Preach on August

August Pollak has a good post on the hypocritical right, re the Reagan movie. Go check it out.

Testing the generocity of my readers

As you can see above, I added a link to my wishlist at the top there. If there's any readers out there who feel particularly generous, feel free to get me something. I dunno, it seems to work for the more popular blogs, why not try it out here.

Any readers who are generous enough to get me something will receive my eternal gratitude. Eh? Doesn't that sound like something you want? Eternal gratitude? I mean, come on, that's a lot of gratitude.

Update: I'm having trouble with the exact link. If I don't figure it out, I'm going to take it down.

Update 2: Ha ha, success.

More on Iraq, civil war, and what to do

Before I begin, I haven't linked to Ted Rall's blog yet. You should really go check it out.

Anyway, I was just reading through his blog, and read this:

The downing of the Chinook helicopter near Baghdad yesterday has pundits chattering about the "difficult choices" we face in Iraq and how we have to stick around until we've won. What these morons don't get, however, is that this war was lost before it started. All those wait-and-see folks were idiots; there was never any chance that the U.S. would go in and not act like assholes, guarding the oil ministry and nothing else against looters was inevitable, of course the place was going to disintegrate into civil war and chaos. We didn't have what it took to do differently, and the situation was bound to degenerate immediately upon our arrival. A brilliant commander-in-chief would have had a hard time taming post-Saddam Iraq; these guys were always too narrowminded, undereducated and arrogant to tame anything. This was always gonna suck, and it's always gonna suck. Every day that passes kills more innocents, and for absolutely nothing--the United States will never, ever win the war in Iraq because it just doesn't know how.

I agree with him on most points. That this war was foolish, that the Administration is too arrogant and ignorant to deal with the situation, and that this was probably an unavoidable situation.

But, I do have to disagree with his implicit point that the situation is hopeless.

It seems hopeless since it'll still be another 14 months before we get someone else in the White House, and it doesn't seem like Bush will be doing much to improve the situation until then. But right now, at least, there are steps we can take to stabilize Iraq.

In that, as I mentioned earlier, the top strategic goal in Iraq right now should be regional stability. It's no easy task, Herculean if done right, and impossible if done alone, but not outside of possibility right now.

So, here I present Raznor's Oversimplified Recipe for a Stable Iraq:

Really, it all boils down to diplomacy. And this will be incredibly difficult. We need full UN support, and that will require swallowing our own pride, without losing face. As well as give the United Nations a way to offer it's support without having to retroactively agree the war was a good idea. We have to give up control of Iraq but still bear a lion's share of the costs, which shouldn't be too much of a problem if we eliminate Bush's tax cuts and eliminate the Missile Defense Shield, neither of which will be easy politically.

This becomes a double edged sword. On the one hand, we need to give the world and the Iraqi people the impression that we don't care about controlling Iraq, and hand control over willingly. On the other hand, we need to do it in a way that cannot be perceived as us showing weakness, or even admitting we made a mistake going into Iraq, or the plan will receive heavy resistance in the Pentagon and military sector, and thus become politically infeasible.

Okay, assume we just found a way to hand power to the UN and get UN support in such a way that it is palatable to the international community, but also the military brass, through some miracle of diplomatic ingenuity. We've still got a lot of work.

Because the important thing is also that the countries in the region will lend support to our efforts in Iraq. We'd need a substantial police force of fellow Arabs, whom the Iraqis can believe are more concerned for them than Americans, and who can speak their language. This takes the assumption that if there is a semblance of order and self-governance, most Iraqi civilians would find actual armed resistance undesirable, hence competing nationalist entities wouldn't have enough sway to declare war on each other.

How do we do this? I'm no expert in Middle Eastern politics, but the most obvious answer to me would be to promise (and fulfill that promise, or at least appear to be fulfilling that promise) to take a harder stand on Israel, and cut off considerable amount of aid, since at the moment, Israel's army is viewed by many in Arab nations as being an extension of the American army. This has a similar problem of having to be packaged in a way that will be acceptable to the Arab nations and palatable to the people at home, in order to make it politically possible.

So there you go. And I'm probably oversimplifying, still it seems like a Herculean task to complete. And the unfortunate thing is we have an Administration with one strategic goal: get re-elected. Regional stability of Persia seems to have little consideration for these people.

I'm tired, but I wanted to note

Earlier, I gave reasons why we shouldn't immediately withdraw from Iraq. In it I predicted possible actions of the governments of Iran and Turkey in the event that the Kurds would begin to dominate in an Iraqi civil war. Now, to predict actions of a sovereign state, I usually use the general rule that a state will take the action that most reflects its interests. This isn't always the case in practice, since logic doesn't always go into it, but I had a bigger problem with what I posted.

Upon further thought, I really don't think there'd be any case where the Iranians would send troops into either Iraq or Afghanistan. Why? Because doing so would increase the likelihood of provoking an attack from the United States while simultaneously being frowned upon by the world community. And Iran cannot afford that. I still would predict that Turkey would send troops into Iraq, but I think it's safe to assume that Iran would sit back and watch the Iraqi civil war unfold from within its borders.

Sorry if this didn't make sense. It might make more sense if you read the original post, but I'm going to bed now. When I wake up I'll reread this and edit it for clarity if necessary.

Elliott Smith

Good article in Williamette Weekly.

David Sedaris rocks hard-core!

So I saw David Sedaris speak yesterday here at Reed. It was great. Afterward I got him to sign my copy of Naked and chatted with him for a bit about writing and living in Europe. (he asks me, "So what country are you moving to?") Really pleasant, if short-lived. So that was that.

I said I'd post Clausewitz two days ago, and I didn't. Still really busy over here. I'm not sure when I'll get to continuing the Clausewitz series. It would be quicker if more readers would e-mail me with feedback (hint hint). Part 1 is here.

It's free agent season

Really good article by Derek Zumsteg in the free area of Baseball Prospectus. I'm picking a particularly funny excerpt, but you should read the whole thing (it's free for the love of mike):

No Alex Rodriguez, though. Luis Castillo, who is rumored to be seeking a lucrative multi-year deal, is 28 and hit .314/.381/.397, which is a nice enough line to have from your second baseman but doesn't make me want to cash in my war bonds so I can bask in his glory for a couple of years. Tejada seems the most likely to get the biggest deal, what with his May 25, 1976 birth date courtesy of the Dominican Republic, where, as I'm sure you're all aware, means there's a significant chance that not only is Tejada not actually 27 today, but there is a fair chance that he doesn't even bat right-handed, and has forged all the documents and footage that show him batting from that side.

Some fun

When do you know your policy's about to change?

Why, when law schools start suing you, of course.

GW Law School professors voted Friday to join a group of law schools suing the U.S. Defense Department for allegedly discriminating against gays.

If Law School Dean Michael Young approves the decision, the school will become a member of a coalition of law schools that claims the Solomon Amendment, which withholds federal funding from universities that do not allow the military to recruit on campus, is unconstitutional.

GW receives millions of dollars in federal funding each year in the form of financial aid and research grants. The University has not taken a position on the issue and would not be affected if the law school decided to join the coalition.

The underlying reason for the lawsuit is the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which stipulates that gay members of the military are subject to dismissal if they make their sexual orientation known.

The coalition, the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, said the amendment effectively forces universities to contravene its own non-discrimination policies by letting the military onto its campus. In 1992, GW adopted a University-wide policy banning discrimination toward gays.

"We believe the Solomon Amendment is a violation of our academic freedom," said Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights President Kent Greenfield, a law professor at Boston College.

Something's gotta give. We'll see what it is.

Really it seems a matter of who makes the final decision. If it's Rumsfeld or his fellow anti-gay ideologues, it'll be the Solomon Amendment. If it's the not necessarily ideological, but militarily pragmatic generals, it will be the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, since they'd hate to see a recruitment oppurtunity lost.

Keep a watching.

Via The Hamster.

Thoughts on Iraq

Right now, many left-wing bloggers are calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. There are some compelling arguments for this. The probability of us attaining our "goal" of creating a liberal democracy in Iraq, or even any semblance of an Iraqi Republic, are essentially null. Meanwhile, as the resistance movement keeps gaining ground, Iraq is becoming increasingly ungovernable and dangerous for our troops. These attacks are getting increasingly deadly and bold. Despite the President's rhetoric, acts of desperation do not include attempts on Wolfowitz's life.

But should we back out? I'm reluctant to say so.

So an Iraqi democracy is unlikely, to say the least. What should be our strategic aim in Iraq? I would say we have a vested interest in regional stability, for reasons I believe are self-evident. If for no other reason, the proximity Iraq has to Turkey should be enough for us to need to keep the region stable. Turkey is the link country between Europe and the Arab Peninsula, and therefore is important to diplomatic relations with Islamic nations.

So what's a worst case scenario if we leave Iraq right now? A civil war could ravage the nation. Now, at the risk of over-simplification, I would guess a civil war in Iraq would revolve around three competing groups: Shi'ites, Ba'athists and Kurds. These are the groups that appear to have the greatest political and strategic interest in the area. This lends itself to four essential possibilities:

The first is that the three groups maintain a general balance of power, and thus remain in conflict indefinitely. This would leave Iraq in a chaos similar to Afghanistan. This would have two downsides: the first is it would further damage the international image of the US, and second it would mean Iran would border to the east and west of regions that are suffering a power vacuum, and they may take advantage. The extent that they take advantage may have very little effect, or it may create an international incident. As Iran is the geographic link between the Arab Peninsula and Central Asia, this could have profound effects on the general politics of all Islamic nations.

The second and third possibilities are essentially similar, that the Shi'ites take control, and would thus form an alliance with the fundamentalists in Iran, or the Ba'athists take control, leaving us where we began before the invasion of Iraq, only with more anger against the United States. As bad as these possibilities may be, I don't think they're as bad as the fourth possibility, that the Kurds gain the upper hand.

Why would this fourth possibility be detrimental? Simple, Iran and Turkey have a vested interest in keeping the Kurds down in their respective countries. A Kurdish controlled Iraq could help stir Kurdish revolution in Iran and Turkey. As such, if the Kurds seem like they're in a position to take Iraq, we'll likely see Iran and Turkey getting involved. Iran would definitely not take the side of the Ba'athists, so they would give they're support to the Shi'ites. Then the question would be, do the Turks trust the Iranians enough to band with them to accomplish they're common goal and thus also give support to the Shi'ites? Or do they distrust the Iranians so much they would give support to the Ba'athists?

The second possibility above would mean the civil war in Iraq would turn into a war between Iran and Turkey. As I said, Turkey is of immense strategic importance to us, and we'd likely have to intervene in Turkey's side if things get too dicey. Once again, I believe it's self-evident why this would be detrimental to our general safety.

So, what should we do? We need an actually international coalition in charge of Iraq. America should divest much of it's power in Iraq to the UN to ensure international support, and hopefully be able to keep the region stable enough so that leaving Iraq wouldn't bring about civil war. I fear the current administration's arrogance will not allow this to occur, though.

Not Good

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Car bombers struck the international Red Cross headquarters and three police stations across Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 35 people and injuring more than 200 in a spree of destruction that terrorized the Iraqi capital on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

The string of bombings, all within less than an hour, was the bloodiest attack yet in the city of 5 million by insurgents targeting the American-led occupation and those perceived as working with it. It also appeared like a dramatic escalation in tactics — in past weeks, bombers have carried out heavy suicide bombings, but in single strikes.

The U.S. military said one American soldier was killed and six U.S. troops were wounded in the bombing at the al Baya'a police station in the city's ad-Doura district. Iraqi police Brig. Gen. Ahmed Ibrahim, the deputy interior minister, put the Iraqi death toll at 34, including 26 civilians and eight police.

Story here.

Besides the loss of life, this just doesn't bode well for us at all. It's more than just some terrorist attack, it's a demonstration of organized resistance, and it's probably going to get worse before it gets better. And that's being optimistic.

I don't have time at the moment, but I'll get to part two of the Clausewitz series later today. Part two will be on resistance and guerrilla war, which was originally going to be part three, but now it will be a bit more timely and important in understanding what's happening in Iraq.

New GYWO

Here.

Easy Blogging

Whenever I feel like blogging on something but not going into in depth detail or putting out a minimal amount of effort, I just go look at Ann Coulter's latest column and refute some sort of innuendo or lie she writes.

It didn't take long to find one:

IN AN EMERGING scandal, NBC News has produced tapes proving beyond deniability that the new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence is ... a Christian. Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin has been captured on a series of grainy tapes, attesting to his faith at churches and prayer breakfasts. Having driven the Judeo-Christian value system out of the public square, the classrooms and the Alabama Supreme Court, liberals now want to drive it out of church.

In one "inflammatory" remark, Boykin said that the enemy was not Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, but "is a spiritual enemy. He's called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan."

Islamic leaders in the United States instantly denounced Boykin's unflattering characterization of bin Laden and Hussein as an attack on Islam. They haven't been this huffy since describing bin Laden as "not a true Muslim" and Hussein as a "secularist." If our enemies aren't "true Muslims," why are the "true Muslims" always so offended on their behalf?

Here's a couple excerpts from a more honest interpretation of Boykin's comments:

This June, for instance, at the pulpit of the Good Shepherd Community Church in Sandy, Ore., he displayed slides of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Jung Il. "Why do they hate us?" Boykin asked. "The answer to that is because we're a Christian nation We are hated because we are a nation of believers."

Our "spiritual enemy," Boykin continued, "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus."

and

"There was a man in Mogadishu named Osman Atto," whom Boykin described as a top lieutenant of Mohammed Farah Aidid.

When Boykin's Delta Force commandos went after Atto, they missed him by seconds, he said. "He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, 'They'll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.'

"Well, you know what?" Boykin continued. "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." Atto later was captured.

Why the hell are these Muslims angry at Allah being called an idol? Clearly they're a little overzealous. That's what happens when you worship Satan.

Update: Pandagon has more.

More on Elliott Smith

Margaret Cho has an excellent post. It's hard to blog about much else at the moment. It's a devastating loss. And Margaret Cho so elegantly explains why.

I'm not sure if you can really understand this if you haven't listened to Elliott Smith. If you have, and you really allowed yourself to get lost in his beautiful and haunting melodies and lyrics, then you will. His music affects you like few things can. Right now, I'm listening to "baby britain" off of XO, and it's like the music just is flowing through me.

He had a unique gift. Now he is lost to the world. Thank God that he was able to share his gift before he left us.

Back in Portland

Still sad about Elliott Smith. I found the LA Times obituary to be the most well-written and moving that I've read. But then, I've read only three. It's still worth a look.

Meanwhile, Marlins now have two World Championships without a single Division Title in their franchise history. How about that?

Body and Soul has a good post about Wal-Mart paying undocumented workers $2 a day. Go check it out. And never shop at Wal-Mart again. They are pure evil. EEEEVVVIIILLL!

I'm going to post part 2 of the Clausewitz series soon. Probably this week. I think I finally came up with a specific Thesis topic, so things should start settling into place soon. Then I'll be back to studying 20 hours a day. Fun.

Thoughts on Elliott Smith

I'm spending the week visiting my brother and his girlfriend in LA. So, that's why I haven't posted in so long. Still, this morning I heard that Elliott Smith has committed suicide. The news put me in shock. Most of the next hour was spent not believing it was even possible. I reflected all day, and later listened to the song "Angeles" from Either/Or and it hit me. I listened to the whole song on the verge of tears. Even as I write this I'm listening to "Waltz #2 (XO)" and I want to cry.

Besides the fact that he was an immensely talented songwriter, he meant a lot to me. It's hard to think of any other person who I haven't met who has had such a profound and positive impact on me through his work. When I spent a semester in Budapest last year, I went through some intensely difficult times, and was pretty depressed at times. Anytime I was feeling particularly low, I could listen to Elliott Smith music and soothe my soul. Besides support from friends and family then, Elliott Smith was a large part of what got me through tough times.

And the benefit of his gift is even now, as his death has left me shocked and saddened, his music can once again get me through it. He'll be missed by me if no other fan, but I'd like to think the world is slightly better for having him and his art before his tragic end.

This was mostly stream of consciousness off the cuff thoughts. Maybe I'll write something more coherent tomorrow or Friday. I knew I needed to get some thoughts out there.

Elliott Smith, RIP

everybody cares, everybody understands
yes everybody cares about you
yeah and whether or not you want them to
it's a chemical embrace that kicks you in the head
to a pure synthetic sympathy that infuriates you totally
and a quiet lie that makes you wanna scream and shout
so here I lay dreaming looking at the brilliant sun
raining its guiding light upon everyone
for a moment's rest you can lean against the bannister
after running upstairs again and again from wherever they came to fix you in
but always fear city's finest follow right behind
you got a pretty vision in your head
a pencil full of poison lead
and a sickened smile illegal in every town
so here I lay dreaming looking at the brilliant sun
raining its guiding light upon everyone
here I lay dreaming looking at the brilliant sun
raining its guiding light upon everyone
you say you mean well, you don't know what you mean
fucking ought to stay the hell away from things you know nothing about

-"Everybody Cares, Everybody Understands" by Elliott Smith
from the album XO

Friggin' Hilarious

Atrios links to this article from the Philly Inquirer. The money quote is this:

Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.

It's the Dennis Kucinich Rally for Victory!

Play it here!

Check out Sheldon

Limbaugh stuff

If you're wondering how Limbaugh would have reacted if Clinton had a drug problem, well wonder no further. (via Atrios, of course)

Also, Quiddity over at Uggabugga is unimpressed by Newsweek's spin on Limbaugh's drug problem. Give it a read. Never forget that as Limbaugh shows how frail and human he is, he never seemed to show any compassion for others' frailty and humanity. He is a supreme hate-mongerer who's now reaping what he's sowed for years.

What you must do

Go read Tom Tomorrow's latest cartoon right fucking now!!!

Texas Republicans: Fear them

Really good post over at CalPundit. Read it.

Clausewitz and Iraq Part I: An Introduction

I said I'd get to it, and I'm getting to it. But first some background.

I should mention, every Clausewitz comes from this edition of On War. But for now, I'm not going to be using any quotations, I'm going to offer an introduction to Clausewitz and why I'm writing this.

In my history class, titled "War and Society: 18th-20th Century Europe", for which I read Clausewitz, I discovered, while reading about France's wars against Austria in the Revolutionary period, that I could gain a new perspective on our war with Iraq by treating it like I was treating France's wars, like it already happened, and I'm just getting all the facts and details in real time. This view is evidenced most so in this post comparing Iraq to Napoleon's war in Spain.

Then of course, I started reading Clausewitz. For those who don't know who he is, Clausewitz was a Prussian strategist who posited the theory that war is an act of policy, and as such it is entirely subordinate to policy makers. It should be mentioned that Clausewitz's On War was very well read by the mid-to-late 19th century, and many military men would use it against the civilian policymakers, noting where Clausewitz seems to imply that the military should be left alone, while ignoring the parts where he mentions war as an extension of policy and politics.

A lot can be said on Clausewitz's work for its own sake, but I won't be doing that. The posts that I will be writing on this will pertain specifically in Iraq. They will come in three parts (not necessarily three posts, a part may take more than one post, I haven't worked out all the details yet).

Part one will deal with Clausewitz's view on how military should be run and how it relates to the course of events in the Iraq war.

Part two will involve the role of the government, and how the Bush Administration fulfilled this role.

Part three will be a summing up and note of what went wrong and why.

I hope that these will be enlightening for my readership. I think the number is at least 8, maybe even ten. And that's two digits right there!

August has a new cartoon

Go check it out. And I'll try to get to that first Clausewitz post today. I swear!

I've known Schwarzenegger for years, and he hasn't killed me once!

August Pollack offers this thought on Schwarzenegger:

This thought was kind of bugging me after the recent news stories about all these women at Schwarzenegger rallies with their signs and speeches of support for Arnold: exactly why does this matter?

Just as a rhetorical concept, if Arnold Schwarzenegger was accused by multiple people of, say, murdering their family members with a hatchet, would it matter if people showed up at rallies saying "families of murder victims for Arnold?" Or for that matter would it really be relevant if Arnold had a bunch of women hitting the talk shows to state in support of their candidate, "well, he never murdered MY family. When I worked with him on the set of Jingle All The Way I certainly never saw him trying to stab anyone. Except Sinbad, but come on, everyone was trying."

Arnold has been accused of what is rapidly becomming serial sexual assault. "Not doing it all the time" and "he was nice to me" isn't a freakin' defense, okay?

Sorry posting's been down

Besides being busy, there's the postseason to worry about. But over this week and next, I think I'll break up the Clausewitz post into a series of posts to analyze our situation in Iraq. From over here thousands of miles away.

In the meanwhile, Sosa hit a two-run homerun to send the Cubs/Marlins game into extra innings. I'll probably get to part one of that Clausewitz later tonight.

But e-mail me if you have an extreme interest in these series posts on Iraq. It's been a while since I've gotten e-mail from my readers (besides Mom, thanks Mom). I guess I could add a comments section, but that would take some effort, and I'm afraid that it'll just be depressing if no one bothers to write them. At least without the comments I can take solace in the uncertainty.

Update: And Cubs lose 9-8 after 11 innings. Damn.

Holy Fuck!

The Cubs beat the Braves. Now if the Red Sox beat the A's tomorrow, we're one step closer to a Chicago/Boston World Series!

Meanwhile on Tuesday the Marlins have to face Prior and the Cubs in Chicago. This should be fun.