Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...


Click here to go there...

« September 2004 »
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor


"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"

Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Sunday, 19 September 2004

Topic: For policy wonks...

A Nation of Victims: The moral basis for redress, retaliation and even revenge in order to right any given wrong - real or imagined

Now and then I mention my conservative friend who argues that FDR is the man most responsible ruining America, for turning us into a nation of victims - actually a nation of people who believe they are victims - who believe the world owes them something, when it doesn't. The evil stared with the Social Security programs in the thirties and continues today with all forms of welfare, unemployment compensation, worker compensation, wage and labor laws, workplace safety laws, and the whole concept of product liability, or any restrictive regulation of industry. Add government-funded healthcare of any kind, and all the environmental laws that hobble heavy industry. Each of these - and all of these, cumulatively - makes people believe they need not take "personal responsibility" for their lives, that the world owes them something. This putative social safety net has turned us into a nation of whiners, not doers.

The self-made man, who creates success, pulling himself up by his own bootstraps, and asks nothing of anyone, but on his own initiative builds wealth and capital and thus makes the world better, is fast disappearing. And the few self-made men who built the industries that makes all our lives better, and built them with no one's help, should they become wealthy, have what they earned on their own taken away from them in taxes to pay for those who get a free ride, or who have the government pay for their cushy retirement, or pay them when they are injured at work or maimed by a defective product. It's not fair. These freeloaders should take responsibility for their lives, and do something with them. They're just whiners.

I'm sure you've heard the argument. And it's not just my friend, or the readers of the late Ayn Rand. George Bush grew up believing this. As someone who knew him as a young man says -
At Harvard Business School, thirty years ago, George Bush was a student of mine. I still vividly remember him. In my class, he declared that "people are poor because they are lazy." He was opposed to labor unions, social security, environmental protection, Medicare, and public schools. To him, the antitrust watch dog, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission were unnecessary hindrances to "free market competition." To him, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "socialism." ...
Bush has softened his words over the years, but the concepts stay with him, as he runs our government for us on these principles.

This is the core disagreement between those now in power, the conservative right, and those now seeking power, the liberal progressives. Is there a social contract, and does it involve the government in any way?

The odd thing is how this "playing the victim is irresponsible" idea is playing out now with the war.


Yes, and here is an analysis that is worth reading in full.

A hierarchy of suffering
Since 9/11, America has used its victimhood to demand a monopoly on the right to feel and to inflict pain
Gary Younge, The Guardian (UK), Monday September 20, 2004

The key points, should you not use the link?

After an introduction specific to his UK readers, Younge gets down to the real issue - (my emphases throughout, and his British spelling) -
Victimhood is a powerful, yet contradictory, force. Powerful because, once claimed, it can provide the moral basis for redress, retaliation and even revenge in order to right any given wrong - real or imagined. The defence of everything from the death penalty to affirmative action, Serbian nationalism to equality legislation, are all underpinned, to some degree, by the notion of victimhood. Contradictory because, in order to harness that power, one must first admit weakness. Victims, by their very nature, have less power than their persecutors: victimhood is a passive state - the result of bad things happening to people who are unable to prevent it.

In the past, the right has exploited this tension to render victimhood a dirty word - a label synonymous with whingers, whiners, failures and fantasists. Revealing no empathy with the powerless nor any grasp of historical context, they wilfully ignore the potential for victimhood to morph into resistance, preferring instead to lampoon it as a loser's charter.

"The left had become little more than a meeting place for balkanised groups of discontents, all bent on extracting their quota of public shame and their slice of the entitlement pie," wrote columnist Norah Vincent three years ago. "All of them blaming their personal failures on their race, their sex, their sexual orientation, their disability, their socioeconomic status and a million other things."
Younge the argues that such arguments were always flawed, and now they are beginning to look "downright farcical." Why? Because the right has now decided to play the victim, and whine.

He notes some UK examples, then adds this -
... Across the Atlantic, the right's new role as victims is even more prevalent and pronounced. Straight relationships are threatened by the prospect of gay marriage, white workers are threatened by affirmative action, American workers are threatened by third world labourers, America is threatened by everybody.

At times, this means the powerful appropriating the icons, tropes and rhetoric of the powerless in their entirety, to hilarious - if disturbing - effect. Last year Roy Moore, the former Republican chief justice of Alabama, led a failed bid to keep a monument of the Ten Commandments in his courthouse. Standing before a group of supporters, some of whom were waving Confederate flags, emblem of the slave-holding South, he said: "If the 'rule of law' means to do everything a judge tells you to do, we would still have slavery in this country." Wearing T-shirts proclaiming "Islam is a lie, homosexuality is a sin, abortion is murder", they then sang We Shall Overcome.

In these cases, victimhood serves merely as a pretext for a backlash to reassert, extend or expand the dominance of the powerful. If these people are victims of anything, it is of the threat to their entitlement and privilege.
Well, it's hard being a fundamentalist straight Christian these days. Everyone is always picking on you. Whine, whine, whine....

Younge does point out though that genuine suffering often acts as a precursor to genuine vindictiveness, and explains this is terms of what is going on with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict these last few years. Everyone is a victim. All is justified. Really?

But he saves his real scorn for his cousins across the pond.
But nowhere is the abuse of victimhood more blatant than in the US presidential election, where September 11 remains the central plank of the Republicans' strategy for re-election. The fact that their campaign begins with the terror attacks is not only understandable but also, arguably, right - this is the most significant thing to happen in the US since Bush assumed office.

The trouble is that the campaign's message ends with that day also. September 11 has served not as a starting point from which to better understand the world but as an excuse not to understand it at all. It is a reference point that brooks no argument and needs no logic. No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? "The next time, the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud?" No United Nations authority? "We will never again wait for permission to defend our country." No link between Saddam and al-Qaida? "They only have to be right once. We have to be right every time."

This is the real link between Iraq and 9/11 - the rhetorical dissembling that renders victimhood not a point from which they might identify with and connect to the rest of humanity but a means to turn their back on humanity. They portray America's pain as a result of 9/11 not only as unique in its expression but also superior in its intensity.
Well, we are superior - put on this earth by God to spread (enforce) our flavor of democracy and our form of privatized, deregulated capitalism all over the earth, for everyone's good. George Bush actually says that, repeatedly - freedom is God's gift to the world, and we're doing His work.

And people just don't get it, and keep killing our guys in their streets. It's just not right.

I guess the Bush policy argument is no one has ever been wronged as we have been wronged, so we are now free to do what want. So join us, or get of the way, or die. What the argument lacks in subtle and sense, it gains in force and nobility. (Note: That would be the nobility of suffering. It's a Jesus/martyr thing.)

As my late father used to say when amused and exasperated - What is this happy horseshit?

Younge is more detailed than my late father, if less direct -
When 3,000 people died on September 11, Le Monde declared: "We are all Americans now." Around 12,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the beginning of the war, yet one waits in vain for anyone to declare that we have all become Iraqis, or Afghans, let alone Palestinians. This is not a competition. Sadly, there are enough victims to go around. Sadder still, if the US continues on its present path, there will be many more. Demanding a monopoly on the right to feel and to inflict pain simply inverts victimhood's regular contradiction - the Bush administration displays material strength and moral weakness.
Yeah? But we're special.

Yeah, right. And you know, I'm becoming more like my father every day.



You might want to click on a companion piece on the Guardian opinion page....

Democracy: our cause, Iraq's sacrifice
Peter Preston, Monday September 20, 2004

Some clips as a tease...
Freedom, it seems, is to be won by the blood of others. Freedom is our single transferable gift to them, our shield against darkness. But meanwhile, Guant?namo Bay, and umpteen steely sonatas from John Ashcroft and David Blunkett, is our gift to ourselves.
Freedom, though, is also the freedom to ask awkward questions, to inquire of our masters: please, what happens next? And here the rhetoric fades to a mumble.

... The president of the United States, with 140,000 troops on the ground who want to come home, talks about something else. His official campaign website (the one that swing voters can turn to) solves the problem by barely mentioning it.

"Fifty million people have been liberated from despotic, totalitarian regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq," it says. "The brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is gone, and an interim regime is leading the Iraqi people to freedom." And that's it, period. Re-elect Bush and Cheney and what do you get? A blank page.

Try Kerry and Edwards on the big issue, then? Forget that, too. Let's "plan Iraq's future by working with our allies", they say. Let's "launch a massive and accelerated training effort to build Iraqi security". Let's get our boys home by 2008, employing a plan too secret to describe in even vestigial detail.

But there's a terrible mis-match here. We ask the Iraqis to suffer and endure in a cause we hold dear, yet we tell neither them nor our own voters the truth. We hail democracy as some wonder ingredient, yet close the packet closer to home.

... Here is a problem without a solution. And, inescapably in a democracy, it is our problem.
Now go and read the whole thing.

Posted by Alan at 20:31 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink

Saturday, 18 September 2004

Topic: Photos

Paris Culture: This weekend's Techno Parade - and what to do with a really bad movie...

Ric Erickson, editor of MetropoleParis, is our man on the scene.

The Movie:
All the time I was writing 'other' news from Paris, I meant to write about Claude Lelouch and his new film. He didn't like what the critics wrote about 'Les Parisiens,' so on the day after it opened in France - 854 tickets sold in Paris - he offered it free, first-come first-served, at the 19:00 showing on Thursday at 400 cinemas throughout the country. Spielberg's film 'The Terminal' also opened in Paris on Wednesday and sold 2494 tickets. Philippe de Broca tried the 'free' ticket trick in 1966 for 'Le Roi de Coeur' and advised Claude against trying it. For de Broca, the film attracted fewer viewers the day it was free. However, cinema fans had good things to say about the new film, which is part one of a trilogy, 'Le Genre Humain.' Lelouch had to pay for the free entries himself. Happy ending - Lelouch has to pay for full houses. And the manager of the Grand Rex in Paris decided to let everybody in to see the film free at the following 21:30 showing.

Here's the opening of the Reuters story -

French Director Shows Film for Free to Defy Critics
Friday, September 17, 8:01 AM ET
PARIS (Reuters) - French director Claude Lelouch decided to show his new film "Les Parisiens" free across France on Friday to try to prove wrong the critics who have panned it.

Lelouch, whose 1966 film "A Man and a Woman" starring Jean-Louis Trintignant and Anouk Aimee won Oscars for best foreign film and screenplay, said he would bear the costs of the showings at about 400 cinemas across France.

"I've taken this decision following an unprecedented media lynching," he said in a radio interview.

"It's been years and years that the critics have regularly attacked my films and it's been years and years that the public has come to my rescue." ...
A rescue? We shall see about that!

The Parade:
But do not let this detract from today's marvelous 'Techno Parade,' which launched from Montparnasse at noon. I didn't actually see anything like the 29 'floats' advertised, but the weather confounded the forecast by being sunny and warm - perfect for wrecking Paris' Saturday traffic from Montparnasse to Bastille.

The so-called 'floats' are flat-deck trucks with generators for running the massive sound systems. Most are only sketchily decorated, manned by a few chickies who bump and weave - for eight hours! - and some young dudes. There's a lot of boom boom boom, but not much else.

Contrary to how the beginning of the 'Techno Parade' looked, the middle and the end - thanks to TV-news - seemed to be much more successful. The TV-news reported that between 100,000 and 600,000 took part in the parade. I guess it depends on how many spectators took part in it.

One view of the Rue de Rennes, from Saint-Germain, showed it to be full of techno fans. Close-ups showed many in costumes, who either joined the parade in its rear staging area at Montparnasse or joined it after it started. Many would do this in any case, rather than all trying to gather at Montparnasse at the beginning.

The present Minister of Culture, Renaud Donnedieu de Varbes, said 'techno' is a good thing, and the forever former Minister of Culture, Jack Lang, who imported the idea from Berlin, said what he usually says. This year's 7th edition was without major causes other than 'faire la f?te,' and to turn Paris into an immense dance club.
Photos by Ric Erickson of MetropoleParis - check his site Monday evening for more.

Note - This three-wheeled winged and bug-eyed sono-Vespa was also shown on TV. Since the photo was first posted on As seen from Just Above Sunset around seven in the evening Paris time (ten in the morning out here in Hollywood), As seen from Just Above Sunset, Ric tells me, actually scooped France-2 TV.

Posted by Alan at 09:37 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Saturday, 18 September 2004 13:33 PDT home

Friday, 17 September 2004

Topic: The Economy

Insecurity: It seems to be 1660 again...

The basic goal? End the idea the government should do anything for the public good. Only the private good matters - folks should be free to accumulate wealth and businesses free to do what they want, and individuals who are hurt in process should turn somewhere else if they find themselves in trouble. The government owes them nothing. There's too much of this "mommy" government.

Grover Norquist is clear -
"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
Clear enough.

That blunt statement is not new. You will find that comment and more here, in The Nation, April 26, 2001

Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a coalition of taxpayer groups, individuals and businesses opposed to higher taxes at both the federal, state and local levels. And he serves on the board of the National Rifle Association of America, and the board of the American Conservative Union. He was key member of 1988, 1992, 1996 Republican Platform Committees. He is a chief theorist for the Republican Party. He has the ear of the key players, and a BA and MBA from Harvard, where George Bush earned, so to speak, his own MBA.

Bush at Harvard Business School? Imagine that. Or note what Yoshi Tsurumi, now a Professor of International Business at Baruch College, the City University of New York, says here -
At Harvard Business School, thirty years ago, George Bush was a student of mine. I still vividly remember him. In my class, he declared that "people are poor because they are lazy." He was opposed to labor unions, social security, environmental protection, Medicare, and public schools. To him, the antitrust watch dog, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission were unnecessary hindrances to "free market competition." To him, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "socialism." ...
There's much more but you get the general idea. (See the footnote.)

Paul Krugman, the Princeton economist who writes opinion pieces for the New York Times, in his collection of recent columns, "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century" (Norton, 426 pp., $25.95) has as his thesis that we are now governed by a reactionary party with a radical (he says "revolutionary") agenda, basically that of undoing the legacy, domestic and foreign, of FDR. Bush and his teams even say this - Norquist rather bluntly - even say this, but people, especially the pundits who endless analyze policy, discount it, because they don't realize that, like any "revolutionary power," the folks in power now really do mean it. They aren't kidding.

You might find this amusing - Krugman defending his views on the Fox News "Hannity and Colmes" show on October 17, 2003. He gets beat up.

Anyway, it does seem the current group in power want to change how we think of government. You're on your own now. Grow up.

Josh Marshall in The Washington Monthly points out this has been going on for a long time -
Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans who came to power in 1995 held a very different, neo-Reaganite view. Deriding the whole notion of a federal response for every crisis, they argued that society's problems could be solved only through a radical reordering, both of government in Washington and of America's relationship with the world. This required tax cuts to drain money out of the Beltway; radically scaling back regulation on business; pulling America out of many international agreements; and cutting funding to the United Nations. The Gingrichites were not pragmatists but visionaries and revolutionaries. They wanted to overthrow the existing structure of American governance, not tinker with it.
The whole thing is detailed, and instructive.

But this week the issue is Social Security, specifically, and we find Teresa Nielsen Hayden saying this -
I've been ruminating about a one-liner that's been floating around the meme pool since lord knows when. You've probably heard it a thousand times:

By the time you retire, there'll be nothing left in the Social Security retirement fund.

It's untrue, of course; but for those who aren't aware that it's untrue, it's profoundly frightening.

We're set up to be a cooperative society. We believe that by working together, we can as a people be richer, safer, smarter, and happier. However, this cooperation requires a certain basic level of trust. The belief that you could be left penniless in your old age, after a lifetime of contributing your regular fraction to the public good, creates a huge breach in your sense of trust.

It's not the kind of idea that turns you into a monster overnight. I'm inclined to believe that the commonest reaction to it is dull, low-level grief: you thought life in America would be better than this. Still, if that's what you have to look forward to, you'd better get while the getting's good. You're going to need that money.

Meanwhile, you find yourself resenting calls on your generosity. True, you're probably a lot better off than the people you're being asked to help; but you're not comparing them to your present self. Lodged in your heart there's an elderly, needy, cast-off version of you, whispering that when the time comes, nobody's going to pay to help you. Children stop looking like our hope for tomorrow. Instead, they're the heartless little bastards who're going to let you live on dogfood in your SRO until a heat wave finally does you in.

The other thing about believing there'll be nothing left when you retire is that it makes you far less likely to scream in outrage over the long-term looting of the national treasury. After all, you already know you're not going to get any of that.

It's not inevitable. I think we need to say so, early and often.
Well, Brad DeLong, the noted government economist now on the faculty at UC Berkeley, explains here in precise terms just why it is not true that after paying into social security for a lifetime we all will now get back nothing at all. It doesn't work that way.

But that is beside the point.

Hayden has latched onto something else that is the inevitable byproduct of the political theory, and policy practices, of those in power - and of the uninformed sneers of the current president about those who are not as rich is he is.

And it is far larger than social security. As before, we are carrying an enormous federal deficit that will impoverish us for decades, or end most government social programs. Forty-four million of our people are without any health coverage, and millions more out of work. And the Social Darwinists have been given the power to do what they think best.

The result is Hayden's idea that this slowly turns us into monsters, all of us. The idea that we're set up to be a cooperative society is tossed away - as useless trash. Believing that by working together we can as a people be richer, safer, smarter, and happier is derided as stupid - as "personal responsibility" is posited as the only value.

And trust is for fools.

And life is poor, nasty, brutish and short - just as Hobbes said it was back in 1660.

This is progress?

Assume we are neither a purely communist society, where the individual doesn't matter but only the good of the collective matters, nor a purely Darwinian survival-of-the-strongest-and-most-vicious society, where you look out only for yourself and anyone else be damned.

What happened to the middle ground, where "personal responsibility" is fine and dandy but when some of us stumble we make sure they are okay - out of common decency if nothing else?

We are no longer all in this together? I guess not.



Mary Jacoby of interviews Yoshi Tsurumi

See The dunce
His former Harvard Business School professor recalls George W. Bush not just as a terrible student but as spoiled, loutish and a pathological liar.
September 16, 2004

Key paragraphs -
The future president was one of 85 first-year MBA students in Tsurumi's macroeconomic policies and international business class in the fall of 1973 and spring of 1974. Tsurumi was a visiting associate professor at Harvard Business School from January 1972 to August 1976; today, he is a professor of international business at Baruch College in New York.

... "He [Bush] showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. Students jumped on him; I challenged him." When asked to explain a particular comment, said Tsurumi, Bush would respond, "Oh, I never said that." A White House spokeswoman did not return a phone call seeking comment.

In 1973, as the oil and energy crisis raged, Tsurumi led a discussion on whether government should assist retirees and other people on fixed incomes with heating costs. Bush, he recalled, "made this ridiculous statement and when I asked him to explain, he said, 'The government doesn't have to help poor people -- because they are lazy.' I said, 'Well, could you explain that assumption?' Not only could he not explain it, he started backtracking on it, saying, 'No, I didn't say that.'"

... Students who challenged and embarrassed Bush in class would then become the subject of a whispering campaign by him, Tsurumi said. "In class, he couldn't challenge them. But after class, he sometimes came up to me in the hallway and started bad-mouthing those students who had challenged him. He would complain that someone was drinking too much. It was innuendo and lies. So that's how I knew, behind his smile and his smirk, that he was a very insecure, cunning and vengeful guy."

Many of Tsurumi's students came from well-connected or wealthy families, but good manners prevented them from boasting about it, the professor said. But Bush seemed unabashed about the connections that had brought him to Harvard. "The other children of the rich and famous were at least well bred to the point of realizing universal values and standards of behavior," Tsurumi said. But Bush sometimes came late to class and often sat in the back row of the theater-like classroom, wearing a bomber jacket from the Texas Air National Guard and spitting chewing tobacco into a cup.

... Tsurumi's conclusion: Bush is not as dumb as his detractors allege. "He was just badly brought up, with no discipline, and no compassion," he said.

... He said other professors and students at the business school from that time share his recollections but are afraid to come forward, fearing ostracism or retribution. And why is Tsurumi speaking up now? Because with the ongoing bloodshed in Iraq and Osama bin Laden still on the loose -- not to mention a federal deficit ballooning out of control -- the stakes are too high to remain silent. "Obviously, I don't think he is the best person" to be running the country, he said. "I wanted to explain why."
Yoshi should make sure his life insurance premiums are paid up, in full. He's living dangerously.

Posted by Alan at 15:54 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Friday, 17 September 2004 19:05 PDT home

Thursday, 16 September 2004

Topic: Iraq

Trends: The rolling stone gathers speed...

Previously here the suggestion was that this week a new narrative started gathering momentum - a new meme, a newly accepted axiomatic sense of what is an actual fact.

That is the idea that we have lost the war in Iraq. You saw it one the blogs, and then more and more in the major media - and it got a major push from Newsweek and media interviews its editors. And this does not seem to be coming from the Democrats assailing Bush - but seem rather a simultaneous awakening by news folks and military folks. Things are bad.

Thursday we see a major leap. The White House has been sitting on an internal report since July - a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate - that says that there are only three possible scenarios now. The best? That would be "a tenuous stability" - but that's unlikely. The second? That would be where "increased extremism and fragmentation in Iraqi society impede efforts to build a central government and adversely affect efforts to democratize the country." The third is an all out civil war in Iraq by 2005, where the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds have it out and we have to deal with that. The document was first reported by the New York Times on its web site Wednesday night.

The Associated Press summary is here - and it is not pretty.

Much of this comes from, of course, a highly placed US official, who, late Wednesday, spoke on the condition of anonymity. I wonder who that was, and if he or she has good insurance? It does, after all, seem unwise to say this -
It "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic," the official added. But "the contents shouldn't come as a particular surprise to anyone who is following developments in Iraq. It encapsulates trends that are clearly apparent."

The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005. But the official noted that the document draws on intelligence community assessments from January 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deteriorating security situation there.
So. We shouldn't be surprised, even as day after day the president tells us we are making progress in Iraq.

Well, if you say it again and again, and really believe it to be so, and if you keep your resolve and never waver, then you can magically make it so. It's that Tinkerbell thing again - clap loud and long enough and Tinkerbell won't die, and a little fairy dust and you really can fly, if you believe strongly enough. No wonder Bush will easily win the election. We all want to fly off to Never-Never Land with that sexy little Tinkerbell. We want to believe. And we'll toss aside that Kerry guy who says we should be realistic. This is America, where, with hard work and never giving in to self-doubt, and with belief in yourself, you can be or do anything you want. Anyone can be president, even George Bush.

And who wants to stomp on these dreams? Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and the leaders of the other intelligence agencies who approved this fifty-page intelligence document. Losers, all of them.

In a conference call arranged by the John Kerry presidential campaign, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., called on the White House to release the new assessment. "The American people need to know the truth," he said Thursday.
Do we?

AP does note that State Department officials stressed areas of progress in Iraq since the United States turned over political control of Iraq to an interim government on June 28. They cited advances in generating electricity, producing oil and creating jobs.

Yep. They used the word "advances" as you see. But on the ground?

See We Are Losing The War In Iraq - quick summary from Oliver Willis.

Willis cites the Financial Times (UK) - hardly a lefty organization - saying we seem to have lost control of the one safe place for Americans in the capital, the Green Zone in Baghdad -
US military officers in Baghdad have warned they cannot guarantee the security of the perimeter around the Green Zone, the headquarters of the Iraqi government and home to the US and British embassies, according to security company employees.

At a briefing earlier this month, a high-ranking US officer in charge of the zone's perimeter said he had insufficient soldiers to prevent intruders penetrating the compound's defences.

The US major said it was possible weapons or explosives had already been stashed in the zone, and warned people to move in pairs for their own safety. The Green Zone, in Baghdad's centre, is one of the most fortified US installations in Iraq. Until now, militants have not been able to penetrate it.
Oh well. How did Rumsfeld put it? Stuff happens? This seems to be an indication, with the "no go" zones mentioned previously, that things are getting far worse. Perhaps we should take care of Iraq remotely, from Qatar or Bahrain, using remote drones and calling in air strikes. We could relocate our Iraq embassy to, say, Portugal, where no one pays attention to anything. Nothing much ever happens there.

Willis also cites the Bush-supporting Wall Street Journal as they report those fighting us are merging now into a unified force -
Iraqi government officials are especially concerned that the violence in Baghdad in the past week may be fueled in part by growing support for the insurgents in the capital and growing contact with rebel groups active in the countryside to Baghdad's north.

Many U.S. military and Iraqi government officials are focusing on the stronghold of Fallujah, which they suspect the rebels are using as an operational center to launch attacks west of Baghdad and within the city.

"The insurgents are no longer operating in isolated pockets of their own. They are well-connected and cooperating," said Sabah Kadhim, a senior adviser to Iraq's Interior Ministry, which oversees the police and security around the country.
Well, that is progress, but not the sort Bush is envisioning. The folks who oppose us are getting quite organized.

And Willis points out an AP report that the attacks on our guys are getting far more sophisticated -
The spike in bloodshed - more than 200 dead in four days - has stifled American hopes that the transfer of sovereignty and the prospect of a democratic vote in four months could take the steam out of the uprising and pave the way for a reduction in U.S. troops.

Instead, there are signs the Americans and their Iraqi allies are facing an enemy more determined than ever. Insurgents have learned from past mistakes and shifted strategy, cooperating more closely with each other and devising new ways to put their relatively simple arsenal to treacherous use.
Yep, fewer random car bombs and more trained snipers, and carefully targeted car bombs. Great.

Willis himself says this -
This is the story. Not the memos. Not the medals. Not even the vote to go to war or not (though who got us into this in the first place bears remembering). We are losing the war in Iraq. We can't secure the green zone - which is where all our people are - and the rest of the country is ripe with anti-American sentiment. This nonsense about handing over control to the Iraqis and having elections within the year is a sham. At best we would be handing the keys to a puppet regime with no mandate, at worst there will be a civil war. Either way, because we have never set a real exit strategy for Iraq, any move on our part gives the appearance of capitulation. It's not that the people of Iraq aren't smart enough to have a western-style democracy... it's pretty obvious that they don't want one. Even the moderates seem to have a preference for an Iranian style theocracy (the most powerful person in Iraq is Ayatollah Sistani).

At this point, with all the international commitments we have on our plate and the priority of destroying Al Qaeda and its support network, it may be time to limit the scope of Operation: Iraqi Freedom (elimination of chemical/biological/nuclear raw materials - what ever little bit there may be, and the destruction of the terrorist networks that have taken root in Iraq since we invaded) and set the timetable for our troops to be redeployed against Al Qaeda operating elsewhere, or in the case of reservists, to come home.
Iran and North Korea are fast developing nuclear weapons. The Israeli-Palestinian standoff will explode again and again - and Sharon will bluster, with our help, and Arafat be as foolish as usual. The world is running short on oil, and Putin is doing his Mussolini thing and stopping popular elections in the name of fighting terror. We are carrying an enormous federal deficit that will impoverish us for decades, or end most government social programs. Forty-four million of our people are without any health coverage, and millions more out of work. And of course Al Qaeda is doing just fine and that Osama fellow is nowhere to be found, if he's still alive, which may not matter now as his franchisees are thriving.

So what are we doing in Iraq? We lost, or are well on our way to losing. Of course the odious Saddam is gone, and his two thug sons. But now what?

A line that always gets people from "The Man from La Mancha" is this - The only battles worth fighting are losing battles. So noble, and so romantic. And so stupid.

But we love it. Kerry doesn't stand a chance.

Posted by Alan at 17:28 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink

Wednesday, 15 September 2004

Topic: Iraq

Trends: Keep your ear to the ground and your ear gets all dirty...

Michael Scott here digs up a comment from the late H.L. Mencken in The Chicago Sunday Tribune, July 25, 1926:

... No normal human being wants to hear the truth. It is the passion of a small and aberrant minority of men, most of them pathological. They are hated for telling it while they live, and when they die they are swiftly forgotten. What remains to the world, in the field of wisdom, is a series of long tested and solidly agreeable lies.

Maybe so, but this is the week a new narrative started gathering momentum - or maybe it is a meme, a newly accepted axiomatic sense of what is an actual fact.

What would that be? Starting late last week with comments here and there on the net, citing various items in the New York Times and various wire services, followed by barrage of stories in the major papers as the new week started, and coming to a head in a short piece in Newsweek, we have a new given.

We are losing, or have already lost the war. That's the meme on the blogs this week. The majors are pretty much saying it too - building on the Newsweek item and interviews all over with its editors. This does not seem to be coming from the Democrats assailing Bush - but seem rather a simultaneous awakening by news folks and military folks. Things are bad.

Sidney Blumenthal - a former senior adviser to President Clinton and Washington bureau chief of SALON.COM - tries to get a sense of this shift here:

Far graver than Vietnam
Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale
Thursday September 16, 2004, The Guardian (UK)

The opening -
'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."
The war is already lost?

Who else is saying such things?

Blumenthal gives us a few:

Retired general Joseph Hoare, former marine commandant and head of US Central Command - "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."

Jeffrey Record of the US Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true. There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the Second World War in Germany and Japan." And this guy teaches strategy there,

W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - says similar things.

The Blumenthal piece is full of assessments that are, as they say, dire.

The Newsweek item that everyone cited - It's Worse Than You Think - is subtitled "As Americans debate Vietnam, the U.S. death toll tops 1,000 in Iraq. And the insurgents are still getting stronger..."

It is a wake-up call of sorts, and the most cited paragraphs are these -
America has its own Election Day to worry about. For U.S. troops in Iraq, one especially sore point is the stateside public's obsession with the candidates' decades-old military service. "Stop talking about Vietnam," says one U.S. official who has spent time in the Sunni Triangle. "People should be debating this war, not that one." His point was not that America ought to walk away from Iraq.

Hardly any U.S. personnel would call that a sane suggestion. But there's widespread agreement that Washington needs to rethink its objectives, and quickly. "We're dealing with a population that hovers between bare tolerance and outright hostility," says a senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad. "This idea of a functioning democracy here is crazy. We thought that there would be a reprieve after sovereignty, but all hell is breaking loose."

It's not only that U.S. casualty figures keep climbing. American counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in those statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per day on U.S. forces in August--the worst monthly average since Bush's flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Preliminary analysis of the July and August numbers also suggests that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider area of Iraq than ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties apparently took a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and shrapnel were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase two" insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That's how things started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents are standing and fighting--a step up to phase three.

Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S. troops simply avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them "no-go areas." "We could go into them any time we wanted," he argues. The preferred term is "insurgent enclaves." They're spreading. Counterinsurgency experts call it the "inkblot strategy": take control of several towns or villages and expand outward until the areas merge. The first city lost to the insurgents was Fallujah, in April. Now the list includes the Sunni Triangle cities of Ar Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra, where power shifted back and forth between the insurgents and American-backed leaders last week. "There is no security force there [in Fallujah], no local government," says a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad. "We would get attacked constantly. Forget about it."

U.S. military planners only wish they could. ...
And it was these "no go" zones - reported in the New York Times the previous week - that seemed to start his ball rolling downhill. It's hard to claim things are going swimmingly when you admit you have decided large areas of the country, including a large part of the capital - Baghdad's Sadr City - are just too danger to enter, even with the tanks and gunships overhead. Report after report seems to indicate only the Green Zone in central Baghdad is secure - were our top guys do their work in Saddam's formal palaces. This does not look good.

And then early in the week the outgoing Marine general in charge of western Iraq says we made a mess with how we handed Fallujah

Key General Criticizes April Attack In Fallujah
Abrupt Withdrawal Called Vacillation
Rajiv Chandrasekaran, The Washington Post, Monday, September 13, 2004; Page A17

What to make of this?
The outgoing U.S. Marine Corps general in charge of western Iraq said Sunday he opposed a Marine assault on militants in the volatile city of Fallujah in April and the subsequent decision to withdraw from the city and turn over control to a security force of former Iraqi soldiers.

That security force, known as the Fallujah Brigade, was formally disbanded last week. Not only did the brigade fail to combat militants, it actively aided them, surrendering weapons, vehicles and radios to the insurgents, according to senior Marine officers. Some brigade members even participated in attacks on Marines ringing the city, the officers said.

The comments by Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, made shortly after he relinquished command of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force on Sunday, amounted to a stinging broadside against top U.S. military and civilian leaders who ordered the Fallujah invasion and withdrawal. His statements also provided the most detailed explanation -- and justification -- of Marine actions in Fallujah this spring, which have been widely criticized for increasing insurgent activity in the city and turning it into a "no-go" zone for U.S. troops.
We tried to turn this over to the local fellows, as it is their country now, and they help the bad guys and give them all the guns and equipment we provided.

That is not a good sign.

And here Knight Ridder reports that the anti-American insurgency in Iraq is "growing larger, more sophisticated and more violent," and that many experts believe "the best that can be hoped for now is continued chaos that falls short of a civil war."

The New York Times reports here that our pre-election (ours and theirs) get-tough tactics are backfiring. It seems where we cannot go we send in air strikes - large bombs and such - to blast what we think are places the bad guys congregate - and we kills a lot of the unlucky by mistake. The locals aren't impressed. They seem to see us as murderous cowards.

But we just want to make things better. But that's going sour too.

U.S. Plans to Divert Iraq Money
Attacks Prompt Request to Move Reconstruction Funds to Security Forces
Jonathan Weisman, The Washington Post, Wednesday, September 15, 2004; Page A22

Some things will have to wait (my emphases) -
The Bush administration asked Congress on Tuesday for permission to transfer nearly $3.5 billion from Iraqi water, sewer and electricity projects to pressing security, economic and electoral programs, acknowledging that increasing violence has forced a sharp shift in its rebuilding effort.

Including previous reallocations, the administration hopes to redirect more than 20 percent of $18.4 billion in reconstruction funds to cope with an escalating insurgency and the glacial pace of rebuilding. With two weeks left in the fiscal year, and 11 months after Congress approved the money, only $1.1 billion of it has been spent, because of attacks, contracting problems and other unforeseen issues, according to figures released by the State Department.

Marc Grossman, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, concluded that "without a significant reallocation of resources for the security and law enforcement sector, the short-term stability of Iraq would be compromised and the longer-term prospects of a free and democratic Iraq undermined."

The redirected money would be used for, among other things, 82,000 more Iraqi security personnel, including an increase of about 65 percent in police forces and a near-doubling of the number of border agents.

The shift of funds "is a de facto recognition that [the occupation authority's] ambitious plans to restructure Iraq's entire economy have failed," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a security analyst at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies, "and that . . . efforts to plan the long-term structure of Iraq's economic development have foundered in the face of insurgent attacks, theft and looting, [and] bad planning."

Even administration allies said the State Department has been slow coming to terms with a security environment radically different from what was envisioned when the reconstruction plans were drafted last fall.

... "I don't think anyone can deny we have not been as successful as we would have liked," said Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's foreign operations subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the funds.

"Fewer people will get potable water. Fewer people will get the electricity they need in their homes or their businesses," Kolbe said. "But that's just a recognition of the reality that unless you have the security you need, you can't have reconstruction."
Well, maybe if the Iraqi people had clean water, electricity, and maybe a sewage system that worked, far fewer of them would be fighting us.

But we cannot get there now.

Okay then. We have made a mess of things and seem to be losing or to have lost this war.

Now what? Since the administration will never say things haven't gone well, we have a dilemma.

A few weeks ago here the idea was this a matter of attitude for that administration. You have to have the right attitude. It is a matter of resolve. The bad things that have happened while we've stayed resolved show that good things will happen if only we stay resolved. That's the line we're fed, which I called the "Tinkerbell Theory" - if we clap loud enough and believe... then Tinkerbell will live.

No. That's a fairy tale.

This seems to be the week people are sensing that this resolve and optimism look a little too much like denial and delusion. There just isn't enough fairly dust to fix this one.

We have alienated most of the world who now see us as the enemy - a great item on that is here - and our dream of building a fine democracy in an Iraqi of fawning, worshipful and grateful folks tossing flowers at us, at virtually no cost, seems, at best, absurd.

Bush's opponent, this Kerry fellow, might make much of this turn in the narrative, this new meme, but probably won't, as Kerry is as dull as he is earnest and well-meaning.

But this new idea - that we've probably lost it all - is snowballing. It may help Kerry whether he likes it or not.

The problem is that if he wins, he has to clean up this mess. Maybe he wants to be beaten.

Posted by Alan at 20:11 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Wednesday, 15 September 2004 20:25 PDT home

Newer | Latest | Older