Originally Posted by Mr. Mark Danner via Mr. Saari

Anyone wanting to answer the question of "how we began" in Iraq has to confront the monumental fact that the United States, the most powerful country in the world, invaded Iraq with no particular and specific idea of what it was going to do there, and then must try to explain how this could have happened.

Umm... They thought they knew why they wanted to go there. The short answer was the Neocons wanted US military bases near the Middle East oil supplies. They said so in fairly plain English in the Project for a New American Century's Rebuilding America's Defenses. If you want to understand a Neocon's goals and methods for Middle Eastern policy at the start of the Bush administration, start there.

There are a couple of problems. Americans in general would not favor a war for oil. The Neocons had military and economic motivations, but knew better than to try to sell them to the general public. Thus, they needed alternate public relations reasons. These include Sadam working with Osama, Sadam's WMDs, Sadam's being a bad guy, and to spread democracy by force. Thus, there has always been a disconnect between what the Neocons think and what they say. Analyzing their plans and motivations is difficult with that much dissembling.

The other real problem is how hard they thought it would be to achieve their mission. After World War II, and the Reagan era interventions in Grenada and Panama, there was no insurgency, no quagmire. The Americans in Vietnam and Soviets in Afghanistan and Cheznia did have quagmires. The Neocons simply were absolutely wrong in failing to anticipate the insurrection, and thus were caught tragically short in planning how to prevent it.

Thus, saying the US "invaded Iraq with no particular and specific idea of what it was going to do there" is not right. They knew what they wanted to do, but they were lying about it. They thought they knew how to get what they wanted, but were catastrophically in error.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK23Ak02.html

...Iran's dilemma, however, is that a complete failure of the US in Iraq is not in Iran's interests either, given Iran's fear of terrorism, mass refugees and irredentism from behind its vast western borders with Iraq. Tehran and the occupying powers may have their own interests in mind, but their common fear of Iraq's collapse is what could ultimately heal their great divide.

What some see as a solution, is only the recognition that something larger is happening in the ME that brings a pox on all the houses, or more precisely, the nation-states of the ME.

This recent analysis is a much more accurate reflection of what is truely going on in Iraq and perhaps expanding into other countries --

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/wo...pagewanted=all

The report, obtained by The New York Times, estimates that groups responsible for many insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising $70 million to $200 million a year from illegal activities. It says $25 million to $100 million of that comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry, aided by “corrupt and complicit” Iraqi officials."

“If accurate,” the report says, its estimates indicate that these “sources of terrorist and insurgent finance within Iraq — independent of foreign sources — are currently sufficient to sustain the groups’ existence and operation.” To this, it adds what may be its most surprising conclusion: “In fact, if recent revenue and expense estimates are correct, terrorist and insurgent groups in Iraq may have surplus funds with which to support other terrorist organizations outside of Iraq.”

It's rather cool reception in Washington and in the media is due to its undermining the most recent fixation that Iran and Syria hold the "fix." They do not. Their interest in actually aligning with the US will grow to a fever pitch as the chaos expands to engulf them.

IOW, we have created the very terrorist havens we had sought to squelch, and we won't likely end up with any bases near the oil in the final cut. Furthermore we've enhanced Iran's position in ways they couldn't have done themselves, and given OBL all the propoganda material he could ever, ever need. And Bob's right, the New American Century folks made it clear as day that this whole operation was about oil, and that they needed the Big Lie of their guru Leo Strauss to pursue their agenda.

And dupes like HC think this is all okay. This NOT okay. This very NOT okay. Our own internal little fifth column of Neocons have hurt America more than OBL ever did, by far. And they accuse others of treason. My God.

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN

Originally Posted by scholars laboring under HM James I, VI

26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Originally Posted by Mr. Daniel Larison on why we ought not be pro-Choice

Simply put, ignoring every moral or political consideration, it will not work to advance American interests and will in the process stain us with the more or less open endorsement of large-scale massacre and ethnic/sectarian cleansing. We may have to endure the reputation of the nation that destroyed Iraq and left it for dead, which seems hard to escape now; we do not yet have to attach ourselves to the mass murder of still more Iraqis with our connivance.

Diplomacy Ain't What It Used to Be

Thus spakith Al Kamen For discussion purposes and a chuckle...

We received a cable yesterday from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announcing the recipient of this year's Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Public Diplomacy.

The award, named for the legendary journalist who went on to head the U.S. Information Agency, is given to a State Department employee "who best exemplifies the standards of dedication, integrity, courage, sensitivity and excellence in the field of public diplomacy," Rice said.

The winner? None other than Alberto Fernandez, head of public diplomacy for the Mideast. Fernandez, who speaks Arabic fluently, is best known in this country for having told al-Jazeera television back in October that Washington had been arrogant and stupid in Iraq.

He issued a written apology saying he "seriously misspoke." Some conservatives were furious and called for his head, but Undersecretary Karen Hughes said all was forgiven.

Fernandez, whose laid-back, chatty style has made him quite popular among viewers, according to Arabic media folks, was selected by Tufts University's school of law and diplomacy from a list of three finalists chosen by State.

The award includes a $10,000 check. Calling U.S. policy stupid: $5,000. Calling it arrogant: $5,000. Saying all that in Arabic on al-Jazeera: priceless.

I'm sure he has said other things that made him worthy of the award, but I wouldn't think speaking truth to Arabs would hurt. We likely need more people making friends with Iraqis and enemies of conservatives...

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Diplomacy Ain't What It Used to Be

Thus spakith Al Kamen For discussion purposes and a chuckle...


I'm sure he has said other things that made him worthy of the award, but I wouldn't think speaking truth to Arabs would hurt. We likely need more people making friends with Iraqis and enemies of conservatives...

While in college, I took a course on modern China. In the section where we talked about the cultural revolution, it was noted that during that time, Mao promoted the interests of "reds"-the ideologically pure whereas Chou en Lai promoted the interests of the "exterts"-those proficent in government administration. It seems that someone in the Bush administration has realized that "experts" have their place and being sufficently "red" isn't always the most important thing.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

IOW, we have created the very terrorist havens we had sought to squelch, and we won't likely end up with any bases near the oil in the final cut. Furthermore we've enhanced Iran's position in ways they couldn't have done themselves, and given OBL all the propoganda material he could ever, ever need. And Bob's right, the New American Century folks made it clear as day that this whole operation was about oil, and that they needed the Big Lie of their guru Leo Strauss to pursue their agenda.

And dupes like HC think this is all okay. This NOT okay. This very NOT okay. Our own internal little fifth column of Neocons have hurt America more than OBL ever did, by far. And they accuse others of treason. My God.

The reason the Neocons have been consistently bad in regards to foreign policy is in part due not only to their ideological designs, but also their refusal to accept reality, both tactical and strategic. Examples of this include a basic refusal on the part of the neocons to accept that the cold war is over. This influences neocon tactical solution which does not work because the regimen is a relic of an earlier era.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The reason the Neocons have been consistently bad in regards to foreign policy is in part due not only to their ideological designs, but also their refusal to accept reality, both tactical and strategic. Examples of this include a basic refusal on the part of the neocons to accept that the cold war is over. This influences neocon tactical solution which does not work because the regimen is a relic of an earlier era.

I've watched a BBC documentary called The Power of Nightmares that said the folks that would become the Neo-Cons had a history of exaggerating, or even manufacturing threats during the Cold War. The power of Al Qaeda was also greatly exaggerated by the Neo-Cons, the threat of terrorism had actually declined since the early 90's (I consider the early 90's when most of the Middle East went from 2T to 3T) and AQ was formed by a bunch of hyper-extreme islamist "true believers" after most of the mainstream islamists moderated thier stances and became less terrormism-based and more politically-based. Basically the documentary said that 9-11 was a lucky hit and that how the Neo-Cons exaggerated the threat from AQ by brabding thim as a "super-powerful terrorist network with tentacles all ove," and the Iraq War, just breathed new life into Islamic terrorism.

Saudi Arabia may enter Iraq to help fellow sunnis

Nawaf Obaid, writing in The Washington Post, said the Saudi leadership was preparing to revise its Iraq policy to deal with the aftermath of a possible U.S. pullout, and is considering options including flooding the oil market to crash prices and thus limit Iran's ability to finance Shi'ite militias in Iraq.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Saudi Arabia may enter Iraq to help fellow sunnis

Some threat. They're pumping full throttle already.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The reason the Neocons have been consistently bad in regards to foreign policy is in part due not only to their ideological designs, but also their refusal to accept reality, both tactical and strategic. Examples of this include a basic refusal on the part of the neocons to accept that the cold war is over. This influences neocon tactical solution which does not work because the regimen is a relic of an earlier era.

Not an uncommon situation. At the time of the American Revolution, there were those who believed political power came from God, that kings always had been and ought always to be. At the time of the Civil War, there were those who believed that all great civilizations had been based on slavery, and so it always would be. It should be expected coming into any crisis that an Establishment group will exist whose hold on power is based on exiting values and tradition. They will wish to use existing tools much as they have always been used. This is problematic when the problems said tools were created to solve are already solved, and when different problems are coming to the fore.

If I am allowed to review my political taxonomy system, traditional wisdom might come in several flavors of various vintages.

Paleocon : Traditional American from before the last crisis. Small governments leave free enterprise open to develop. Minimal regulation. Foreign policy is isolationists. The military establishment is dismantled between wars, with just enough of a structure left in place to form a seed in case mobilization becomes necessary.

New Deal : Big Government does Big Things. America must be strong to maintain peace in the world. Aggressors must not be allowed to build strength through aggression. They must be contained. The government is responsible for maintaining a healthy economy, implementing a responsible Keynesian money management scheme and providing safety nets. If great things are to be achieved, great taxes must be collected.

Blue Awakening : The values include racial equality, gender equality, ecological responsibility, avoiding war and distrusting the military industrial complex.

Twilight in America : In the aftermath of Watergate, the Fall of Saigon, the Oil Crisis, the Hostage Crisis and the National Malaise, it was no longer clear that America should be trying to do Great Things. America was certainly tired of paying Great Taxes. Containment of Communism was continued, but by threat and proxy rather than direct confrontation. Keynesian Tax and Spend was replaced by Borrow and Spend. Safety nets were trimmed. Economic management shifted from maintaining a healthy active bottom up economy to tax breaks for the rich and favors for those who contribute to political campaigns. Christian, Family and rural values were emphasized to check echoes of the Blue Awakening.

War on Terror : While the "Twilight in America" domestic policies continued, containment was dropped in favor of preemptive unilateral invasion. While putting military bases near the oil was seen as a good thing by the perspective of traditional imperialism, this could not be sold to the public. Thus, various alternative doctrines were proposed as justification, including suppression of WMDs, regime change as a moral foreign policy, and the spread of democracy by force.

Now, my biases are showing. I'm sure advocates of "Twilight in America" and the "War on Terror" could provide more positive descriptions of the policies of these times. They might also choose to emphasize the Blue Awakening's riots, protests, social unrest, drugs and free love between dirty hippies. Still, there are positive and negative aspects of each of these eras and the policies which seemed to make sense in these time.

And if the next period is to be the regeneracy, one can pick and choose strong points from most of these periods to build a platform: I'll start by replacing the New Deal's Big Government doing Big Things with efficient government doing efficient things. I'd step back from borrow and spend into something more closely resembling classic Keynesian stimulation spending in bad times while paying off debts in good times. I'd try to fight corruption, choking the incestuous relationships between Big Government and Big Business. This is a classic theme, often spoken, seldom implemented. I'd avoid anything that smells of imperialism, of using military, political and economic power abroad to acquire more military, political and economic power. Isolation, containment, shunning war, enforcing peace and spreading democracy all have merit. Synthesizing a creative balance among these things won't be easy. All are worthy, but practicing one to the exclusion of the others would be problematic.

Respecting other cultures and values might be key. There is a big difference between helping another culture develop along the lines it desires and forcing one's own values on others.

Anyway, American values and doctrines are evolving as they always have. What was right in one era might well not be right a few decades down the road. While not right today, the doctrines of earlier times existed for real reasons. Totally shunning old values and old solutions might be as foolish as clinging to a previous era's tools and methods too long.

America has a big toolbox. The Neocons have just a hammer. Is it surprising that everything they see starts looking like a nail? Clinging too tightly to any one era's or subculture's values and doctrines is problematic. There is wisdom to be found from multiple eras, but ultimately our own era is unique and new. It won't be a simple matter of choosing a few values from this decade, and a few from that decade. We will have to create a New Millennium.

I've been reading the TNR series on what to do in Iraq (called Iraq: What Next?) with interest and amusement.

I haven't been paying attention to the generational makeup of the authors of the series (not least because I don't know who have of them are...political science professors and things), but the pragmatism of Xer Niall Ferguson's piece from today (which suggests a buy-up of all the small arms in Iraq and generally tring to bribe the insurgents) got me thinking about it.

There were people talking about that sort of thing a couple years ago, and it may have even worked then, but my sense is that the sectarian violence has now taken on a life of its own, and that the anti-American (Sunni) insurgency is really more of a sideshow in the main feature (which seems now to be a wider civil war).

I don't know if anyone noted the article above, but there was a piece in Reuters over the past couple of days saying that the Saudis would provide support to the Sunnis (to counter-balance Iranian influence) if America withdrew.

Originally Posted by Linus

... I don't know if anyone noted the article above, but there was a piece in Reuters over the past couple of days saying that the Saudis would provide support to the Sunnis (to counter-balance Iranian influence) if America withdrew.

I'd be surprised if they did otherwise. They don't really have a choice. When your neighbor's house is on fire, you can either help to put it out or start packing to leave.

There may be a lot of truth to the assertion that the Administration and NeoCons exaggerated the AQ threat as well as a lot of truth that our own policies and behavior have created hatred towards us. However, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate al Qaeda, and arrogance to assume we solely hold our own fate in our hands. This should be readily evident by just assessing the current situation against the benchmarks of two of AQ's primary strategic doctrines -

Zarqawi's letter to bin Laden
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/...qawi_full.html

and Abu Naji's Management of Savagery
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/Management_of_Savagery.pdf

Much of the objectives of these AQ strategies have been met or on the path to doing so (although it is hard to see how, once they have created the chaos, they move to their heroic Sharia solution).

Don't get me wrong -- I am horrified by our strategic and tactical missteps, but I am not so naive to believe that there is not a real threat posed by the extreme Islamists, a threat of possible 4T proportions.

I have always believed that AQ needs us in Iraq for their recruitment goals, and would significantly provoke us into staying if we should attempt to leave. I'm not saying that we shouldn’t leave, but I have argued that we need to understand that those provocations will come and that we must be able to withstand them or respond to them in ways that would still allow us to leave.

However, I'm no longer sure AQ needs us in Iraq and may undertake tactics to let us leave. As mentioned in H. Tea's post above, the Saudis have now committed to the protection of the Iraqi Sunnis. This must be a wet dream for AQ. With an American withdrawal from the field, it would be rather simple for AQ to provoke the Saudis into engagement within Iraq and perhaps eventually with Iran, leading to a regional war. And AQ would be estatic; as Naji states, " This increase in savagery, which may result from failure, is not the worst thing that can happen now or in the previous decade (the nineties) and those before it. Rather, the most abominable of the levels of savagery is (still) less than stability under the order of unbelief [nizām al-kufr] by (several) degrees."

An Iran-Saudi, Shia-Sunni regional war's resulting in $200+ barrel will have everyone in the world saying "it’s about oil" but the 4T-like consequences of that to our way of life will have no one mouthing that as a dismissive statement.

Bottom line? Strategically, everything is going AQ's way.

P.S. Walked by the Woodrow Wilson building today for lunch and saw an old face, lighting up a cig outside. It was Lawrence Eagleburger and he was telling some camera crews to leave him the F alone. Didn't think much about it, until I saw Vernon Jordan talking to Leon Panetta!!! Something was up! Then it dawned on me, this was the Iraq Study Group taking a break. Hardly any new security so I guess big Jim Baker wasn't there. For those in the know, an interesting location for such a meeting.

At the Wilson building, I was standing behind the camera crews that had Eagleburger in their sights and Jordan and Panetta off to the side. Behind the former Secretary was the doors to the Wilson building. Someone had put up sign, "THE DOOR IS BROKEN"

Hmm.

Originally Posted by salsabob

There may be a lot of truth to the assertion that the Administration and NeoCons exaggerated the AQ threat as well as a lot of truth that our own policies and behavior have created hatred towards us. However, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate al Qaeda, and arrogance to assume we solely hold our own fate in our hands. This should be readily evident by just assessing the current situation against the benchmarks of two of AQ's primary strategic doctrines -

Zarqawi's letter to bin Laden
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/...qawi_full.html

and Abu Naji's Management of Savagery
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/Management_of_Savagery.pdf

Much of the objectives of these AQ strategies have been met or on the path to doing so (although it is hard to see how, once they have created the chaos, they move to their heroic Sharia solution).

Don't get me wrong -- I am horrified by our strategic and tactical missteps, but I am not so naive to believe that there is not a real threat posed by the extreme Islamists, a threat of possible 4T proportions.

I have always believed that AQ needs us in Iraq for their recruitment goals, and would significantly provoke us into staying if we should attempt to leave. I'm not saying that we shouldn’t leave, but I have argued that we need to understand that those provocations will come and that we must be able to withstand them or respond to them in ways that would still allow us to leave.

However, I'm no longer sure AQ needs us in Iraq and may undertake tactics to let us leave. As mentioned in H. Tea's post above, the Saudis have now committed to the protection of the Iraqi Sunnis. This must be a wet dream for AQ. With an American withdrawal from the field, it would be rather simple for AQ to provoke the Saudis into engagement within Iraq and perhaps eventually with Iran, leading to a regional war. And AQ would be estatic; as Naji states, " This increase in savagery, which may result from failure, is not the worst thing that can happen now or in the previous decade (the nineties) and those before it. Rather, the most abominable of the levels of savagery is (still) less than stability under the order of unbelief [nizām al-kufr] by (several) degrees."

An Iran-Saudi, Shia-Sunni regional war's resulting in $200+ barrel will have everyone in the world saying "it’s about oil" but the 4T-like consequences of that to our way of life will have no one mouthing that as a dismissive statement.

Bottom line? Strategically, everything is going AQ's way.

P.S. Walked by the Woodrow Wilson building today for lunch and saw an old face, lighting up a cig outside. It was Lawrence Eagleburger and he was telling some camera crews to leave him the F alone. Didn't think much about it, until I saw Vernon Jordan talking to Leon Panetta!!! Something was up! Then it dawned on me, this was the Iraq Study Group taking a break. Hardly any new security so I guess big Jim Baker wasn't there. For those in the know, an interesting location for such a meeting.

AQ is it originally was no longer exists, it has become more of an ideology an islamist group takes up (thanks to the the great propaganda tool that is the Iraq clusterf*ck) then much of an an actual organization.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'd be surprised if they did otherwise. They don't really have a choice. When your neighbor's house is on fire, you can either help to put it out or start packing to leave.

That's probably true. It's also the case that Saudi Arabia has a sizeable Shiite minority.

Anyone want to volunteer their children to guard those oil fields when Riyadh burns?

Originally Posted by salsabob

Bottom line? Strategically, everything is going AQ's way.

A while ago, while I didn't attribute Al Quaida with a working knowledge of cycle theory, I felt they knew they had to provoke a crisis. Their primary objective is to overthrow Saudi Arabia's Oil Monarchy, replace it with more traditional religious government, and in the process remove western influences in the region. In short, they wished to overthrow the Establishment. This requires total upheaval. Thus, anything they could do to weaken and disrupt the status quo and create a 4T crisis atmosphere might be construed as advancing their cause.

By this sort of logic, it might make sense to blow up Shiite mosques. Sure, it gets a lot of locals mad at one. At the same time, it disables the social order, and thus makes a different social order at least in theory plausible.

Someone on this site argued that this wasn't what they were doing because it would be stupid. Creating chaos by making someone mad at you who has more guns and more people isn't a bright move.

At this point, I'm ready to say we were both right. AQ was trying to create chaos. They succeeded. However, they are now but one of many players attempting to harness a whirlwind. They were trying to create a 4T scale crisis anarchy environment, and it seems right now this was not a good idea.

Anyway, I think saying everything is going AQ's way is an exaggeration. They are not in control of the situation. At this point, no one is in control of the situation. They have created enough chaos that significant change is likely, plausible inevitable. They are still in play. Saddam is not in play. Dubya is tottering.

But Iran and several flavors of local Shiite influence are also in play. I don't know that AQ has dealt themselves the strongest hand.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Keynesian Tax and Spend was replaced by Borrow and Spend.

HAR!

Ever actually read Keynes? "Borrow-and-Spend" is his stated ultimate goal!

Originally Posted by salsabob

...although it is hard to see how, once they have created the chaos, they move to their heroic Sharia solution.

They don't. The Iraq war isn't what they wanted. Bin Laden wanted a jihad in Afghanistan. Given war in Iraq what else could a weak player like al Qaeda do in Iraq but try to create chaos?

Now, if the Americans would just act in their own interest and get the hell out, the al Qaeda trap will be set. I, like a fool, supported this war, expecting that the administration was going to leave the existing government in place, install a strongman and get out. But if the Bush administration didn't do what I wanted, the war would still achieve the objective I wanted anyways. I figured if chaos occurred, Iran would gain control over most of Iraq and this would start a new Shia-Sunni war like the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's, but further to the west. The US would still have ended the embargo against Iraq and withdrawn troops from Saudi Arabia, which to me was the whole point of the war.

Although the US would still be supporting Israel, creating Arab animosity, Arab attentions would be focused on the conflict in Iraq. With a wider war that pulls in Saudi Arabia, plus private Syrian and Jordanian citizens on the Sunni side, will Israel continue to be the focus of (largely Sunni) Islamic anger? My thinking is the Islamofascists would all stream to Iraq to fight the Shiites and leave us alone.

Granted, massive turmoil in the Mideast will not be in the interests of America's elites (particularly oil companies) but I don't care about them. I just want AQ tied up for the foreseeable future--with the US standing on the sidelines. Recall the Bush mantra: better America fights them in Iraq than in Manhatten. I want to go them one better: better Iran fights them in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... Ever actually read Keynes? "Borrow-and-Spend" is his stated ultimate goal!

That's half right. Keynes had three recognized modes:

• BAD TIMES: Borrow + Tax => Spend
• NORMAL TIMES: Tax => Spend
• GOOD TIMES: Tax => Save + Spend

Tax and spend were pretty consistent. Borrow was tried. Save never was.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Tax and spend were pretty consistent. Borrow was tried. Save never was.

A fitting epitaph.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

HAR!

Ever actually read Keynes? "Borrow-and-Spend" is his stated ultimate goal!

Well, wrong. The goal is to stabalize as much as possible an inherently unstable system. Borrow, tax, spend and save are tools to be used to achieve the goal.

Once upon a time I was stumbled into an account of Hoover's plan for the Great Depression. It looked more or less like a conservative plan for getting a buisiness through tough times. A depression would not be a good time to take risks. One does not launch new endevours. One cuts spending, does not take out loans one might have difficulty repaying, and basiclly sits tight until more positive times come. This makes perfect sense from the perspective of a prudent manager of a company. This is where the paleocons might be coming from, with a policy of always balanced budgets, isolationism and small government.

But that is just wrong from a Keynesian perspective. One wants to make low risk capitol available and stimulate spending. Borrow and spend is right in down times.

But not always.

For Discussion only

The face of a madman
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/news2..._a_madman.html

By DOUG THOMPSON

One needed only to look into the angry, out-of-control face of George W. Bush during an interview broadcast on NBC Monday to realize the President of the United States is a madman.

Bush lost his cool with, of all people, Matt Lauer of NBC's Today Show. If Bush can't handle himself with a pabulum producing journalistic wannabe like Lauer, how in the hell can we expect him to protect this nation in times of crisis?

Veins bulged in Bush's face. Anger flashed through eyes that darted from side to side. This was not a man in control.

You normally find full transcripts of Bush's interviews on the White House web site but the transcript of this one, taped Friday, is conveniently missing. I'm sure someone in the West Wing sent down the order: "Don't put anything about the Lauer interview on the web site. Jesus Christ! The President comes off like a crazy man!"

Maybe Bush comes off like a "crazy man" because that's exactly what he is. He's a partial transcript courtesy of the Crooks and Liars web site:

Matt Lauer: And yet you admitted that there were these CIA secret facilities. OK?

President Bush: So what? Why is that not within the law?

Matt Lauer: The head of Amnesty International says secret sites are against international law.

President Bush: Well, we just disagree with him. Plus, my job is to protect you. And most American people, if I said [to them] that we had who we think is the mastermind of the 9/11, they would say, "Why don't you see if you can't get information without torturing him," which is what we did.

Matt Lauer: I don't want to let this "within the law issue" slip though. I mean, if, in fact, there was water boarding used with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and for the viewers, that's basically when you strap someone to a board and you make them feel as if they're going to drown by putting them underwater, if that was legal and within the law, why couldn't you do it at Guantanamo? Why did you have to go to a secret location around the world?

President Bush: I'm not going to talk about techniques. And, I'm not going explain to the enemy what we're doing. All I'm telling you is that you've asked me whether or not we're doing things to protect the American people, and I want the American people to know we are doing so.

Those of us who have watched Bush over the years already knew he was an arrogant SOB. We've also seen increasing evidence that questions his mental stability. Now, as he flits about the country trying, one more time, to sell his failed Iraq war and make political hay out of the 9/11 attacks, the nation gets more and more chances to look into the eyes of a madman.

Dr. Justin Frank, the prominent George Washington psychiatrist who wrote Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, has cast a professional eye on Dubya for years. He doesn't like what his clinical and analytical mind finds.

"With every passing week, President Bush marches deeper and deeper into a world of his own making," Dr. Frank says. "Bush, when cornered, is a dangerous fighter. He makes choices that are not good for the country. They are good for him and for rubbing our noses in his shit."

We saw some of that in the Matt Lauer interview. Bush got in Lauer's face, jamming his finger at the reporter, shaking with rage.

Dr. Frank long ago concluded that Bush is a paranoid megalomaniac, a despot out of touch with reality. He writes:


Psychoanalytic theory suggests that Bush's true enemy is an aspect of himself -- the overwhelming anxiety he works so hard to manage. For Bush, lying remains a central defense mechanism in managing his fears; he lies foremost to himself, altering his perception of external or internal reality to fulfill his psychic need to maintain order. His anxiety is so great that he cannot shift his thinking to account for new information.

In other words - a madman. Will somebody please call the guys in the white jackets to haul this lunatic off to the place with the padded rooms before he destroys us and the rest of the world?

© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue

Originally Posted by Odin

AQ is it originally was no longer exists, it has become more of an ideology an islamist group takes up (thanks to the the great propaganda tool that is the Iraq clusterf*ck) then much of an an actual organization.

Yes, I believe that this is true. In fact, it is actually unclear if AQ was ever, or intended to be, a structured organization. Although it may at times have coalesce as such for particular purposes (e.g. training, planning large-scale attacks), there are purposeful tenants of AQ strategies to keep itself amorphous. Structured organization is also tactically wrong in the 4th Gen. Warfare mode AQ employs (e.g. the London bombers network was uncovered essentially from their small, but what they must of thought necessary, communication linkages to the AQ hierarchy).

A little old, but still perhaps one of the best insights to AQ was given by Saad al-Faqih from MIRA -
http://www.jamestown.org/publication...&issue_id=2907

Al-Qaeda is a very interesting organization. They do not believe in the party structure, they see themselves as a college where people enroll, graduate and then go their separate ways. But they are encouraged to establish their own satellite networks which ultimately link in with al-Qaeda. This is why al-Qaeda is very resilient and can never be destroyed

This description is also now a little outdated because Iraq now provides "the college" for educating the movement's adherents. Further, the means of training have moved from set "classroom instruction" and even beyond what we would think of as field training to something akin to real battle-time "open source warfare" training. The best blog around for gaining a quick understanding of this and door to other 4GW aspects is here -
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

Here's a somewhat dated but still good and short article on it here -
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/robb_opensource_war.htm

My sense is that AQ has evolved to nearly the "ghost in the machine" with the machine being Islamism and the ghost being the extreme salafi jihadist movement. There still are tangible nodes than can be physically eliminated or mitigated, with the person, bin Laden, being premiere. But, bin Laden, the hero/martyr, is a different and mythic story and one that will continue to prove very difficult to counter.

AQ is an ideology, but one with a strategy and tactics. The strategy has been termed "Manufactured Heroism" whereby the Jihadist first helps foment not only chaos but savagery and barbarism, and then rides in to create security and calm through adherence to Sharia Law. The Taliban perhaps came closest to fulfilling this strategy and Hezbollah, even though Shia, has been praised by AQ for moving in that direction in Lebanon. Best public summary of summaries and links concerning the strategy is here --
http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com...vagery_18.html

AQ's tactics follow these general elements of 4GW -
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/...urth_gene.html
These tactics are the future, but there is no reason to think it will be aimed only at us. We are the "Far Enemy" that helps prop up, directly or indirectly (through securing the global economy), the "Near Enemies" which are ME nations that do not subscribe to Sharia Law as defined by AQ. At this juncture, AQ wants nothing more than to spread the area of Savagery as broadly across the ME as possible. Often, it seems we have done our best to help achieve that strategic objective for them.