple case of al Qaeda attacking innocent, freedom fry
loving civilians, and the Shiite militias and death squads retaliating, tit-for-tat.
I thought that the trophy killing of al-Zarqawi was supposed to have put an end
to the escalating violence. I guess al Qaeda in Iraq grew a few more heads, hands,
and feet.

Mr. W was right in his assessment of al-Zarqawi’s role in instigating the violence.
But, according to almost everyone else on the planet-excluding Darth Cheney of
course- the violence has mutated from a troublesome insurgency into the early
stages of a civil war. The political tensions in the Green Zone are providing fuel
to the conflicts on the ground. The fact that Iraq is experiencing a chaotic jolt
to a dictator’s ruthlessly mandated status quo is also adding to the problem.

The president again vowed not to leave Iraq until the mission was complete. Note:
he did not elaborate on what exactly that mission was, nor did he say whether or not
he would repeat his Top Gun stunt, or if he ordered a new banner once this grand day
has arrived.

Now back to the Iraqi government: what can Mr. Maliki really do? In order to sign-
ificantly reduce the violence, the militias must be disarmed, but at the same time
they are essential for those in power. And this goes to the root of the problem,
there is no reliable national army, and the government itself is divided into warring
factions. Without militias adding protection to their parties, the law of the jungle
would prevail and they would be trampled under boot.

Speaking of militias and political influence in Iraq, has anyone left a message
with Tehran? Mr. W will be meeting with al-Maliki in Jordan this week, along with
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and a bevy of Sunni leaders to discuss the mess that
is Iraq, and the disaster that could be, Lebanon. But, surprise, surprise, Iran and
the axis of evil in waiting, Syria, will not be at the table.

Supposedly, their master plan involves thumb screws for the Sunni insurgents, and a
snub to the Shiite militias and their Iranian sponsors. I guess they plan to solve the
militia problem by ignoring it- much like the approach taken toward global warming
and energy dependence.

Actually, their plan is to get Sunni nations in the region to persuade their Iraqi
brethren to back al-Maliki. This would reduce the Sunni insurgency, and give al-Maliki
the strength to take on Moktada al-Sadr and hopefully neutralize his mighty Mahdi Army.
Al-Sadr, a powerful Shiite cleric who has many puppets in Iraq’s parliament, receives
significant backing from Iran.

Al-Sadr followed through with his threat to create chaos today, and effectively
suspended his party’s involvement in Iraq’s parliament, they also abandoned their cabinet
positions. The lawmakers under his control are pushing for improvements in living
conditions for Iraqi citizens, and for greater say over security forces. The latter is
most likely tied to their insistence that US troops leave Iraq.

And, this just in: the two –day summit between Bush and al-Maliki was cancelled at the
last minute. This coincided with the release of a memo from Bush’s national security
advisor that expressed grave doubts about the Iraqi Prime Minister’s ability to control
the violence between the many warring factions.

With the cancellation of the Bush-al Maliki summit-which will be replaced by a quick
brunch- and the withdrawal of the al-Sadr block from Iraq’s government, this new round
of fantasy-laden foreign policy is veering off of a very real cliff.

So, let’s take a look at this proposal, last minute disasters aside. The Sunni
insurgents are going to cooperate with their enemies in Iraq because the US and a handful
of autocratic regimes want them to? Best wishes. I have bridges- and planets for sale. Now al-Maliki’s government may collapse into complete irrelevance. It seems like Iran is
exercising its will without so much as an invitation to brunch.

Greg Strid

This week brought the assassination of Pierre Gemayel, a Lebanese
cabinet minister and fervent opponent of Syrian meddling in Lebanon,
and was met with wide-spread public outrage and international condem-
nation. The first day of official mourning for Mr. Gemayel fell on
Lebanon’s Independence Day, causing the cancellation of the normal
festivities that accompany such an occasion. It is just a little more than
ironic that Lebanon’s Independence Day celebrations were pushed aside
to mourn the death of another politician who fought against the corrosive
influence of foreign interests.

This is the fifth politically motivated murder since the Cedar Revolution
in 2005. This upheaval stemmed from public outrage over the assassination
of Lebanon’s popular Prime Minister, Rafiq al-Hariri. Syria was believed to
be responsible for this incident, and as a result, their troops were removed
from Lebanese soil after a presence that lasted 29 years.

Mr. Gamayel had a wide following, and was on the rise in the conservative
Christian Phalangist party established by his grandfather. He was elected to
parliament for the second time in 2005, and by that time he had gained the
reputation as an uncompromising opponent of Hezbollah and their sponsors
in Damascus.

The latest politically motivated murder comes at a particularly bad time for
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s government-he’s Sunni by the way. Six pro-
Syrian ministers allied with Hezbollah-they happen to be Shiite, with one
Christian mixed in for good measure, resigned last week following a failed
effort to increase their power in the cabinet. Another member of the of the
cabinet dropped out as well, bringing the total number of defectors to seven.
The loss of Mr. Gemayel means that the government is one assassination
away from collapse. As it stands, there may not be enough ministers to
authorize new legislation.

A few days after the pro-Hezbollah, Syria-friendly ministers departed the
government, the remaining Sunni, Druse and Christians sanctioned a U.N.
proposal for an international tribunal to bring those responsible for the death
of Prime Minister Harari to justice. Obviously, this move did not receive a
warm reaction from Damascus.

This also seemed to upset Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s supreme leader. He
insisted, from his unelected, but divinely sanctioned post, that the government
in Beirut resign or conduct snap parliamentary elections. Mr. Nasrallah has
been pushing his pawns in the cabinet to grab more power since October, and
had planned highly orchestrated protests that now have to be put on hold.

In July of this year, Nasrallah decided to poke a stick in Israel’s eye by kid-
napping IDF soldiers on Israeli soil in an effort to improve his domestic standing.
What he thought would be a short affair lasted much, much longer- actually, he
started a war. By the end of hostilities, over 1.200 Lebanese civilians were killed,
and billions of dollars worth of damage was inflicted the nation’s infrastructure.
The political payout from this reckless gamble did not pan out. Although he
enjoyed the limelight, it did not last, and he was left without much more influence
in Lebanon’s government after the dust had settled.

Now, after the mysterious, yet professional hit on Gemayel, the Lebanese cabinet
is left gasping for air, deprived of Shiite representation, it is sorely lacking
credibility. One more execution, and the cabinet will have to be dissolved. And
whose needs does this cater to?

Yes, Mr. Nasrallah and his tightly controlled Hezbollah organization stand to have
another go at increasing their power in Lebanon. And if they actually manage to
gain from Lebanon’s latest display of violence, maybe Syria will get their wish in the
form of reduced Lebanese government cooperation with any international invest-
igations.

Who knows what will come of an international tribunal designed to introduce
the rule of law to those responsible for the death of Prime Minister Harari. Even if
the Syrian government or Hezbollah is implicated, they will not respect the verdict.
It will be seen as the work of an illegitimate organization that is merely a front for the
dark forces of Zionism.

The truly disturbing feature in this twisted tale is that whoever did pull the strings
that led to the death of Gemayel may get more than they bargained for. Tensions
are running extremely high on the streets of Lebanon now. Accusations are flying
across the airwaves, the cities are covered with posters that scream for retribution,
and people are preparing for the worst. If the government does collapse, then
Mr. Nasrallah may, once again, get more than he has bargained for. I am sure
that after his complete miscalculation of Israel’s response to the kidnapping that
started a war back in July, his bunker is well stocked.

Greg Strid

According to a report in the Washington Post, “Go Big”, “Go Long”,
“Go Short”, are the options initially put forward by the US military
with regard to halting the collapse of Iraq into all-out civil war.
These phrases are usually uttered by sports announcers during football
season, it is nice to know that they can be applied to military affairs
as well.

The new study, charged by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Peter Pace, has been examining military options just as some high profile
members of the new Congressional majority are pushing for a withdrawal
to commence within four to six months. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group
is also on the case, and they are a month away from releasing their
guidance that will, it is hoped, steer Iraq away from the edge of the abyss.

The first suggestion, to “Go Big”, is not an option at all, because the US
cannot significantly increase troop levels, and the Iraqi army falls far
short in the number of trained and reliable soldiers available for service.
Even if this were a viable option, it would end up discouraging Iraqis
from taking responsibility for their own security, and would further
erode political authority.

The “Go Long” option means reducing the number of US troops in Iraq,
but extending the length of their stay in a capacity that emphasizes
training and advisory roles, as opposed to combat operations. This
would run counter to the goals of many in the Democratic majority,
and a the voters who put them there. The Pentagon’s training concept
means another five years, at least, on the ground in Iraq, and Democratic
Senators, such as Carl Levin, advocate withdrawing troops within
four to six months- a policy proposal with widespread public support.

The “Go Short” plan means packing it up and watching the country
explode into all-out civil war, and the likelihood of a larger-scale
conflagration involving the entire region.

Due to the unpalatable nature of the choices listed above, a blend of the
first and third options bubbled to the surface. By adding about 20,000 to
30,000 US troops, for a short period of time, to the 140,000 already on
the ground, sectarian violence would be reduced by a significant amount.
This would also ease fears that an immediate troop reduction would just be
withdrawal in disguise.

There are problems with this idea as well. It would be a stretch to increase
force levels even on a temporary basis, and their efforts may end up being
too little, too late. This option may also further weaken the Iraq’s divided
government by highlighting their lack of control over the sectarian violence.

Even the most logical of the military solutions does not seem to take into
account Iraq’s neighbors. A strategy that does not involve discussions with
the countries bordering Iraq, especially Iran, regardless the troop levels and
tactics employed, will fail. This will also be the case with an outright
withdrawal. Leaving Iraq without dealing with its neighbors will only
widen the Sunni-Shiite conflict, and may cause Turkey to put an end to
Kurdish autonomy.

I am not in support of the current incoherent policy that has featured an
alarming lack of vision and staggering levels of incompetence. Adding
more troops or redeploying them will not work without the cooperation
of Iraq’s neighbors. A complete troop withdrawal before a political
process involving the regions key nations will lead to a regional meltdown.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair advocates an opening of talks with both
Syria and Iran, it is also believed that the Iraq Study Group supports this
approach as well. Sunni insurgents stream across the Syrian border, and
Iran backs two of the largest Shiite political parties and their militias.

The insurgents are behind the mounting US death toll, and the suicide
bombings that have targeted Shiite civilians. The militias back death squads,
which are largely responsible for the thousands Sunni civilian deaths.
Although there is a large and growing element of randomness in the violence
that engulfs Iraq, reining in these two factions would be the best way to
reduce the chaos. This can only be achieved with the cooperation of their
sponsors, Syria and Iran.

A serious effort to restart economic development must also be included in
any plan to restore order to Iraq. Even if the violence is reduced, political
credibility will only be restored when Iraqis are offered jobs outside of
the army, police and militias. The US owes Iraq a nation. Our actions,
as a country, have lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, Iraq’s middle
class has been fleeing the anarchy in droves, and the region could tumble
into a much wider conflict. We are all responsible for this, and it is our
obligation to repair what we have so recklessly destroyed. It would be
extremely selfish and short sighted to hold this decision hostage to a
domestic political quarrel.

Greg Strid

Just over a week after winning back the House and Senate, the Democrats
have decided to show the voters that not much has changed in the way
politicians behave in Washington D.C.

Nancy Pelosi, the incoming Speaker of the House, backed Jack Murtha, the
losing candidate in the battle for majority leader.  It is not that rep. Murtha lost
that is the problem, but it is the fact that he is widely known to be ethically
challenged.  Her allegiance to Murtha makes her pledge to create an honest,
ethical and open Congress a complete joke: actually, it is insulting to every
independent voter who made the removal of the Republican majority possible-
I emphasize the role independents, because I am one, and I voted Democratic
in order to remove the layer of corruption that covered the Capitol.  I didn’t
think that a new film would develop so quickly.

Mr. Murtha was caught on tape discussing the possibility of accepting bribes
with  an undercover FBI agent during the Abscam investigation- he wasn’t
charged with any crimes, but did say that he wasn’t interested at the time- not
exactly an explicit refusal.  More recently, his role as ranking member of the
House appropriations defense subcommittee has been questioned due to
potential abuses of power.  It has been alleged that Murtha has flouted ethical
standards and has worked against efforts to limit the role of lobbyists.

Murtha sharply criticized Pelosi’s ethics and lobbying proposals before the
vote for majority leader, but decided to push for them anyway due to the new
Speaker’s backing in this fight.  All I can say is:  pure genius.  Here is a man
who walks with a cloud of corruption hanging over his head, criticizing ethics
reform legislation when his party was elected due to the public’s disgust with
the unscrupulous behavior of public officials.  Then again, he is the one who
suggested that US forces in Iraq should fall back to Okinawa.  Why not
Oklahoma?

He was also one of only 12 Democrats to vote against campaign finance reform
written by Senators McCain and Feingold.  He also put forward a House rules
change designed to block outside groups from filing complaints to the ethics
committee.

Pelosi feel she owes Murtha a favor, after all, he ran her successful 2001
campaign for party whip- against the newly elected majority leader Steny Hoyer.
Pelosi has known Hoyer for over 40 years, and she nominated him in a 1991
House leadership race, but their relationship soured after the bitter 2001 battle
for the top seat of minority whip.  Pelosi has been uneasy with Hoyer’s
perceived lack of loyalty, and his independence of thought and action.  This may
provide a better explanation for her decision to back Murtha in the race for
majority leader.

Pelosi won by a wide margin against Hoyer in 2001, and her insistence on holding
a grudge against her rival is a big mistake.  Hoyer won by a wide margin in the
election for majority leader, strengthening his position and weakening Pelosi’s.
As for Murtha, his loyalty could have been rewarded in other ways-I’m sure he
would have been quite happy with a large bag of cash.

Now that the leadership of the ruling party has been decided, it is time to repair
the damage done by this unfortunate episode.  I must admit that I am not overly optimistic.  The watchdog group, Public Citizen, has ranked Rep. Hoyer as a top Congressional beneficiary of political action committee(PAC) and lobbyist booty.
He has raked in $5.6 million in PAC contributions  over the past six years.  Another
fact causing dismay is that the combined time in office of Hoyer, Pelosi and Murtha
is 76 years.  In with the new guard?  I think not.  With this sophomoric display of
selfish political bickering, I really doubt all that much will change, but it is still
very early-I hope that the incoming majority will prove me wrong.

Greg Strid

What is all the fuss about the Iraq Study Group?  Shouldn’t this group have
been convened sometime in late 2002, or early 2003- before the invasion?
I guess the Bush administration thought it would be a no-brainer, something
they could achieve while sleepwalking.

They had it all figured out- we zip in with a small, high-tech army, treat the
viewers at home to a little ‘shock and awe’, install a puppet government, start
increasing the flow of oil to cover our costs, and plan our next invasion- of
Iran, from a stable platform- Iraq.

There was no need to study and plan for all possible outcomes, there could
only be one-Victory.  OK, maybe we’ll need some extra umbrellas to protect
the troops from the monsoon of rose pedals tossed from grateful Iraqis( they
certainly wouldn’t need extra body armor), but everything else will be a
cakewalk.

But, after 3 rudderless years that have been marked by hundreds of billions of
US taxpayer dollars wasted, an American death toll that will soon hit 3.000,
over a thousand Iraqi civilians dying each month, an Iraqi economy that is
in shambles, water, electricity and oil production at pre-invasion levels, oh
yes, and a drubbing at the polls last week,  the Bush administration has
decided that it is time to reassess its approach in Iraq.

The first order of business after the election was the removal of Bush’s
lightning rod, and architect of disaster, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld.  This I find exceedingly amusing, for just a week before the
midterm elections, the president said Rumsfeld was doing a ‘fantastic job’.
Why the sudden change of heart?   Could this be a peace offering to the
incoming Democratic majority

If this is actually why he disposed of the secretary of disaster, then I find this to
be  a clear example of this administration’s complete disregard for the welfare
of the men and women serving in Iraq.

By accepting Rumsfeld’s resignation, which was offered and refused several
times over the past two years , Bush has signaled that it is time for a change
of strategy with regard to the spiraling mess that is the Iraqi occupation.
But, he did so grudgingly, with the midterm election results forcing him to
take decisive action.

I don’t think that he would have replaced Rumsfeld had the elections gone
his party’s way.  Which means his deadly lack strategic vision, most recently
labeled ‘adapt to win’, better known as ‘stay the course’ would have proceeded
without modification.

The fact that a change in the political landscape forced Bush to alter his course
toward the occupation of Iraq  shows that he has put politics before everything
else.  It was evident from the start that Rumsfeld needed to go, so why not sooner
rather than later?  As far a the Iraq  Study Group is concerned, that too should
have been convened long ago.  Many lives would have been spared, and
billions of dollars saved if  these actions were not held hostage to political
calculations.

I hope that this study group, made up of seasoned statesmen, and the future
secretary of Defense, William Gates, will offer sound and practical solutions
to the Iraq debacle.  Maybe the threat of real congressional oversight will
force Bush and Cheney to act in the interests of the troops and the nation they
are fighting for, and stop them from obsessing with the extension of executive
power.

Greg Strid

Unfortunately for Republicans in this midterm election, voters did not
ignore the criminal behavior, blind support for the Iraq war fiasco and
complete lack of fiscal discipline exhibited by congress. As it turns out,
Americans were very unhappy with those politicians who seemed to be in
touch only with themselves.

It seems that the party of patriotism and hyperactive flag waving turned
out be a source of embarrassment for many registered Republicans as
they headed for the polls on Tuesday.

According to exit polls, 60 percent of voters claimed that national issues
were more important than local concerns-poor Karl Rove, his trusty wedge
issues couldn’t compensate for congressional approval ratings that hovered
in the mid-teens.

Over a third of those surveyed said their House selection was cast with the
intention of opposing the president. Bush received a 57 percent disapproval
Rating, and 30 percent said they were actually incensed by his presence
in the White House.

The post election sampling of opinion also showed that the same middle-
class that thrust the Republicans to power in 1994 swung back to the
Democrats in this midterm election. Independent voters and even suburb-
anites also let their displeasure with the GOP be known- was this a revolt of
the ‘Soccer/Security Moms’?

As far as the issue of terrorism is concerned. it still ranked high on the
list with 70 percent considering it important to their vote. But, unlike 2004,
the voters were divided as to which party would do a better job protecting
America from dangerous foes. This is a drastic shift from the 20 percent
lead Republicans enjoyed two years ago.

As far as the Iraq war is concerned- I refuse to lump it together with the
wider war on terrorism (if you will note, I do not use “terror’ to title the war
against Islamic extremism because this could easily extend to all things scary-
movies, books, and even Halloween), 60 percent of those polled said it has not
improved America’s long-term security, and citizens in this category voted for
Democrats by a margin of 3 to 1.

It turns out that congress’s abysmal approval ratings, the low marks awarded
the president and growing pessimism over Iraq proved to be much more
important than any local concerns or bigoted/anti-science wedge issues for
voters in this election.

The electorate was incensed, and they sent a message to the Republicans:
anyone but you! In a stagnant, two-party system riddled with Representatives
and Senators who often serve for decades, that meant a vote for Democrats.

This election was a referendum on Bush, and it was a way to send a clear
signal to a self-centered, corrupt and out-of-touch Republican controlled
congress that rubber-stamped and funded his foreign policy disasters. The
issues on voters minds were also those covered most heavily by the television
networks. Scandals and war make for great viewing, but the issues of energy
independence, health care and the exploding federal budget deficit need to be
moved to center stage.

The Democrats are back in control of the House, and most likely the Senate.
They won because voters had no other choice. The electorate is fed up with
politicians who are obsessed only with extending their time in office. Congress
has been selling our nation’s interests to the highest campaign contributors for
too long. Instead of settling scores, the Democrats have to tackle the larger
issues that confront us. They have to restore trust in a badly damaged institution,
and that process has to start right away.

Greg Strid