NY Times has published an editorial by seven non-commissioned officers in Iraq, which is absolutely piercing in its insight:

...it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

If you've been picking up even a fraction of the current yammering going on over the value of the Surge -- which is going to get a renewal sometime after Labor Day, I'd wager -- the contrast set by this piece couldn't be more stark. Not just in terms of opinion, but in specificity and linguistic clarity as well.

In my business, we'd call the likes of Kenneth Pollack and Bill Kristol "hand wavers." Salesman, essentially, as opposed to people who can actually write code. They understand a lot of things in theory, and they have a good jive, managing to sound credible to the uninitiated. But if you pay very close attention and/or know very much about the underlying issues, you can tell when someone is speaking from a place of direct and real experience, and when someone is speaking from a place of theoretical vision. More importantly, you can tell when they're feeding you a line of BS.

The Bush administration much have some kind of wardrum 808 going, with DJ Dick Cheney on the wheels of steel.

The political calculus is slick. Everyone "supports the troops," whatever that means. It gets standing ovations from the full house. If the warmongers can successfully create the perception that Iranian arms are being used to kill the troops, they can then make the case that those who oppose bombarding Iran aren't "supporting the troops."

The kool kids call this casus belli.

It's garbage, but so was last time. JMM says "it's a distraction" like this wasn't also true before. I worry that they'll still do it. Bombing is a lower bar to clear than invading -- though it would still almost certainly have terrible consequences. These people are, if anything, worse than Nixon, who did bomb Cambodia (next door to Vietnam) without really asking or telling anyone in Congress.

I don't know what I'd do if this happened.

Escalation is underway:

ome 25 U.S. troops in Iraq were killed in a single day this weekend, making it the third bloodiest since the war began....

Twelve of the 25 were killed in the crash of a Blackhawk helicopter northeast of Baghdad. Some were killed in Anbar province by Sunni insurgents. Five were killed in Karbala, in Shiite territory... In the current phase of operations, as more troops move into Baghdad, the increase in troop strength is less significant than the increase in the tempo of operations. As the U.S. military becomes more aggressive, it will incur more casualties.

I picked up this because of an AP piece in the local paper that I read while getting lunch. It quoted a couple anonymous Iraqi officials on how good American intel was, “The Americans don’t act on rumors but on accurate intelligence..." Yeah, right, buddy.

Anyway, those troops killed in Karbala were trying to have a meeting to make security plans. The meeting was blown up. Not a good sign.

The rest of the Stratfor analysis is semi-bunk. They posit a few hypotheticals, and opine that Sadr may be playing into Bush's hands, as the Decider is ostensibly trying to restart "the political process" by threatening militia organizations with a crackdown.

First of all, I find it hard to believe that this is Bush's actual goal. I think his goal is to run out the clock on his term in office without having to face the consequences of his actions. This escalation is best understood less as a "surge" and more as a "punt."

Real honest online activism; getting every member of congress on-record about escalation is an important step in stopping it.

It's also a great use of the interweb; a lot more real and effective than circulating petitions which (pssst, here's a secret) are mainly about listbuilding.

This, on the other hand, actually may matter, so check the link and see if your representatives have gone on the record (mine have) about whether or not they support the Bush/McCain doctrine escalate in Iraq.

Well, it's on now. Bush will double-down more troops. Nancy will go all-in to beat it back, but Bush will veto and the House and Senate don't have 2/3rds majority to come over the top. Maybe in the time it takes to do this, more Republicans will flip, but it still seems unlikely that this can be effectively fought with procedure.

After all, Bush already started the escalation, sending more troops yesterday as a matter of fact. He's the decider!

I don't know what to make of this. It's kind of chilling that the President can keep surging forward even though everyone knows it's not really going to work out. It seems like a pretty big failure that there's no check or balance here, because this is moronic and (considering that people are dying) also somewhat monstrous.

The other spooky thing is sending those aircraft carriers, putting a Navy man in charge, and talking up the Patriot missile batteries (which are no real use against IEDs). That all points to Iran. But he wouldn't be stupid enough to try that, would he? Would he? Could we stop him if he was?

Not a fun line of thought to consider.

UPDATE: Shitters. I'm starting to get a very bad feeling about all this. It's very very Nixon part deux, but kinda worse in some ways.

This is a very good start.

Speaker Pelosi says Congress will reject Bush/McCain doctrine of escalation.

Please please please do what you can to make sure that people know about this. While most Americans don't want to escalate in Iraq, the national press bubble is going to spin this all sorts of ways.

Bush is reportedly set to roll out his plan to escalate the occupation in Iraq, following along with the heir-apparent "McCain Doctrine" and explicitly rejecting all the elements of that big bipartisan "we've got your ass covered, George" committee that family consigliare Howard Baker fixed up.

Cocksucker.

Whether or not Nancy's House and/or Harry's Gang stomps on this will be a major test for the new year. Bush has no public support for this or any other plan of escalation, and nobody with a shred of strategic insight believes it will do anything but get more people killed quicker. This shouldn't happen.

Stomp it. Stomp it right now and make it the spine-breaker for this pathetic lame duck asshole. The C-in-C is drunk, or at least acting like it. Take his keys.

Also, to all my neo-hippie kin: this summer would be a great time to ramp up some big old protests. Climate's right, and it plays into a lot of evolving dynamics. Let's get on top of this and have someone with brains organize it rather than leaving it up to ANSWER, eh?

67% oppose the war in Iraq and 70% disapprove of Bush's handling, but nobody is talking about taking a hard stance against the Bush/McCain/Lieberman tactic of escalation.

Likewise, everyone knows the health care system doesn't work and understands that the only entity which has a shot at fixing it is the federal government, but we've yet to hear anyone step up and catch that 70% of public opinion in their sails.

Finally, clear majorities want to invest in efficiency and alternative energy sources, and yet our leaders are stuck dicking around with ANWAR and a few underfunded pilot/mostly-for-show projects.

My point is, the Public is actually not that fucking stupid. Our leadership is just timid and out of touch -- if not outrightly corrupt -- and our organs for articulating Public Opinion have fallen so far from the Jefferson/Franklin ideals that they're closer to the state propaganda machines in the USSR than a legitimate Free Press.

People in this country are a little out of shape and kind of materialistic, but "big dumb America" actually has much a better grasp of what the fuck is going on than the elite leadership.

We're going to see some serious realignment over the next decade, with either a major shift in "national prorities" from the power-elite, or the rise of localism as cities, counties, states and regions begin to abandon the ossified and ineffective federal system in favor of their own problem-solving.

Hopefully we get both. ;)

O'Reilly suggests it may be time to put down the White Man's Burden:

Do I care if the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other in Iraq? No. I don't care. Let's get our people out of there. Let them kill each other. Maybe they'll all kill each other, and then we can have a decent country in Iraq.

My only quibble w/O'Reilly here are that in-context he's not talking about the country as a whole. Basically saying let's make the trouble-spots TAZ's for the civil warriors, hope they run out of bloodlust, and then "we" can have a nice country in Iraq.

Personally, I don't think "we" should have any kind of country there. But then, I'm opposed to American Empire.

Anyway, it's interesting to see this line from him and Limbaugh. Signals that the last bedrock of the pro-war base is all but eroded away. Indeed, all popular measures say that the occupation should end. Give the people what they want.

I'm not paying real close attention, but my scan of the news reveals two big statements by Secretary of Defense to-be Robert Gates:

1) We're not winning in Iraq.

2) We're going to be required there for a "long time."

Does that seem nonsensical to anyone else? How long do we have to keep losing (killing and dying) before we meet our "requirements?"