Damn, where's the good news at?

Pretty busy newsday today though my comments will be short.

Iran

State Department and Defense Department differ on how 'irrefutable' proof of Iranian involvement in arming Taliban is

State Dept.'s Nick Burns: "Irrefutable evidence" Iran is arming the Taliban.
Sec. Def. Bob Gates: Iran kinda maybe arming the Taliban.
-- Josh Marshall

For what its worth I've come to accept that its possible for Iran to arm its former enemy (the Taliban) and - possibly - Sunni insurgents. Why? The preponderance of 'the enemy of my enemy' calculations of late leads me to believe that it's not just the US foolishly arming former enemies (who are now enemies and will likely return to being enemies pretty soon).

The US doesn't own the market in policies that will blowback in their face pretty soon...

So...what if the US does have a case that Iran is helping American enemies? Does that justify war? Does it necessitate war?

The calculus involved in whether to engage in a conflict is several fold. To summarize and simplify for the purposes of this post:

1) Is it justified?
2) Is this a wise policy?

number 2 can be subdivided into: Can we actually accomplish our goals + will our actions make the situation better or worse

As is often the case (Iraq war excepted), action is often justified but its rarely wise. We stand to lose a lot from strikes. In the case of Iran, it's unlikely that we will achieve or objectives of either stopping arms shipments to Iraq, nor stopping its nuclear weapons program. Strikes are more likely to force the Iranian leadership to increase the speed of its development, to strike US and European interests globally (unconventionally and conventionally), and it will only strengthen the hold and popularity of the Iranian regime, who's presidential popularity has been lagging.

One of the first lessons we were taught in our counterterror classes was: ALL action and potential action must be weighed against the damage, repercussions, and fallout that would result from the action. You have to determine whether an action is worth it. Whether doing something does more harm than good. Unfortunately hawks rarely think beyond "hit them now and who gives a fuck," which is why they often lead the US into bad situations.

Iraq

According to the Pentagon, the 'Surge' isn't doing to well so far

Suicide and other bombings have climbed throughout Iraq since the start of the U.S.-led security crackdown in Baghdad, driving civilian casualties to their highest mark since 2004, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

The number of attacks using explosively formed projectiles -- armor-penetrating advanced bomb technology Washington pins on Iran -- also hit an all-time high in April, according to the Defense Department's quarterly report on Iraq to the U.S.
Congress....

But Wednesday's report to Congress offered little evidence that violence was easing since the start of new security operations in February. Suicide attacks across Iraq, for example, rose from 26 in January to 58 in March and 58 in April, the report said.

Explosively formed projectile attacks hit an all-time high in April, the report said without providing specific data. U.S. officials have said Iran is providing that type of deadly technology to Iraqi insurgents, an accusation Tehran denies.

Average daily casualties continued to climb, according to the report, hitting more than 100 civilians per day during the security crackdown compared with less than 60 per day a year ago.

IRAQI PROMISES

The Pentagon said it was too early to assess results of the so-called "surge," but its report showed the Iraqi government was failing to deliver on a key element of the crackdown -- an Iraqi promise to curb political interference in security operations...

"Militia influence impacts every component of the (Interior Ministry), particularly in Baghdad and several other key cities," it said. "Militia infiltration of local police remains a significant problem."

There was an initial slowdown in violence at the start of the surge (at least in Baghdad) as the groups laid low to observe the new tactics. They shifted their violence to areas outside Baghdad (increasing violence in those areas). But the violence in Baghdad is back with a vengeance and the violence outside Baghdad is also increasing. Those are very bad signs...
-----

The recent explosion of the holy Mosque in Samara has many suspecting an 'inside job'

It certainly makes sense given the fact that it was so well protected. By Iraq security and US forces.

This is one of the holiest sites in Shia Islam and its destruction has the potential to cause an even increased firestorm of Sunni v. Shia sectarian violence. It was the successful explosion by the Sunni al-Qaeda group of the very same mosque in 2006 that helped to instigate the ongoing sectarian conflicts we see today.

Al-Qaeda despises Shias and sees it in their interest to stir up as much sectarian conflict as possible in order to make Iraq hell for the US and its attempts to stabilize the country and to stir up fellow Sunnis into slaughtering Shias they see as heathen. They usually succeed.

This is perhaps one of the reasons many Sunni insurgent groups want to temporarily join with the US to get rid of al-Qaeda. They are seen as to violent and damaging to Iraq and its well-being (look at the chaos al-Qaeda stirs), but best believe the US will be sorry for arming its new "allies of convenience" when those very same Sunni groups that used to be our enemies will resume being out enemies in short order unless we withdraw.

But we will not...

Here is Kevin Drum echoing the same point I made in previous posts that not only are we going to feel sorry when those arms we supplied to the Sunnis comes to haunt us, but that reducing our troop presence (if it happens as they say - which is also unlikely by next year) will not mollify those Sunnis into not attacking us

As the 2004 handover demonstrated, Iraqis are unlikely to be fooled into thinking 40,000-plus US forces stationed indefinitely in the country represents an end to the US presence. Worse, if the idea is to either protect Iraqis from a slide into chaos or safeguard enduring US interests — be it preventing genocide or fighting al-Qaida or keeping the oil flowing — then keeping only 40,000 troops in Iraq is senseless. As Major General Joseph Fil commented to [Thomas] Ricks: "My nightmare — the thing that keeps me up at night — is a failure of Iraqi security forces, somehow, catastrophically, mixed with a major Samarra mosque-type catastrophe."

Leaving the Iraqi security forces aside, another huge sectarian provocation is guaranteed. In 2009, US commanders of a post-occupation force will find themselves powerless to deal with it. At that point, US troops will be little more than a constabulary force to keep the Iraqi politicians who failed to avert the crisis — and probably contributed to it — alive.

Exactly right. The Sunni insurgents want us out, and a drawdown to 40,000 troops won't mollify them. At the same time, it's nowhere near enough to deal with any kind of serious violence. It's the worst kind of limbo. At the same time, it's nowhere near enough to deal with any kind of serious violence. It's the worst kind of limbo.

The only real solution is a complete withdrawal from Iraq, and to forget about this foolish idea of leaving any residual force in Iraq. Maintaining any force there will continue to provoke the Sunni insurgent nationalist and then some more problems.

Israel/Palestine

Hamas pushes offensive against Fatah in Gaza

Its increasingly looking like civil war in the Palestinian territories. Islamic Hamas is in bitter fighting with the secular Fatah group. It's getting pretty ugly there and the stability of the PA is in serious doubt. I'll continue to watch as this develops...

US Politics and Society

The US is a Majority Progressive Nation - Putting the lie to the myth (and conventional wisdom) that the US is a majority conservative nation

The link above is to the full 31 page report but here is the gist of it. Despite conventional wisdom that the US is a 'conservative nation,' when people are actually asked about specific policies, specific ideologies, and specific outlooks on the proper role of government and its foreign policy, econ policy (etc...)

...Well, it seems the majority of America closely mirrors the progressives and liberals.

Here is the summary for those who don't want to wade through 31 pages of polls spanning decades, and on various issues.

On issues from the role of government, to taxes, environmental policy, foreign policy, income distribution, and immigration, health care, homosexuality, abortion, and "values"...The polls show that, at heart, the majority of the American people closely mirror in beliefs and values us Progressives and Liberals. We are truly a Progressive Majority nation.

From the Executive Summary:

Conventional wisdom says that the American public is fundamentally conservative - hostile to government, in favor of unregulated markets, at peace with inequality, wanting a foreign policy based on the projection of military power, and traditional in its social values.

But as this report demonstrates, that picture is fundamentally false. Media perceptions and past Republican electoral successes notwithstanding, Americans are progressive across a wide range of controversial issues, and they're growing more progressive all the time.

This report gathers together years of public opinion data from unimpeachably nonpartisan sources to show that on issue after issue, the majority of Americans hold progressive positions. And this is true not only of specific policy proposals, but of the fundamental perspectives and approaches that Americans bring to bear on issues.

Nor is the progressive majority merely a product of the current political moment. On a broad array of issues, particularly social issues, American opinion has grown more and more progressive over the past few decades. In contrast, it is difficult to find an issue on which the public has grown steadily more conservative over the last 10, 20, or 30 years.

The issues covered in this report include the following:

The role of government - Americans support an active government that tackles problems, provides services, and aids those in need.

The economy - Americans support increasing the minimum wage and strong unions, and believe the wealthy and corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes.

Social issues - Americans support legal abortion and embryonic stem cell research; opinions on equal rights for women and gay Americans have grown dramatically more progressive in recent years.

Security - Americans support a progressive approach to national security, emphasizing strong alliances and diplomacy over the indiscriminate use of military force. On domestic security issues, progressive approaches to crime and gun control enjoy wide support.

The environment - By enormous margins, Americans favor strong environmental protections, a core progressive belief.

Energy - Americans support energy conservation and the development of alternative fuels.

Health care - Americans clearly favor universal coverage and are more than comfortable with government solutions to the health care problem.

I encourage all to read the report and see the actual data. Those who do not normally pay as much attention to politics as people like me do may find themselves surprised at the findings.

Goodnight.