It's so rare to get a positive story from the press about the war in Iraq, let alone a positive headline. So it's certainly worth noting when the MSM knocks out a headline like the one we got from the AP today : "Iraq residents rise up against al-Qaida."

The story starts:

BAGHDAD - A battle raged Thursday in west Baghdad after residents rose up against al-Qaida and called for U.S. military help to end random gunfire that forced people to huddle indoors and threats that kept students from final exams, a member of the district council said.

Reporter Sinan Salaheddin also notes that, according to the district councilman, "the al-Qaida leader in the Amariyah district, known as Haji Hameed, was killed and 45 other fighters were detained," in a battle with Coalition forces.

And finally, my favorite part of the story: "Members of al-Qaida, who consider the district part of their so-called Islamic State of Iraq were preventing students from attending final exams, shooting randomly and forcing residents to stay in their homes, the councilman said."

How rare is it that the enemy gets hit with the phrase "so-called"--I thought the only thing in this war that was "so-called" was the surge.

The Awakening movement, which was started in Anbar province by local tribes and Sunni insurgents that opposed al Qaeda's attempts to Talibanize Iraqi society, has now spread to all of the provinces bordering Baghdad. Over the past month, Awakening movements formed in Diyala and Salahadin, and, this week, the Babil Awakening was formed. Al Qaeda in Iraq immediately targeted the leader of the Babil Awakening, Sheikh Obeid Al-Masoud, seriously wounding him and his wife in the city of Iskandaria. Al Qaeda is working to destroy the nascent Awakening movements in the provinces, where they provide a political and ideological alternative to al Qaeda's Islamic State.

In Baghdad yesterday, Coalition and Iraqi raids were largely focused on the Mahdi Army. Also, Iraqi Special Operations Forces captured a Mahdi Army commander in the Kadamiyah district in central Baghdad yesterday. The Mahdi commander "is alleged to be responsible for providing financial, logistical, and political support for multiple insurgent groups and terrorist organizations" and is also "suspected of overseeing the training of insurgent recruits on terrorist methods including the construction and detonation of Improvised Explosive Devices and Explosively Formed Projectiles."

Two more Mahdi operatives were captured in Sadr City today. "They are believed to be members of the secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training," according to the Multinational Forces Iraq press release. Seventeen members of this network have been killed and 41 captured during numerous raids over the past three weeks.

Also, during a raid in Khanaqin, Coalition forces captured a "liaison to al-Qaeda in Iraq senior leaders, who assists in the movement of information and documents from al-Qaeda in Iraq leadership in Baghdad to al-Qaeda senior leaders in Iran." Al Qaeda leaders such as Saif al Adel and Said bin Laden, Osama's son, are being sheltered in Iran along with an estimated 100 al Qaeda senior operatives.

Al Qaeda has recently stepped up attacks in the city of Fallujah in the eastern region of Anbar province. A suicide bomber detonated his vest amidst a line of police recruits, and reports indicate that up to 25 recruits and police were killed and another 50 wounded. Yesterday, mortar attacks directed at a court house and civilian neighborhoods in the city killed nine people. And on May 24, a suicide bomber struck a funeral procession. These attacks should be seen as part of al Qaeda's efforts to stop the spread of the Anbar Salvation Council in eastern Anbar province.

While al Qaeda was attacking the residents of Fallujah, in western Baghdad fighting broke out between the 1920 Revolution Brigades and the Islamic Army in Iraq on one side, and al Qaeda in Iraq on the other. Other reports indicate the U.S. joine din the fight against al Qaeda. "The al-Qaida leader in the Amariyah district, known as Haji Hameed, was killed and 45 other fighters were detained," in a battle with Coalition forces, noted the Associated Press. A significant portion of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, in addition to elements of the Islamic Army in Iraq, have turned on AQI in Anbar and other provinces. The two insurgent groups have given substantial support to the Awakening movements spreading throughout Iraq. Many Sunni insurgent groups have opposed al Qaeda's attempts to usurp command of the insurgency, and they have no interest in the establishment of an Islamic State that will be used as a springboard from which to attack neighboring states or foreign governments.

We've written on the case of John Murtha's clandestine pork-barrel projects before. Now CNN is taking a closer look at the project in Murtha's district--the National Drug Intelligence Center--that was recently funded by the House Intelligence Committee in violation of House rules.

Lest there be any doubt about the value of the NDIC , CNN uncovered a GAO report from 1993 that found the Center's work was already being done by 19 other federal agencies. The report says that "law enforcement officials... have questioned the NDIC's management structure while some are unclear on its mission." OMB requested that the agency be shut down in 2005, but Murtha has kept the Center open through Congressional earmarks.

One would think that even though House Democrats have canceled the war on terror, the intelligence committee might still find better ways to spend our tax dollars.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense held another in its series of blogger roundtables this morning with featured guests Major General Kurt Cichowski, deputy chief of staff for strategy, plans, and assessment Multinational Force Iraq and Brigadier General Neil Baverstock, Cichowski's deputy.

Both generals are serving in the Kurdistan region and Cichowski opened with a statement about yesterday's transfer of security responsibility for the three northern provinces to the Kurdish regional government. The Turkish Daily News quotes one peshmerga colonel who attended the ceremony:

"It's a sort of independence," Colonel Shadman Ali of the peshmerga, the Kurdish security force, told AFP. "We are very glad and proud and have been waiting for this day for so long. It gives us a great source of hope."

The Turks fear an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq, and the sense that this transfer might have been another step in that direction is reason to worry that an already tense situation on Iraq's northern border may deteriorate further. Predictably, most of the questions put to the two generals concerned relations with the Turks and their perception of the handover.

The first question came from RedState's Streif. He asked if the security forces in Kurdistan are comprised mainly of the Kurdish peshmerga or if they are drawn from throughout Iraq. Cichowski explained that there are parts of at least three Iraqi Army divisions operating in the north--the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th divisions. The even number divisions, the 2nd and 4th, were built from national guard forces, so those divisions are largely Kurdish. The 3rd is more of a mix. Also, Cichowski says that the Iraqi constitution allows for a "regional guard," and, in the north, this guard is made up of the "leftovers of what we call the CPA 91 militia, which in this particular case is the peshmerga, or what is left of the peshmerga. But they are now the regional guards, both the PDK and KUP have formed together into one, and they are now the Kurdish Regional Guards." Asked which division controls the area around Kirkuk, Cichowski responded "Kirkuk is not in the Kurdish region."

The Danger Room's David Axe was up next, and he's already posted his thoughts on the call under the title "Lies My Leaders Told Me," so you can imagine he wasn't very pleased with the answers he got. Axe asked if it wasn't a "dicey" time for a handoff given the tense situation on the northern border, and, to be fair, Axe's concerns were not taken very seriously by the general, who seemed to think that there wasn't much to worry about vis-à-vis the Turks:

"I was sitting next to the Prime Minister of the Kurdish region [Nechervan] Barzani when a representative of the media from Turkey came up. They were obviously friends, each one of them asked the other about their fathers and exchanged pleasantries...The representative of the media told the prime minister he was going to go back to Turkey today to meet with the Turkish prime minister and let him know that everything he saw indicated that he was very impressed with the ceremony and there was nothing to be concerned about."

Beaverstock also jumped in to say that "what we're discussing actually is, in fact, business for the government of Turkey and the government of Iraq...the government of Iraq is actually a sovereign nation and its external relations with its neighbors are its business and therefore it's for them to decide how they're going to deal with and respond to any overtures by the Turkish government." The problem, though, is that overture may come in the form of a military incursion.

Andrew Lubin, from On Point, said that he'd heard the Kurds were shutting down the borders and not allowing Shiia Arabs, and to a lesser extent Sunni Arabs, to come into the region for fear that they would further destabilize the area. The generals said that if that was happening, they'd not heard about it. But the bloggers seemed pretty confident that such action was, in fact, taking place.

I asked if there was any military to military contact between U.S. forces in Kurdistan and the Turkish forces on the other side of the border. Cichowski said there is a Turkish military liaison "who eats and sleeps over at Camp Victory and is a member of the Coalition operations cell."

And Blackfive's Grim asked if there would be any change in force levels in Kurdistan due to the handoff. Cichowski said there wouldn't be, just a change in status. Now American forces will have to coordinate with the regional authorities before conducting any operations.

All in all, it seems that the generals don't seem very worried about the prospect of a Turkish intervention in Iraqi Kurdistan, and neither does the American press for that matter. Perhaps that should tell us something about the likelihood of such an event. But, the AP reports today that "Turkey's military, building up troops on the Iraqi border, said Thursday it was ready to launch a cross-border offensive to fight Kurdish guerrillas--pressuring the government to support the idea which could strain ties with Washington and lead to tensions with Iraqi Kurds." Not a good sign.

From the Los Angeles Times: The Lessons of Vietnam, by Henry Kissinger.

From the Los Angeles Times: Fire the Incompetents, Find the Pattons, by Max Boot.

From Der Spiegel: Lack of Women in Eastern Germany Feeds Neo-Nazis, by staff.

From the Danger Room: Welcome to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, by Sharon Weinberger.

From Contentions: Iran's Enabler, by Gordon G. Chang.

The formation of the regional Awakening movements--the groupings of anti-al Qaeda tribes, community leaders, and insurgent groups--threatens to stymie al Qaeda in the largely Sunni regions of Iraq. Al Qaeda has targeted the leaders of the Awakening movements in Anbar, Diyala and Salahadin provinces, and has now taken a shot at the newly minted Awakening movement in Babil province.

Military and intelligence sources have informed us that the formation of the Babil Awakening is underway, however there was little information to confirm this via open source. Omar Fadhil, one of the two authors of Iraq the Model, informed me today that he has seen reporting on the formation of a Babil Awakening in the local Iraqi press. Also, the Kuwaiti News Agency provided confirmation today when it reported an assassination attempt on Sheikh Obeid Al-Masoudi, the chief of the Al-Masoudi clan in the city of the Iskandaria. "Unknown gunmen" stormed Al-Masoudi's home, and "targeted him and his wife with volleys of automatic gunfire." He and his wife are reported to be in critical condition.

"Sheikh Al-Masoudi has recently established an alliance with several tribes in Babel Governate, south of Baghdad, reminiscent to the pro-government tribal alliance in the province of Al-Anbar, west of the Iraqi capital," KUNA reported. "He, along with other tribal chiefs, signed an accord prohibiting spilling of Iraqi blood, rejecting any breach of person's honor and barring aid to insurgents. They have also prohibited attacks on religious sites and supported the government's national [reconciliation] process."

Today's attack on the leader of the Babil Awakening follows an assassination attempt on Sheikh Hamad al-Hasan, the leader of the Salahadin Salvation Council, on Tuesday. Four of his family members were killed in the attack.

Awakening movements have now been effectively established in the four provinces surrounding Baghdad. The Government of Iraq is funding the military arm of the movements, and incorporating the local tribal forces into provincial police forces. This movement is an integral part of the attempt to secure Baghdad and the outlying belts, where al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents have established networks from which they launch deadly suicide attacks inside the capital. The movements in Babil, Diyala, and Salahadin are still in their infancy, and the Iraqi government and Multinational Forces Iraq must take care to protect their leaders and support their efforts in the military, political, economic, and reconstruction spheres.

Interested in finding out who's acting as a paid representative of a foreign government here in the United States? Want to know how many people are lobbying for the United Kingdom, or Mexico, or Iran? You'll want to consult the new online portal for the Foreign Agents Registration Act, just posted by the Department of Justice:

Initial searches of the database show it does link to substantial documents, such as contracts between lobbyists and foreign governments as well as advocates’ reports listing contacts between them and policymakers.

The records are compiled under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Passed in 1938 to register propaganda by German Nazi agents before World War II, the act now keeps track of lobbying and public relations efforts by foreign governments and politicians.

Users are invited to offer feedback at the website. Once it is complete, Boyd expects DoJ will put out a press release to announce the new feature.

The interface for the library is pretty user-friendly, allowing you to search by country, by lobbyist, by status of the contract (active or terminated) as well as other criteria. For those interested in how foreign governments navigate the American political system, the database is quite useful.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebar, yesterday's kidnapping of five Britons, one adviser, and four security guards from the Finance Ministry is believed to have been carried out by elements of the Mahdi Army. Reports suggest the raid was carried out by Mahdi fighters who infiltrated the police and the ministry's security forces. "The number of people who were involved in the operation to seal off the building, to set roadblocks and to get into the building with such confidence must have some connections," said Mr. Zebari. The ministry is located near Sadr City, the Baghdad stronghold of Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Neighborhoods of Sadr City have been cordoned, and at least two raids have been carried out.

Coalition forces captured "five suspected terrorists and one suspected cell leader" in a raid in Sadr City today. It is unclear if this is one of the two raids directed at Mahdi Army fighters involved in the kidnapping of the five Brits. "The individuals detained during the raid are believed to be members of the secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training," Multinational Forces Iraq reported today. This is the fourth such raid in Sadr City since Friday. Seventeen members of this network have been killed and 38 captured during numerous raids over the past three weeks.

In Salahadin province, al Qaeda murdered four family members of the leader of the Salahadin Salvation Council. "Four relatives of the head of the Salahadin Salvation Council, Sheikh Hamad al-Hasan, were killed when unidentified gunmen attacked their house in al-Hajjaj village, in southern Bayji," Voices of Iraq reported. "The gunmen killed the council head's four nephews, then set the bodies and house on fire," according to an unnamed source. The council was formed less than two weeks ago to counter al Qaeda in that province.

The U.S. military has confirmed that the attack helicopter lost in Diyala province on Monday was shot down. A military spokesman claimed the helicopter was brought down by small arms fire. Al Qaeda in Iraq took credit for the attack. "God enabled the soldiers of the Islamic State in Iraq to down a Super Cobra aircraft ... in Diyala and kill the two Crusader pilots aboard," Al Qaeda's proxy political organization said in an internet posting. Al Qaeda in Iraq has established anti-aircraft cells in an attempt to disrupt U.S. air operations, but U.S. forces have been largely successful in dismantling those cells.

In Baqubah, the local government there formed an "operations room" in conjunction with national authorities and which "includes the province's government, municipal council and security services." This is much like the Joint Coordination Center in Fallujah, which serves to coordinate Iraqi and Coalition security forces with the local government there. Over 100 tribes are said to be assisting in security operations in Baqubah and the surrounding regions, according to Al Sabaah. These tribes are very likely part of the Diyala Awakening.

Coalition forces captured 23 members of al Qaeda's network during raids in Baghdad, Mosul, Sadr City, and Anbar and Salahadin provinces. Iraqi soldiers captured 15 insurgents during three days of operations in central Iraq, from May 26-28. On May 29, Iraqi Special Forces captured a cell leader "accused of commanding a kidnapping and assassination cell that has been conducting extra judicial killings in the Baghdad area." In Hit, Coalition forces detained "the district police chief, Hamid Ibrahim Jazaa, along with his brother and 14 bodyguards" for "murder, corruption and crimes against the Iraqi people."

Senator Lieberman was in Iraq today touring a Joint Security Station, a Forward Operating Base, and a Baghdad market. While he was there, he told a CNN reporter:

I'd say what I see here today is progress--significant progress from the last time I was here in December. When you can see progress in war, that means you're heading in the right direction.

You can see the video here, and you can see the left go into convulsions here. Apparently, like McCain, his "rosy assessment" is belied by the fact that he is wearing "full battle gear." Also, there's the painful reality that this past month was among the bloodiest for American troops since the start of the war. But, any reasonable person should recognize the fact that an increase in American casualties does not necessarily correspond to a lack of progress on the ground. In this case, casualties are rising as more troops hit the streets and as they deploy forward to areas that had once been no-go, and which are now playing host to Joint Security Stations and the like.

Just look at Anbar province, which saw only 15 U.S. servicemen killed in May, one of the lowest casualty counts in that province since the start of the war. In December of 2006, 47 servicemen were killed in the province. Anbar has become one of the big Coalition success stories. So is Lieberman really going out on a limb to say that we're making progress now and things are better than they were in December?

From Commentary: The Case for Bombing Iran, by Norman Podhoretz.

From THE DAILY STANDARD: Testing the Waters, by Stephen F. Hayes.

From the American Thinker: Venezuelan Revolt, by A.M. Mora y Leon.

From Contentions: Secretary Slaughter? by Gabriel Schoenfeld.

From the Fourth Rail: A look at the surge from Baghdad, by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross.

Bonus Audio File: Military.com podcast featuring Bill Roggio and Ward Carroll.

The Democrats promised reform when they took back Congress, but those promises continue to unravel. Though they came to power promising to take the mystery out of earmarking, and require full disclosure, Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey recently said that earmarks will only be inserted in legislation at the last minute--immediately before final passage:

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Tuesday he would not include earmarks in appropriations bills until they reach conference, angering some of his Republican counterparts and prompting accusations that Democrats were going against their pledge to reform and bring transparency to the earmarking process...

Any such earmarks dropped into the conference report will comply with House disclosure rules, Obey promised.

“If we choose to insert earmarks in conference, it will be under the rules that require every one to be inserted by name,” he said.

But Republicans complain that Obey’s decision effectively bars Members from attempting to strike individual earmarks on the House floor, and they fear Democrats could use the threat of losing earmarks as a club over Republicans.

Under the rules adopted by House Democrats at the start of the Congress, pork-barrel projects inserted into conference reports are subject to the same disclosure requirements as earmarks in other legislation. However, conference reports are pretty much never amended on the House floor, removing the ability to strip egregious wastes of taxpayer money. Furthermore, conference reports are typically voted on mere hours after they are agreed to; there's rarely enough time to read the report--even if you can get your hands on it.

It's also hard to take Chairman Obey's promises on disclosure seriously, since he asserted the right a few months ago to insert a whole class of earmarks without any disclosure at all. The underpinning for the argument seems to be that when a committee chair introduces a bill with earmarks, he isn't really a person bound by disclosure rules--he's more of an institution.

The backtracking on earmarks hasn't gone entirely unnoticed; CNN recently produced this piece on the failure of Congressional Democrats to clean up the institution as promised. Obey and his counterpart in the Senate--Robert Byrd--feature prominently:

The more things change...

The Council on Foreign Relations posted an interesting interview with the Carnegie Endowment's Karim Sadjadpour, who seems to have a good understanding of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Much of what he says conforms nicely with a piece we recently ran on THE DAILY STANDARD by AEI's Omeed Jafari.

Sadjadpour explains "that there’s a small but very powerful clique within Iran, among the political elite, who actually have entrenched political and financial interests in retaining Iran’s isolation." Asked to elaborate, he says:

You have hardline elements within the Revolutionary Guard, who right now have enormous financial assets, and they maintain a kind of a private mafia. And the last thing they want is Iran to open up to the rest of the world, to join the WTO. I think their logic is that right now Iran is a closed society, and the less open the merrier.

Jafari's piece was the first I'd heard of what I think is really an interesting story. Basically, as foreign companies leave Iran due to the high risks associated with doing business there--the likelihood of further sanctions or even war--the Guard has moved in to fill the void, winning billions of dollars in no-bid contracts. This has given the Guard and its allies even less incentive to work towards some kind of diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff, or to stop meddling in Iraq. Anyway, read the interview, and the Jafari piece. As I said, interesting stuff.

Go over and read how Ed Morrissey's innocent question to Sen. John McCain in a media conference call led to a significant new hurdle for the Senate immigration bill. This is the end result:

House conservatives are ready to stop the Senate immigration bill in its tracks with a potent procedural weapon should the contentious measure win passage in the upper chamber.

The trump card conservatives may hold is a constitutional rule that revenue-related bills must originate in the House. The Senate immigration measure requires that illegal immigrants pay back taxes before becoming citizens, opening the door to a House protest, dubbed a 'blue slip' for the color of its paper.

This has happened before. In fact, it happened less than a year ago, with the same piece of legislation. The Senate included a provision in its version of the immigration bill to require the repayment of back taxes. This led the House to 'Blue Slip' the measure, forcing the Senate leadership to find a procedural work-around.

The Senate is not entirely without moves of its own that it can make. The House has passed a few tax bills this year that the Senate might 'amend' by adding the immigration bill. This would create a significantly broader piece of legislation--but it would technically satisfy the Congressional stipulation that revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives.

Alternately, leaders from the House and Senate might strike a bargain in advance, and have the Senate strip the tax provisions before sending the measure to the House--with the understanding that the House would add them back in later.

Lastly, Don Wolfensberger--a former Staff Director for the House Rules Committee and a procedural whiz--wrote last year ($) that the House can vote to ignore the violation--more or less:

If the Senate, either intentionally or inadvertently, originates a revenue-raising bill, any Member of the House has the option of calling up a 'blue-slip resolution' (named after the color of paper it is printed on after passage) to send the measure back to the Senate. The resolution gets immediate consideration as a matter of constitutional privilege, is debatable for an hour and is not subject to amendment (though it may be tabled or referred to committee).

If the political will exists, there are several ways for the Senate to eliminate this problem and expedite passage of the measure. However, for legislation that's none too popular already, this is a problem its proponents ought to have tried harder to avoid.

InsideDefense.com reports today on the "first combat firing of a 155 mm precision artillery shell in Iraq." The shell, the XM982 Excalibur, was fired at an al Qaeda safe house earlier this month:

Standing on a rooftop some 700 meters from the safehouse with his fire support team, Clausen [commander of the 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment] said he witnessed two consecutive rounds penetrate the target: “Never in my wildest imagination as a field artilleryman did I expect to see two consecutive rounds go through a roof into a house and have the effects that we needed to destroy that particular target.”

It all sounds very impressive--Clausen adds, "We’re looking to improve efficiency in everything we do. Precision means you need fewer rounds, and fewer man hours in moving large numbers of rounds...That’s how you cut the logistics tail.”

Precision guided artillery has a short history. The Army developed a laser guided 155mm projectile called Copperhead in the 1980s, and the round was used in combat in the first Gulf War. But the Copperhead was expensive, and laser targeting requires a high cloud deck and a soldier on the ground to illuminate the target--it wasn't ideal and the program was killed. But Excalibur may finally give the Army the guided munition it's been looking for.

Still, not everyone's convinced. This morning I spoke with Stuart Koehl, a military analyst at Johns Hopkins University's Center for Transatlantic Relations, who called the strike "a stunt, because they didn't have to use an artillery round, they could have used an airplane--it would have been a lot cheaper." I also spoke with WEEKLY STANDARD contributor Tom Donnelly, who said that, "without being dismissive, I would kind of agree....We're hardly suffering from a want of firepower in Iraq." But Globalsecurity.org's John Pike took the opposite view--"JDAM [the GPS guided Joint Direct Attack Munition] is widely regarded as having revolutionized aerial warfare, and things like Excalibur, I think, have the potential to do that with artillery."

Koehl says the question is whether "the increased lethality [is] worth the increased cost as compared to conventional artillery rounds, [particularly] when one takes 'non-lethal' effects such as suppression and disruption into account." Which is to say, "I didn't have to hit a tank or an APC with a $50,000 golden BB round, because firing a couple of dozen [high explosive] or DPICM rounds could have the same effect at something like $200 [per round]."

Of course, American troops aren't targeting tanks, they're targeting insurgents in urban areas, where firing a couple dozen rounds would mean a lot of collateral damge. Still, Koehl says, "in counterinsurgency this kind of thing is mainly irrelevant. If I really need the long-range indirect fires, I've got total air supremacy, I've got all-weather capability, I really don't need an artillery round when I could drop it from an airplane. It just makes a lot more sense to have something right there on the scene shooting from a much shorter range...a JDAM dropped from overhead is going to go right down the pipe, no matter what." Pike disagreed though, saying that "if all I want to do is blow up one building, JDAM's just too much of a good thing."

Koehl says the Army ought to be focused instead on developing a precision mortar capability. The war in Iraq is being waged by small infantry units in urban areas and in close combat. Precision mortars would give much needed firepower and flexibility to those units--"a 5-pound mortar bomb on the roof does the trick, and with a lot less collateral damage than even a 100-pound GPS-guided projectile." Pike was also eager to see mortars upgraded with a precision capability: "Having [precision guided] mortars in direct support of a small unit, you can't get any better than that, because that's organic fire support. The time on target is short relative to field artillery, you don't have the elaborate fire support planning that goes into tube artillery, and you have a face-to-face relationship between the mortar team and the other people who are in the fight. So by all means...let us put GPS guidance on our mortar rounds as well."

While some foreign militaries, including the Brits and the Swedes, have developed precision mortars, the U.S. Army has no such capability. "We've been trying to make a precision guided mortar munition since I was working at Picatinny [New Jersey's Picatinny Arsenal, also the site of the Excalibur program office], and that was the late 1980s," Koehl says. "They just can't get their act together because it's not important to them...it's nothing but a stovepipe with a nail on the bottom."

But Koehl isn't totally dismissive of Excalibur. He says that "if we were going to fight the Chinese someplace, or if we were going to have a conventional war with the Koreans, Excalibur would be a nice thing to have--not essential--but a nice thing to have. On the other hand, a guided mortar projectile, or just a wider range of mortar projectiles, is something that we could use right now." Donnelly, however, thought that "a guided mortar wasn't going to add all that much one way or another, but I'd sort of like to have it all...and I'd rather have more infantry than either." And when I asked Pike if Excalibur had an important role to play in conventional or counterinsurgency operations, his answer: "We're going to find out."

You can read more about Excalibur here, and you can read the fact sheet from Raytheon here.

The New York Times reports on the problems that Democrats are having in convincing their base that they're not responsible for the continuation of the Iraq war--that it's the president and Congressional Republicans who are at fault:

No one would mistake Peter A. DeFazio for a supporter of the Iraq War. One of the House’s most liberal members, the Oregon Democrat voted against authorizing the war in 2002, and this year he’s been a reliable vote for measures to withdraw U.S. troops. When Democratic leaders agreed last week to give President Bush a war funding bill without withdrawal timetables, DeFazio was an instant “no” vote.

But even DeFazio hasn’t been immune to complaints from the party’s liberal base. Last week, on the morning after the funding deal was announced, he vented his frustration in a telephone call to the Air America radio station in Portland. Anyone upset that Congress hasn’t ended the war, he said, should focus on persuading more House members to support a withdrawal of troops — not “waste their time” on the 169 Democrats and two Republicans who voted for a withdrawal earlier this month.

DeFazio has a point--the Iraq appropriations bill that the president will sign could not have passed without strong Republican support. But after months of promising that the Congress wouldn't give the president any more 'blank checks' on Iraq, the speaker has led her party to do just that. Of course, that's not how she sees it:

The funding bill's passage "was the start of a whole new direction in Iraq," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "I think that the president's policy is going to begin to unravel now."

If this were the case, you have to wonder why it took so long to get started on this 'new direction.'

Liberal anti-war groups don't seem to be buying the argument, either:

And MoveOn organizers said Democrats also are likely to see skirmishes in their districts.

"This is not partisan anymore. This is not about staying away from Democrats to make them look good or attacking all Republicans to make them look bad," said Susan Shaer, cochairwoman of the Win Without War coalition. "We don't care who you are or whether we usually like you. This vote was wrong."

Some Democrats have even claimed that they never had power to cut off funds in the first place--that the president has 'Food and Forage' authority to continue the Iraq operation even in the face of a Congressional withdrawal of funding. (Imagine what would have happened if the president or vice president had suggested the existence of such authority!)

It's true that the support of Congressional Republicans was necessary to pass the bill, but it's equally true that Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid had it in their power to deny funds for the war. They could have refused to bring up funding legislation--and they should have if they really believed that Iraq is not worth 'one more drop' of American blood. There was never any compulsion to fund the troops--only a reasonable fear that the voters might punish Democrats for not doing so.

Whatever faults this administration may have, fear of doing what they believe to be right in Iraq--regardless of the political consequences--is not one of them. The only reason the president won this showdown is because Democrats do have that fear.

In Baghdad, after a brief lull in major attacks, today saw two high profile bombings as well as a kidnapping of foreign workers in the capital. One bombing occurred at a Shia mosque in the Amil neighborhood in the western Rashid district. A suicide car bomber killed ten Iraqis and wounded at least 35 more in the attack. The second bombing occurred in a largely Shia neighborhood in central Baghdad. "At least 22 people were killed and 55 wounded when a parked minibus exploded in central Baghdad," Al Jazeera reported. "The bomb went off in a busy commercial area where many day labourers, mostly Shias, often wait for work."

IraqSlogger notes that there are conflicting accounts of the kidnapping in Baghdad. Early reports indicated a small number of German advisers to the Ministry of Higher Education were abducted by several dozen men dressed in Iraqi Police uniforms. Now, it appears that "five Brits had been abducted, including four bodyguards and a finance expert," but reports of several Germans captured persist.

Today's attacks occur as Iraqi and Coalition forces continue clearing operations in the Baghdad districts. U.S. and Iraqi security forces recently started clearing operations in the East Rashid district (note that today's suicide attack occurred in West Rashid.) Also, clearing operations were conducted in the northern section of the Adhamiyah District on May 26. The newly formed and yet to reported on 3rd “War Eagle” Battalion,1st Brigade of the 11th Iraqi Army Division participated in the operation. Nine insurgents were detained.

On Monday, Task Force 145 captured nine al Qaeda during raids in Mosul and Haditha. The Haditha raid netted "a Syrian suspected of facilitating foreign fighters and his Iraqi liaison." Today, Coalition forces captured 14 al Qaeda during raids in Baghdad, Mosul, Fallujah, and Taji. The Baghdad raid resulted in the capture of the "al-Qaeda in Iraq emir in charge of the Hay al-Jamah area of the city," while the Mosul raid resulted in the detention of the former "emir of Ansar al-Sunna in Mosul," who had fled to Syria in 2005. The Iraqi Police also captured nine al Qaeda suspects in Samarra after a tip from an anonymous informant.

From THE WEEKLY STANDARD: The Army We Need, by Tom Donnelly.

From the Wall Street Journal: The Conservative Mind, by Peter Berkowitz.

From Asia Times: Why Iran will fight, not compromise, by Spengler.

From the New York Post: Messing Up the Mullahs, by Peter Brookes.

From the New York Sun: Welcome Back, Netanyahu, by Hillel Halkin.

Roll Call ($) reports today that with the bitter and draining fight over Iraq funding now behind them, Congressional Democrats intend to focus on domestic issues for no more than a few weeks before returning to Iraq once again:

Democrats, meanwhile, will spend the bulk of the week on gas prices and broader energy issues as a lead-in to their domestic agenda work. According to Democratic aides, Reid has placed a top priority on talking about domestic issues over the next several weeks to take advantage of the lull in the Iraq debate.

One leadership aide said Reid hopes to use the recess to lay the groundwork for several weeks of floor work on the domestic front, starting the resumption of the immigration fight next week, followed by a full week on energy legislation. “I’d like to have a solid week to work on energy to demonstrate to voters that we get it” and are working on issues beyond the war, the aide said.

However, the spate of domestic agenda work may not last very long. Reid already has penciled in debate on the Defense authorization bill for the last week of June, and his war room is expected to use the week before to resume the rhetorical fight with the White House and Senate Republicans on the need to end the Iraq War. Although Reid has yet to settle on a strategy for the authorization fight, he is expected to continue Democrats’ push to pass legislation restricting President Bush’s ability to prosecute the Iraq War and begin the process of reducing the U.S. military presence there.

With health care, the economy, immigration, energy, and other issues all rated as very important to voters, it's important for Democrats to be seen as offering answers on something other than the war in Iraq. The minimum wage increase that is about to be enacted has attracted virtually no attention; which is appropriate, given how trivial an issue it is. Because their proposals to address energy and gas prices include nothing to encourage supply, but instead revolve around tax increases and gimmicks, Congress is unlikely to produce anything substantive on energy--or other priorities--anytime soon. Reid and Pelosi would do well to produce some actual legislation before returning to Iraq.

Last Friday, the Pentagon released its "Annual Report to Congress, Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2007."

The English-language media have widely reported how a Sunday editorial in People's Daily by staff writer Xi Laiwang blasted the Pentagon report as "exaggerating, misleading, and one-sidedly playing up the 'China threat.'"

The Sunday editorial is actually a rehash of a dispatch published in the Chinese-language edition of People’s Daily on Saturday with the byline "Xi Laiwang, correspondent to the United Nations." The original article ran under the title "Is there no exaggeration in the 'Report on Chinese Military Power'?"

In it, Xi notes that at a DOD press conference on May 24th (the day before the release of the annual report) Secretary Gates "made a point of reporting happily" that the report on Chinese military power does not contain any "arm-waving" or "exaggeration of the threat."

Xi continues:

But after a careful reading of the 50-page "report," people will have no difficulty discerning that it is not dissimilar from previous annual "reports." It makes the same reckless criticisms of China’s security strategy, strategic military thinking, and military capability…One might say that the "report" greatly exaggerates the "Chinese military threat."

Xi further claims that the Pentagon report characterizes China as a "hostile country with a Cold War style."

Also worth noting is that on the same day that the Pentagon released its report, Xinhua re-published a commentary by Chinese Air Force colonel Dai Xu that had originally appeared in zhongguo guofang bao, a newspaper run by the PLA.

Titled “Chinese colonel: the only way to avoid a new military generation gap is for the PLA to spur into action to catch up,” Dai describes military modernization as a "life-and-death race that concerns national development and national destiny."

Dai argues that China cannot afford to lag behind in the "global military transformation," which, he says, "has entered its final stage of qualitative changes." He defines the "global military transformation" as "a World War carried out during a time of peace without the smoke of gunpowder."

Dai quotes Li Hongzhang, the Qing dynasty official who represented China in several humiliating diplomatic negotiations, as having observed that "foreigners take heed of power, not reason." Dai asks, "What does the word 'power' refer to? It refers to military power. To be powerful means to have reason on your side; to possess real strength means to have dignity."

That these nationalistic sentiments are shared by many of China’s netizens is suggested by the hundreds of angry postings on Chinese Internet bulletin boards, like this one found at the popular Web portal sina.com:

Revitalize China for the good of our nation.
Bolster our defense capability.
May the day soon dawn when we are truly feared by our enemies.

Fox News Sunday and This Week both took a long look at second tier Republican candidates claiming to be the only choice for real conservatives this primary season. Mike Huckabee, taking a break from celebrating his wedding anniversary, talked to Chris Wallace about his plan to eliminate the IRS, a tactic sure to endear him to conservatives from coast to coast:

Here’s how the fair tax works: You get rid of income tax, you get rid of all of withholding, you get rid of corporate taxes completely, totally, because those taxes are not really paid by the corporations, they’re passed onto the customer. With a 22 percent embedded tax in the system, you eliminate that, which means that the prices of what you purchase will go down. You replace it with a 23 percent consumption tax. Now, that sounds expensive, but here’s what happens. You only pay when you purchase something new. Whether it’s a product or it’s a service. The point is it’s a completely transparent tax system, it doesn’t increase taxes, it’s revenue neutral, but here’s what it will do: it will bring business back to the United States that’s leaving our shores because our tax laws make it impossible for an American based business to compete.

Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, meanwhile, tried to cement his status as a Washington outsider in this exchange with George Stephanopoulos about the immigration compromise.

Let me tell you what conservatives are concerned about: conservatives are concerned that all the discussion, including on this show, was more of a technical, insider type of fix of the situation and not a real discussion of principle. And the real principle here is that we can’t have a sovereign state that doesn’t control its own borders. We simply have to put that first and make sure that we control our borders so that we can control the situation. Otherwise you’re going to do some kind of compromise or insider sort of deal, here in Washington, D.C.

On the Democratic side of the ledger, Bill Richardson staked out a position to the left of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with regard to Iraq during his appearance on Meet the Press.

Tim, I know this region well. I was U.N. ambassador. Eighty percent of my time was spent on the Iraq issue. I faced down Saddam Hussein, brought back two American hostages. I know the region well. I know the leaders there. I regret not having pushed more diplomatically early on with President Bush. I do regret that. But look where we are now. There's a civil war, there's sectarian conflict. Right now I believe we must withdraw all our troops by the end of this calendar year with no residual forces because our troops today are a target.

This Memorial Day weekend, while most folks are heading to the beach, Operation Gratitude will be kicking off one of its biggest events of the year, what the group's founder, Carolyn Blashek, calls their "Patriotic Drive." The drive will have the group packing boxes starting this weekend and running non-stop until July 1--boxes that will be shipped to American servicemen in Iraq throughout the summer.

I spoke with Blashek this morning, and she told me they hope to send at least 50,000 packages to the troops this summer, and then another 50,000 during their holiday drive, which kicks off on Veteran's Day. She tells me that their last holiday drive "was by far their biggest," with over 58,000 boxes shipped. They'll have "hundreds and hundreds" of volunteers packing boxes every weekend for the next four weeks in an effort to break that record.

Blashek says the packages include non-perishable food items that the troops can take with them when they go out on patrol--beef jerky, gum, candy, etc. They also include a variety of personal care items--sunscreen, foot powder, lip balm. And finally, entertainment items--CDs, DVDs, flash drives, decks of cards, and what Blashek says is the most popular item: Beanie Babies. If you're wondering why American troops would be clamoring for Beanie Babies, here's a letter the group got from a Marine stationed in Iraq:

I am one of the many Marines that you sent a care package. I want to thank each and every one of you for supporting us and for letting us know how much people support us back at home. I live with 17 Marines and Sailors in one room. Everyone got a package and everyone loved it especially the cookies and beanie babies. The cookies are excellent and the beanie babies help us out a lot with the local kids. We give them candy and toys and they give us the location for IED's. Once again, thank you for everything and for all the hard work that you put into the package. LCPL ND

Blashek says that after receiving that letter, they've made sure to include the toy in every box they ship.

So, the bottom line: All the products they ship are donated by major corporations and individuals from around the country, BUT the postage on each box is $9.15, and Blashek says "there's nothing we can do about it, except pay it." She says the group's overhead only adds about 50 cents to the cost of each package, but that the value of each package is somewhere between $100 and $120. She needs $1.2 million just to cover the group's postage, and they've still got a ways to go.

If you have a friend or family member serving in Iraq, you can head to the website and request that the group send them a package. I'm sure they'd be extremely grateful for any donation you can make as well. And if you want to see your donation at work, Fox News will be covering the kick-off all afternoon tomorrow.

Click here to go to the Operation Gratitude website, and click here to donate.

The return of Muqtada al Sadr from a self-imposed four month exile in Iran dominated the news from Iraq today. Sadr, who leads the Sadrist movement and commands the Mahdi Army, had taken shelter in Iran, under the watchful eye of Iran's Qods Force. Today, he made a grand entrance in Kufa and gave a sermon to some 6,000 followers in which he denounced the U.S. 'occupation.' "No, no for Satan. No, no for America. No, no for the occupation. No, no for Israel," Sadr chanted at the opening of his sermon. "We demand the withdrawal of the occupation forces, or the creation of a timetable for such a withdrawal... I call upon the Iraqi government not to extend the occupation even for a single day."

Sadr's reasons for returning remain a mystery. It remains to be seen if he can reorganize the fractured Mahdi Army, which split apart after the militia's leadership and paymasters fled to Iran. He may also be attempting to take advantage of the absence of Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the powerful Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), which recently made an official break from Iran and is now working closely with the Iraqi government.

Multinational Forces Iraq and Iraqi Special Forces gave Sadr a nice welcome home present in the form of two high-profile raids--one in Sadr City, and another in Basra. In Basra, the British killed Abu Qader, the leader of the Mahdi Army in that region, along with his brother and two aides. Qader "was suspected of involvement in planting roadside bombs, weapons trafficking, assassinations and planning and participating in attacks against British troops," Reuters noted. Iraqi Special Operations Forces conducted a raid in the heart of Sadr City, Muqtada's purported stronghold, and captured a Mahdi fighter "suspected of having direct ties to the leader of the EFP network as well as acting as a proxy for an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officer."

Coalition forces are keeping up the pressure on al Qaeda's network, capturing 20 al Qaeda during raids in Baghdad and Mosul. The Baghdad raids netted an al Qaeda "battalion commander... responsible for numerous attacks in Baghdad, including assassinations, attacks on news media and attacks on the city’s infrastructure," as well as an "explosives expert... known to have knowledge of explosively formed penetrators," and "a close associate of a Libyan who facilitates the movement of foreign fighters in the area."

Also, Multinational Forces Iraq announced that it had found a ‘how-to’ torture manual during a raid on an al Qaeda safe house in Iraq several weeks ago. The manual contains "drawings [that] show how to drill hands, sever limbs, drag victims behind cars, remove eyes, put a blowtorch or iron to someone’s skin, suspend a person from a ceiling and electrocute them, break limbs and restrict breath and put someone’s head in a vice."

Al Qaeda conducted two notable attacks today, it bombing another bridge over the Euphrates river, and executing yet another commando styled assault in Diyala province. The bridge links Baghdad's al-Adl district to the al-Khadra district. "The bombing is part of serial attacks targeting bridges and crossings in Baghdad in a bid by militants to destroy Iraq's infrastructure facilities," a source told the Kuwaiti News Agency. This the eighth bridge targeted by al Qaeda. At least two have been destroyed, one of which has since been replaced.

In Diyala, al Qaeda attacked "a mainly Sunni village near Baqubah, killing five people, in the ongoing battle for control of al-Anbar and Diyala provinces between al-Qaeda and an alliance of local Sunni tribes." Al Qaeda fired "indiscriminately at civilians before fleeing." This follows a recent meeting between 45 tribal sheikhs and the Diyala government, Iraqi police and military, and U.S. forces. The Diyala tribes have formed the Awakening Movement, modeled on the Anbar Awakening that had such success in beating back al Qaeda in large swaths of Anbar province.

From Time: A Campaign Role Reversal, by William Kristol.

From Government Executive: Launching a New Navy, by Greg Grant.

From FP Passport: The "supernotes" conspiracy theory, by Blake Hounshell.

From War is Boring: Lebanese Army: Not Outgunned, by David Axe.

From the Fourth Rail: Sadr Returns From Iran, by Bill Roggio.

Press Release from Senator McCain:

"I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it's the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda."

Ouch!

Update: So Obama responds:

This country is united in our support for our troops, but we also owe them a plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else’s civil war. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe the course we are on in Iraq is working, but I do not.

And if there ever was a reflection of that it's the fact that Senator McCain required a flack jacket, ten armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, and 100 soldiers with rifles by his side to stroll through a market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago.

Governor Romney and Senator McCain are still supporting a war that has cost us thousands of lives, made us less safe in the world, and resulted in a resurgence of al-Qaeda. It is time to end this war so that we can redeploy our forces to focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and all those who plan to do us harm.

What's wrong with this statement? From McCain:

While Senator Obama's two years in the U.S. Senate certainly entitle him to vote against funding our troops, my service and experience combined with conversations with military leaders on the ground in Iraq lead me to believe that we must give this new strategy a chance to succeed because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic to our nation's security.

By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket.

Double Ouch!

Dr. David Kilcullen, who currently serves as senior counter-insurgency adviser to Gen. Petraeus and Multi-National Force Iraq, participated in a conference call with bloggers and reporters this morning.

Kilcullen has a distinguished record, having served as chief counter-terrorism strategist for the U.S. State Department, senior analyst in Australia's Office of National Assessments, and special adviser to the Pentagon for counter-terrorism during the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review. He also blogs at the Small Wars Journal.

The call lasted nearly 45 minutes, so I won't try and cover everything that was discussed, but there will be a complete transcript and audio file posted here sometime today.

So, a few highlights:

A reporter from the San Antonio Express News asked Kilcullen "to elaborate one one of the accelerants--Iran. We understand the connection between the Iranian regime and the Shia extremist groups, but what's perplexing to many of us is the dynamics between Iran and the Sunni extremists."

KILCULLEN: "I think it's really important to understand as a sort of first thought that the groups that are fighting in Iraq, mostly are fighting for political advantage, and, in fact, if you look at the different groups that are fighting, some of them appear to be very different religiously--there are what look like far-right Sunni groups and what look like extremist Shia groups, but actually, you often find people that know each other in those groups and they sometimes cooperate on a tactical basis. If you think about it as a purely religious phenomenon, that's confusing: why would extreme Shia cooperate with extreme Sunni? But the thing is, you gotta remember that every Iraqi has at least two identities. They've got a pre-2003 identity, from when before we arrived, and then they've got their current identity, under the environment that we're in now. So a lot of these people know each other from Saddam days and they do tend to act like an old oligarchy that's trying to preserve their interests. And you often find Shia and Sunni groups sort of tactically cooperating in some ways, or leaders in different groups knowing each other. So, first of all, it's not quite as sharp a dichotomy between Sunni and Shia as you might think. The second point, Iran has a history of this and there's a current pattern of Iranian behavior, both in Afghanistan, where they're supporting the Taliban, who used to be their enemies, and in Iraq, where they're supporting both Sunni and Shia groups in different ways. Essentially, what they're trying to do is bog us down. Their strategy is to soak us up, make it hard for us to maneuver, get us, if you like, decisively committed here in Iraq and over in Afghanistan--to sort of achieve freedom of maneuver for themselves. So it's Iranian national self-interest that's involved here more than some kind of religious dynamic. If you see the Iranians as fundamentally Shia, you get the wrong answer. They are Shia, but what motivates their activity, I think a lot of the time, isn't Shia politics, it's Iranian influence, if you like, Persian interests. And so a lot of these guys who work with the Iranians may think that they are working on behalf of their faith, but they are actually essentially Persian stooges is how I would put it. And in the case of the Sunnis, it's more of a tactical alliance of convenience where the Iranians believe there's benefits, and various Sunni leaders who know them, or have contacts, will exploit that. And why wouldn't you, if you know that someone's offering to give you assistance?"

I got in the last question. I asked Kilcullen about how airpower fits into the Coalition's counterinsurgency operations--a topic that's been much discussed, particularly by the Air Force, which appears to feel a bit marginalized by the Petraeus Doctrine:

KILCULLEN: "Airpower is actually critical in counterinsurgency. I know that there's a bit of a fight going on now between--what is it?--Army and the Marines, who wrote the field manual, 3-24, and the Air Force is kind of out there writing an alternative manual at this point. There's actually been a lot of really good work done on this by RAND, a guy that I think is best-qualified to talk about this is a guy called Alan Vick at RAND, who's been really a pioneer in thinking about working through airpower issues in counterinsurgency. I'm aware there's this debate going on. I think here in Iraq, there's a number of sort of airpower writ-large functions--air reconnaissance very important, aerial surveillance, both by manned and unmanned vehicles, is critical, it gives us this, if you like, unblinking eye that allows us to understand what's going on in the environment; the use of fast air combat power for interdiction and strike is important, it's more important in desert areas and underpopulated rural areas than it is in cluttered, sort of target-rich environments like in cities, where you can really do a lot of damage to the civilian population. So we don't tend to use airpower heavily inside cities. Having said that, if we do need to, we certainly do draw on that capability. And we do tend to use sort of cannon and direct strafing activity, rather than necessarily going straight for the kill-box approach, where you deluge an area in high-explosive. I think the other really important function is transport and mobility. Obviously, I'm defining airpower broadly, but, you know, helicopter mobility, the ability to move around in fixed-wing airtransport aircraft really gives us an edge in terms of being able to react quickly when things happen. So, I think, there isn't a lot of air to air combat in counterinsurgency, and I think, therefore, on the surface, it kind of seems like, well, what role does airpower have? But, actually, airpower's got a critical role in surveillance, transport, targeting of precise targets, interdicting or isolating areas of the battlefield--it's got a whole range of functions. It's kind of sad that it's been seen as a dichotomy between ground and air forces, because neither of those is as effective by itself as it is when it works with the other. There's a real sort of symbiosis that you get from effective air and effective ground forces working together. And I think that's what we're actually doing here on the ground. It doesn't always look that way from the doctrinal perch back in the States, but, you know, people work together on the ground to achieve a unified result."

I expect that you'll soon be able to read more about the discussion at RedState, Blackfive, and Op-For.

There was no major news out of Baghdad today, but we have two big stories coming out of Fallujah and northern Babil province. Multinational Forces Iraq confirmed that it has indeed recovered the body of one of the three missing soldiers near Mussayab, while al Qaeda plowed a suicide car bomb into a funeral procession in Fallujah.

The body of Pfc. Joseph Anzack Jr. was found floating in the Euphrates River yesterday by Iraqi civilians. Pfc. Anzack appeared to have been dead for several days, and his body showed signs of torture as well as multiple gunshots to the head and chest. Specialist Alex R. Jimenez and Private Byron W. Fouty are still listed as missing, and earlier reports that two other bodies have been recovered have since been denied by U.S. commanders. Al Qaeda has still not released a videotape of the soldiers' capture, interrogation, or torture, but hope of finding the two soldiers fades as each day passes.

In Fallujah, al Qaeda attacked friends and family attending the funeral of Allawi al-Isawi. A suicide bomber struck the funeral procession killing 25 and wounding another 30 mourners. Isawi was a leader in the Anbar Salvation Council, the grouping of former insurgents and tribal leaders that have banded together to fight al Qaeda. He was also a member of the Albu Issa tribe, part of which is actively fighting al Qaeda in the eastern regions of Anbar province and has been the target of repeated al Qaeda attacks as a result.

Coalition forces captured 15 members of al Qaeda’s network during raids in Salman Pak, Karma, Amiriya, and Mosul. And Iraqi National Police captured three wanted insurgents in Jisay in Diyala province. The men were “wanted for murder, kidnapping and displacing Shiia families.”

In the north, insurgents conducted a successful strike against Iraqi’s oil infrastructure. "Insurgents planted a bomb in the well," in a field near Kirkuk, an unnamed Iraqi Army officer told AFP. Insurgents have repeatedly attacked the pipeline running from Kirkuk into Turkey, but this is the first time a well head was targeted.

It was a busy day in the House of Representatives, with action on both the Iraq funding legislation and a major ethics reform measure. On the ethics front--and with Democratic dissension forcing votes on two separate measures--Republicans provided 195 of the 218 votes needed to pass a strengthening of ethics rules opposed by 85 percent of the Democratic caucus:

Democrats who campaigned successfully last year against a “culture of corruption” in the Republican-controlled Congress found themselves one-upped today when more than 30 of their own members voted for a GOP motion to strengthen the package.

By 228-192, the House adopted a motion by Lamar Smith, R-Texas, to recommit the first of two lobbying bills — a measure requiring quarterly disclosure by lobbyists of bundled contributions to candidates and party units — to broaden the disclosure requirement to cover bundled donations to other PACs as well...

The leadership and other veteran House Democrats have taken a beating in recent days in newspaper editorials, talk radio shows and Internet blogs for backing away from tougher ethics measures. House Republicans have been hammering them as well, and are relishing the chance to create mischief on the House floor.

Meanwhile on Iraq, the House has voted to begin debate on legislation to fund the war. That legislation will also be passed primarily with Republican votes. Democrats are saying that the final legislation was not available for members to read for themselves until this morning because they were up late last night making concessions to the White House:

A $120 billion fiscal 2007 Iraq War supplemental spending bill was expected to pass the House this afternoon after lawmakers made last-minute changes dictated by the White House.

Although Republicans grumbled about not having a chance to review the final text until this morning, House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., said they should direct their fire elsewhere.

“We made a number of changes in response to White House requests as late as 10 o’clock last night,” he told the House.

It's ironic that Democrats will finally enact major legislation, but only with major help from Republicans. Perhaps when Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess, Democrats will apply this lesson and try to promote a more bipartisan approach to legislation.

Spencer Ackerman has long been a vocal critic of the Iraq war, and his latest piece is no different. Still, he points out one reality that the Democrats have long been loath to confront: the troops want to fight, and they want to win.

On the merits of withdrawal, the Democrats have it right. The politics of it, however, remain complicated. It’s become common among Democrats to argue for withdrawing from Iraq in the name of the troops. In January, for instance, New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler introduced a bill titled the Protect the Troops and Bring Them Home Act. In February, Congresswoman Lynne Woolsey sent a letter to Bush arguing that it was “time to truly support our troops—by bringing them home.” Fifteen members of Congress signed on. Senators, too, have been willing to support this idea. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland said in a February floor speech that “the best way to support our troops serving in Iraq is to say ‘NO’ to the president’s escalation of the war.”

Haunted by Vietnam, Democrats are determined to express support for the troops. This is admirable. The truth of the matter, however, is this: many troops in Iraq, perhaps even most of them, want to stay and fight. That doesn’t mean that we should stay in Iraq any longer. It does mean, however, that if Democrats want to bridge the divide between themselves and the military—an effort further complicated by their opposition to the war—they’re going to have to recognize that arguing in the name of the troops isn’t going to work....

In short, for many troops in Baghdad, the surge had brought a significant boost in morale. When I rode along with the 57th on patrol, they were experiencing the strange comfort of “boring” days without any enemy attacks—so much so that one gunner even admitted to mixed feelings about the lack of combat. After a period of prolonged catastrophe, the sense that events had shifted in favor of the U.S. came as a great relief. “Having momentum on your side, that’s so important,” explained the company commander, Captain Robert McNellis. “And that’s what we feel right now.” For this company, the surge wasn’t merely an augmentation of troops. It was an augmentation of hope.

HT Danger Room

Last Saturday, three members of the German armed forces and seven local Afghans were killed by a Taliban suicide bomber at a bazaar in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz. The attack, which also severely wounded several other German soldiers and scores of Afghan civilians, brought the number of total German losses in that country to 24.

The bombing also shattered the long-standing misconception, both in the German public and among key NATO allies, that Bundeswehr troops in the North are primarily engaged in safe reconstruction work while American, Canadian, and British forces hunt Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists in the South.

This division of labor is, in fact, a fiction. Berlin has already dispatched Germany’s secretive KSK special forces to support NATO combat missions in the South on more than 70 occasions. Also, security conditions in the North, like elsewhere in the country, have deteriorated in recent months. The situation on the ground is so dire that President Bush even felt compelled to invite NATO secretary-general Jaap De Hoop Scheffer to his Crawford ranch last weekend, vowing to "work with our NATO allies to convince them that they must share more of the burden and must all share the risks in meeting our goal."

Back in Germany, conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel was quick to condemn the attacks as "perfidious murder that fills us all with disgust" and reiterated the international community’s commitment "to continue helping the people of Afghanistan build a good future for their country." Commentators from Germany’s most influential newspapers also expressed strong support for the continuation of the Bundeswehr mission in Afghanistan, arguing that a precipitous withdrawal could have terrible consequences. According to the center-right mass-circulation tabloid Bild:

Terrible though these deaths are, it would be short-sighted and dangerous to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan because of this. For one thing, Germany can’t leave the war on terror up to other nations and confine its own role to that of a morally superior preacher. Second, we can only depend on the support of our alliance partners if we too contribute to the fight against terror. A withdrawal of the German army would be a triumph for the Taliban. Worse: It would render the sacrifice brought by these soldiers and the others pointless.

Even before Saturday’s deadly bombing, polls indicated that almost 50 percent of the German population was in favor of pulling Bundeswehr troops out of Afghanistan. Eager to ride the wave of public opinion, MPs from the populist Left Party as well as leftist members of the SPD party--which is part of Merkel’s "Grand Coalition"--have now seized on the Kunduz attacks to call for a withdrawal of all German forces stationed there since 2001.

Oskar Lafontaine, the charismatic Left Party leader in the Bundestag, even charged that the German military was "indirectly involved in terrorist actions" because of the recent deployment of eight Tornado reconnaissance fighters in support of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. Speaking on Sabine Christiansen, Germany’s most popular TV talk show, Lafontaine first defined terrorism as the unlawful use of force in pursuit of political objectives before drawing a direct comparison between Iraq and Afghanistan: "Under this definition, Bush, Blair, and others are terrorists because they have used force unlawfully on a large scale in Iraq and hundreds of thousands have died." The same was true of Afghanistan, the rhetorically brilliant Lafontaine added. Unfortunately, Germany’s embattled conservative defense minister Franz-Josef Jung was not able to effectively counter Lafontaine’s polemic during the televised panel discussion. And in an interview with Bild, Ottmar Schreiner, a left wing Bundestag SPD MP, made it clear that his doubts about the purpose of the mission had grown, and that he sees "no sustainable future prospects in the civilian area that would justify further military intervention." Therefore, he said, "the entire mission needs to be reviewed."

Right now, three separate Bundestag mandates--all of which need to be renewed by the parliament on a yearly basis--govern the rules of Germany’s military engagement in Afghanistan. The first mandate, passed in response to the 9/11 attacks, is part of the American-led Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and covers select German land, air, and naval forces operating in the region. Politically, this mandate--set to expire in mid-November--is the most controversial, as it involves hunting down terrorists, interdicting ships, and other offensive operations. The second and third mandate--both set to expire in mid-October--are part of the UN-sponsored, NATO-led International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) and concern the bulk of the more than 3,000 German ground troops operating in northern Afghanistan as well as the Tornado reconnaissance aircraft in the South. The Tornado mandate, first passed in March 2007, already proved to be very divisive as more than 60 left-wing SPD members defected and voted against the fighter deployment while their party leadership, along with the rest of the CDU/CSU MPs from the "Grand Coalition," voted in favor.

For the time being, a majority of Bundestag MPs--that is, virtually all conservative CDU/CSU lawmakers, many moderate SPD members, plus a few sensible Greens--still support the Afghanistan mission and are therefore likely to renew both the OEF and ISAF mandates this fall. However, there is a risk that mounting NATO casualties and the perception that no progress is being made in Afghanistan could turn public opinion in Germany--as well as other key allies such as Canada and France--decisively against the mission there. In that sense, Iraq and Afghanistan are indeed beginning to share some similarities.

From Time: Is al-Qaeda on the Run in Iraq? by Joel Klein.

From RealClearPolitics: Is the Sky Falling on America?, by Victor Davis Hanson.

From the Independent: Opium: Iraq's deadly new export, by Patrick Cockburn.

From Slate: e-Stonia Under Attack, by Anne Applebaum.

From the Fourth Rail: Al Qaeda strikes a funeral in Fallujah, by Bill Roggio.

Posted by Michael Goldfarb at 03:11 PM
Required Reading | E-mail the author | E-mail article

When I asked Senator McCain about MRAP on Monday, some folks seemed confused. But there's no doubt that the MRAP program, which seeks to replace up-armored Humvees in Iraq with sturdier, mine resistant and ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles, has risen to the level of presidential politics. In fact, Joe Biden's whole campaign for president looks to be built around this one issue.

On Monday, McCain said that MRAP is "kind of a reversal from the usual DoD procedure where they get a good idea and it takes them an inordinate length of time to get it into practice and into operational capability." But, on Tuesday we learned that the program has, in fact, taken an "inordinate length of time" to get going. Biden's response to that news: "It’s easy to throw around words like outrageous and shocking, but this is both." Maybe. But there are some legitimate reasons for that delay. The Armchair Generalist offers this snarky take on Biden's comments:

Come on, Joe. You didn't just join the Senate last year and find out how defense acquisition really works. Funny thing, the Marine Corps - the smallest of the four services - didn't want to casually decide on a multi-billion dollar investment for a vehicle that amounts to a huge armored bus with lousy gas mileage, no main gun, and no maintenance plan (other than contractor support) at the same time as when they have their Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle to justify. Yeah, that's really shocking. But whatever you do, Joe, don't look into the fact that the production of MRAPs is limited by the high-tech steel they need for the bottom of the vehicles, so that the intended production buy for vehicles going to those troops in Iraq goes through 2009 - you know, after the period where we expect to start getting troops back home. That might "shock" you, too.

It's going to take a while to get these vehicles fielded no matter what Congress does. The largest producer of MRAP vehicles, Force Protection, can produce roughly 200 vehicles a month, but hopes to have that number closer to 300 by early next year. The Army is requesting 17,700 MRAP vehicles, and the Marine Corps is in the market for maybe 5,000 more.

Meanwhile, there's another Humvee-replacement program--the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)--that risks being marginalized. JLTV offers much of the protection of MRAP--a v-shaped hull and substantial armor protection--at far less cost and in a far more deployable package. Because of its weight and size, MRAP may be ideal for Iraq, but it won't make the military any lighter, faster, or more mobile--it's not a 'transformational' technology. As Robot Economist points out:

The first thing that jumps out at me is the dramatic increase in volume and weight between the up-armored Humvee and the MRAP candidates....

The increased weight might raise questions about how the Army and Marines could deploy MRAPs from the U.S. to the theater, particularly airlift feasibility....

The C-17 has enough cargo capacity (85 tons) to carry an M1 Abrams, so it can probably fit as many as two MRAPs on board. [Force Protection's] Cougar and [BAE's] Nyala also appear to come under the limits of the C-130's mere 22 tons of lift....

If the C-130 can carry the Cougar, it may not be able to carry other, heavier MRAP variants now under consideration, I'm thinking specifically of BAE's massive RG-33--the 6x6 version of the Nyala. On the other hand, the Pentagon recently released an updated matrix for JLTV that requires that two of the vehicles be able to fit on a C-130 even in their heaviest configuration.

MRAP may save American lives in Iraq, but it really shouldn't be 'shocking' that the program has taken so long to get moving--troubling and typical might be a better description. Industry is just now mobilizing to meet demand, and the Pentagon has also been working on JLTV, which appears to be a better long-term investment. Whatever the outcome, MRAP is only going to become more visible in Congress and in the race for the White House.

I thought the president did a pretty good job there. The Corner has the tape of the exchange between Bush and David Gregory in which Gregory tells Bush that Republicans don't trust him anymore and asks how he, the president, can still believe he's "a credible messenger on the war." Paraphrasing Bush's response: you're naive and you're lucky I'm here to protect your children.

Sounds about right to me.

Certainly the most memorable moment of the press conference has to be the president telling the Chinese people: "They need to be eating U.S. beef. It's good for them. They'll like it."

Other than that, Bush said of this country's relationship with China, "This is a complex relationship. There's areas where there's friction, and we just got to work through the friction." Of course, the average American may be a bit more hostile to China than the president. Zogby released a poll yesterday that seems to show Americans generally view China as a serious threat:

The 5,141 U.S. residents who took part in the poll were asked to rate their level of concern regarding China's military buildup, with "1" meaning "not at all concerned" and "5" representing "highly concerned."...

Some 29.7 percent of those surveyed said they were "highly concerned" over China's military buildup, while 33.1 percent gave "4" as a response. Some 24.2 percent gave "3" -- a neutral answer -- and 7.9 percent said "2." Less than 3 percent said they were "not at all concerned" about China's military growth.

64 percent of respondents gave the president poor marks for his handling of the U.S.-China relationship, but there's at least one question about that handling that Bush won't be asked anytime soon: 'Where's the beef?'

Yesterday it seemed House Democrats would punt on ethics reform. But today the wind is shifting. Apparently Dems have decided not to go home this Memorial Day weekend without something to show their constituents (besides a much-delayed Iraq bill favored by the president).

A major problem in organizing the debate is the fact that Democrats are taking in too much lobbyist-arranged cash to want to limit it:

Steve Elmendorf, the principal lobbyist for Elmendorf Strategies, held a breakfast fundraiser for Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) on Feb. 8.

Elmendorf said he did not remember the fundraiser for Frank because he hosts so many events.

“I do fundraising breakfasts almost every week for someone,” he said. “Fifteen or 20 people show up and write their checks. There’s nothing unusual about it.”

When the House debates ethics legislation today, it will have to tackle “bundling"--whereby lobbyists like Elmendorf arrange contributions--separately:

The disclosure proposal will still get a vote today—but as a stand-alone measure. Assuming it passes, the plan is to add it back to the reform package in conference talks with the Senate. A reform bill Senators approved earlier this year included a more broadly drawn bundling provision.

In preparing for the vote, Democrats blocked Republican efforts to offer as many as 13 more amendments. (The committee report summarizes the amendments and the votes). Among the amendments rejected:

* random audits of lobbyist disclosures, with criminal referrals for lawbreaking;
* blocking convicted felons from registering as lobbyists,
* prohibiting the use of federal funds for lobbying for earmarks;
* establishing an independent, outside entity to investigate corruption by Members of Congress; and,
* preventing diplomats and CIA chiefs from lobbying for certain foreign governments.

These seem commonsensical. Why are House Dems blocking debate?

The search for the three missing U.S. soldiers abducted west of Mahmudiyah on May 11 may have taken a turn for the worse. Unconfirmed reports indicate that up to three bodies resembling American soldiers have been found in a river near the town of Mussayab, south of the search area. The bodies are said to have been clothed in Army fatigues. Multinational Forces Iraq confirmed it was working to identify one body, but there is no confirmation on the other two. In today's briefing, Maj. Gen. Caldwell stated that intelligence indicates both soldiers may still be alive.

In the Triangle of Death, the search for the missing soldiers continues. Iraqi Special Operations Forces captured two suspected insurgents and destroyed three trucks, "which were fabricated as vehicle borne improvised explosive devices, as well as several IED material caches." U.S. soldiers also captured two suspected insurgents and discovered several weapons caches, one which included "two complete DSHKA heavy machine guns"--an effective antiaircraft weapon.

Al Qaeda continues to maintain the attack tempo in the province of Diyala. A suicide bomber struck at a popular coffee shop in the town of Mandali on the Iranian border. At least 20 were killed and another 25 wounded in the attack. Mandali is near Qara Lus, where last week al Qaeda fighters posed as Iraqi troops and killed 15 civilians. Another three were killed and three wounded in a mortar attack in the western portion of the province.

Today's raids against al Qaeda networks in Arab Jabour, Taji, Mosul, Karma, and Fallujah resulted in six al Qaeda killed and 23 captured. "An al-Qaeda regional leader, responsible for al-Qaeda personnel and operations" was killed in one of the raids, while the raid in the small city of Karma resulted in 13 al Qaeda captured.

A raid against Iranian backed Mahdi Army cells in Sadr City resulted in two terrorists killed, 19 captured, and the discovery of "a cache of Iranian money and bomb-making materials," notes Multinational Forces Iraq. "The individual targeted during the raid is suspected of facilitating weapons shipments from Iran to secret cell terrorist elements in Baghdad, Basrah and Maysan province."

At the end of this month, Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, will be attending the Showcase for Commerce in Johnstown, PA, a defense industry trade show that, despite its remote location, draws some of the biggest names in the business as both sponsors and exhibitors. Why? The DEW Line informs us:

Perhaps the booth-agent legions of the defense industry are flowing into Johnstown for this event like a gushing river -- oops, bad metaphor! -- because they like the late-spring weather near Dutch Country.

Another possible explanation could be the proximity to Murtha, who is famous for many things but certainly well-known as the King of Earmarks. That word -- earmarks -- is the polite term for lawmakers using their anonymous discretion to fatten an already bloated federal budget with their favorite spending projects. Murtha's prime seat on the defense appropriations committee makes him a key benefactor, and he is known to love this part of the job.

Our spies in industry report that many attendees have another name for this annual weekend affair: Murtha-fest.

That was written before Murtha's latest embarrassment, in which he "stormed to the [House] floor during a vote to threaten GOP Rep. Mike Rogers that he would cut off all pork for Rogers’ district after he worked to kill a Murtha earmark in an Intelligence bill." That tantrum, a technical violation of House ethics rules, forced the Democrats to avoid a House vote to reprimand the Pennsylvania congressmen.

In today's edition of the Hill, "industry sources" and "sources familiar" with Murtha-fest weigh in anonymously on the event and its rise to prominence:

“[Murtha's performance] can be a little bit heavy-handed,” one source familiar with the event said, adding that there is an expectation that a number of local jobs and contracts come out of the show.

“It would be important to get some face-time with him,” said one industry source who will attend this year. “He remembers who is who and he remembers everybody’s pitch.”

The paper goes on:

Murtha, the largest recipient of defense-industry contributions, had star power in the industry even before he became the chairman. Murtha, Thomson said, devotes personal attention to the ins and outs of the show.

In just three months this year Murtha raised more than $733 million, the largest amount of anyone on the committee and six times more than he raised in the same period two years ago.

More than 80 percent of the contributors have business before Murtha’s defense panel, according to data gathered by watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense. Among the largest donors is DRS Technologies with $21 million. A unit of DRS (DRS Laurel technologies) is based in Johnstown.

Eager to see for myself just how business is done at Murtha-fest, I contacted the Showcase for Commerce ten days ago to get my name on the press list for the General Dynamics-sponsored breakfast with Murtha on the final day of the show. There was only one problem: I was told that access to the breakfast had to be cleared by Murtha's office, as would any waiver for the $300 registration fee. Well, that was more than a week ago. I called back today to check on the status: the breakfast is sold out. Heavy-handed? Nah.

Congressional Democrats approach the Memorial Day recess without a single piece of major legislation that they campaigned on signed into law. Few have been sent to the president at all. And in the last week before the holiday, House Democrats have voted to block a reprimand of John Murtha for threatening another Member in violation of House rules, and ignored a report that the Intelligence Committee violated earmark rules to the benefit of Murtha. And the scary thing is, that may be the GOOD news for House Democrats this week.

That's because besides disappointing their base by finally conceding to fund the Iraq war, it appears that House Democrats may delay action on ethics reform legislation (already pretty weak) indefinitely:

A Democratic House aide confirmed leadership discussions about whether to postpone votes on the reform package until after the upcoming weeklong break. The aide said a fluid situation made it difficult to determine exactly when, if at all, leaders would pull the plug on action this week.

House Democrats already are playing defense on the ethics front this week. Republicans have charged Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) with violating House rules for threatening another lawmaker’s earmarks. A GOP motion to reprimand him was tabled Tuesday evening on a largely party-line vote...

Boyd said objections to the measure aren’t contained to a couple of corners of the caucus. Instead, he said, Members from different backgrounds who share long histories of honest service under existing rules are raising hackles. To say leaders have their work cut for them, he said, “would be an understatement...”

Outside reform groups said they are ready to ring the alarm if lawmakers leave town without wrapping work on the package. “If this gets dragged past Memorial Day, we’re in a world of hurt,” said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center.

She framed a stark choice for House Democrats. “My question to them if they’re unhappy with the current bill is, ‘Do you think you’ll be happier in the minority?’”

For their ethical shortcomings, Democrats have been criticized by the Los Angeles Times and New York Times, and apart from being unable to adopt and apply new ethics rules, Democrats are being hit -- by CNN -- for the lavish junkets that they are now taking with taxpayer money:

If the Memorial Day recess is an appropriate time to judge the effectiveness of the new Congress, Democrats cannot be pleased with how they're likely to be judged.

I had the opportunity to participate in a blogger conference call this morning with a senior administration official who spoke about the president's upcoming speech at the Coast Guard Academy. The topic of that speech: recent revelations that highlight the importance that Osama bin Laden places on an al Qaeda victory in Iraq and the potential value of Iraq as a base of terrorist operations.

It was noted that in 2005 bin Laden directed Abu Musab al Zarqawi to coordinate attacks outside Iraq. According to the president, bin Laden ordered a senior operative--Hamza Rabia--to send Zarqawi a briefing on al Qaeda’s external plans, including plans to attack the United States. Another senior AQ leader--Abu Faraj--reportedly suggested that bin Laden send Rabia to Iraq to help plan operations against U.S. interests. Abu Faraj later speculated that if this effort proved successful, al Qaeda might one day prepare the majority of its external operations from Iraq. Why it seems a surprise to some even after all this is worrisome.

Abu Faraj was captured in May 2005. Rabia was killed in Pakistan in December of that year. In June of 2006, Zarqawi was killed in Iraq. These are all important victories that have helped to frustrate al Qaeda plans to stage further attacks against the United States.

As the debate over the future of Iraq continues in Washington, it's important that we consider the importance that al Qaeda places on victory there. It's clear that bin Laden and others continue to regard it as the central front in the war against the West. In the words of one former Democratic senator, "Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11... a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory." According to the White House, such a victory would be more than psychological.

WEEKLY STANDARD contributor Bill Roggio has noted that bin Laden himself has made clear the importance of Iraq in AQ's plans for the future, saying 'the epicentre of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the khalifate rule.' Zawahiri made the same point in his 'Dear Zarqawi' letter.

A clip from the president's speech is below:

Yesterday was a relatively slow news day in Iraq. While Coalition and Iraqi forces continue to target al Qaeda and other insurgent networks, al Qaeda conducted a mass casualty suicide attack inside the capital--the first large scale suicide bombing since May 11. But the big "story" came from the San Francisco Chronicle, which claimed that a "second surge" is occurring in Iraq with the aim of doubling the number of U.S. combat troops on the ground by the end of this year.

The Chronicle's claim rests on a poor understanding of the process by which American troops are rotated into and out of Iraq. Combat units on the ground do not just abandon their posts, but wait until their relief arrives in theater. This overlap in forces has occurred several times since the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Also, as units have had their tours extended, the timetable for forces arriving in theater has not been pushed back. It should be noted that all Army combat deployments--both in Iraq and Afghanistan--have been extended from 12 to 15 months. The claim that a second, secret surge is occurring is inaccurate at best.

Iraqi and Coalition forces continue to keep up the pressure on al Qaeda. Raids yesterday in Baghdad, Mosul, Karma, and Fallujah led to the capture of three cell leaders and nine associates. Operations in Mosul and Anbar province earlier today resulted in another 15 captured, including two cell leaders. Iraqi Special Forces captured 16 al Qaeda during raids in Samarra on Sunday.

Coalition forces rescued five kidnapped Iraqis, including a young boy "who had been kidnapped and severely beaten with chains, cables and hoses," noted an Multinational Forces Iraq press release. The Iraqis were being held in the city of Karma in Anbar province, where al Qaeda has put up stiff resistance to Coalition forces. "The four captives also showed signs of torture, and the boy stated the terrorists had hooked electrical wires to his tongue and shocked him." This raid led to the rescue of 12 more Iraqis held captive near Karma. Nine terrorists were killed and three captured during those operations.

In Baghdad, al Qaeda in Iraq has conducted its first high profile bombing in over a week. Twenty-five Iraqis were killed and another 60 wounded during a bombing in the Amil neighborhood in Baghdad's Bayaa district. This was the first big strike inside Baghdad since May 11, when bridges were struck on the outskirts of the city. In Diyala province, "militants" murdered an Iraqi family at a false checkpoint near Baqubah. The entire family was killed--the mother, father, an infant, and three children.

It's been reported in several outlets that Congressional Democrats have determined that, at least for now, they can't force the president to withdraw from Iraq. They are preparing to send the president a 'clean' supplemental. According to CQ, the House will vote on legislation as early as Thursday:

The latest war spending bill is expected to come to the House floor Thursday, though Congress may need to work through the weekend to clear a bill for President Bush to sign by Memorial Day, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., said today.

“We are hopeful that we are close to an agreement,” he told reporters. “I think we have moved the debate very substantially forward and will continue to do so.”

Congressional Democrats are expected to drop timelines for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq because of White House objections, but have not yet settled on a final plan for advancing a measure that could pass both chambers and be acceptable to Bush. The president vetoed the previous fiscal 2007 emergency war spending bill (HR 1591) on May 1.

Over on the left, Democrats are offering recriminations of the leaders who ultimately refused to pull the rug completely out from under the troops. Sadly, some of those recriminations are even coming from sitting Democratic senators. In some cases the attacks are against the conservative Democratic freshmen who delivered the party its first majority in years. Expect continued hostility toward Senators like Carl Levin and Jon Tester, who failed to toe the line.

In a session at the Heritage Foundation today, Congressman Tom Reynolds warned of rumors that House Democrats will split the Iraq funding legislation into two components--to preserve the possibility of causing mischief in conference.

The real question is why it has taken 106 days for Congressional Democrats to do what the president requested in the first place: pass clean legislation. The obsession with this one issue has occupied so much effort that Democrats have failed to sign any significant legislation into law since taking back the Congress.

It's been three months since the commencement of the Baghdad Security Plan on February 14, and the operation has been marked by both considerable progress and painful setbacks. While the violence in Baghdad has decreased to levels not seen since prior to the bombing of the Samarra mosque, al Qaeda and its allies have carried the fight into the surrounding provinces in an attempt to discredit the plan and destabilize the Iraqi government.

In the capital, al Qaeda has not staged a successful mass casualty suicide attack since May 11. Mortar and IED attacks, small arms engagements, small car bombs, and other forms of violence prevail; however, the sectarian killings that once threatened to plunge the country into a full-fledged civil war continue to remain at a low level. Al Qaeda has conducted the majority of its large-scale attacks in the provinces--Niwena, Kirkuk, and Diyala.

The Baghdad Operational Command and Multinational Forces Baghdad continue to position their forces throughout the city. The first Iraqi Army units to enter the city on a 90-day deployment rotation are now beginning to rotate out, with new units coming in to replace them. Elements of the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Iraqi Army Division and the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Iraqi Army Division have been spotted in the Bayaa and Doura districts. The 3rd Brigade of the 4th Iraqi Army Division has moved back to the Kirkuk region, while it appears the 4th Brigade of the 1st Iraqi Army Division has been rotated back to eastern Anbar province.

The most significant event to occur in Iraq over the weekend was the formation of the Salahadin Awakening, which opposes al Qaeda's attempt to Talibanize Iraq and erode the traditional power of tribal leaders. Stars & Stripes reported that the Baghdad tribes met to form the front; but, in fact, the tribes represented at the meeting were mostly from Salahadin province. The meeting occurred in Taji, and tribes were present from the northern portion of Baghdad province and Salahadin. Recently, the tribes of Diyala formed the Diyala Awakening in an attempt to replicate the success of the Anbar Salvation Council, which is largely responsible for the dramatic turnaround in the security situation in that province.

The potential effect of the Salahadin Awakening became apparent early last week when Iraqi civilians in Duluiyah came to the aid of Iraqi police under attack at a checkpoint in that city. "In response to the attack, 20 armed men from a nearby neighborhood assembled and quickly came to the aid of the policemen manning the checkpoint," Multinational Forces Iraq stated. "This grass roots effort contributed a significant impact in thwarting the attack . . . local citizens also responded according to a plan they developed for neighborhood defense."

Nine days after the ambush on a U.S. patrol in the 'Triangle of Death' region south of Baghdad, U.S and Iraqi security forces continue to search for the three missing soldiers--five others were killed in the al Qaeda attack. General David Petraeus stated on Friday that intelligence indicates at least two of the soldiers are still alive. Multinational Forces Iraq has information on the cell that conducted the attack and has captured several of its members. Raids have been carried out as far away as Amiriyah in neighboring Anbar province, where nine suspects were captured.

From THE WEEKLY STANDARD: The Memorials We Deserve, by Jonathan V. Last.

From the Wall Street Journal: Battling al Qaeda in Iraq, by Melik Kaylan.

From the Washington Post: A Law Terrorism Outran, by Mike McConnell.

From Human Events: Pelosi, Dems threaten a Vital U.S. Ally, by Robert J. Caldwell.

From Middle East Quarterly: How Israel Bungled the Second Lebanon War, by Efraim Inbar.

Bonus Audio File: How the Army's New MRAPs Might Fare in the Field, with Nathan Hodge.

Senator McCain participated in another conference call today with assorted bloggers and reporters.

McCain opened the call with an explanation of the widely-reported dust-up that occurred late last week between him and Senator John Cornyn. McCain reportedly dropped an F-bomb on Cornyn after Cornyn accused him of "parachut[ing] in here on the last day" of negotiations on immigration reform to offer objections. McCain "suggested" today that "the exchange between myself and my friend John Cornyn was a bit exaggerated...I'm sorry that YouTube wasn't there to give you the full and complete picture of what took place, sometimes we have tough issues and sometimes we are very frank with each other."

Another highlight came when Ryan Sager asked if the senator had any response to attacks by Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson over his support for this latest proposed immigration reform. McCain: "I'm a little disappointed in Fred [Thompson] because he had a very different position not that long ago, but since he's not a declared candidate, I think that Fred will [soon] be able to articulate his position, I think. In the case of the governor [Romney] maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes because it's changed in less than a year from his position before and maybe his solution will be to get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn, I don't know."

McCain spoke at length about immigration, saying "the system in this country is broken, it poses an enormous national security risk. There are 12 million people in the country illegally, we have no idea who they are or where they are...this legislation has first and foremost securing the border. In fact 18 months is given for the notification that the border is going to be secured before any other action can take place."

On the issue of amnesty, McCain said: "I don't know how you can call a $5,000 fine, a wait of at least eight years, going back to the country of origin, as fitting the dictionary definition."

Powerline's John Hinderaker pressed McCain, who explained that illegals would essentially be placed on a "probationary status...they're going to have to go through background checks, they have to pay fines, they have to go back to the country [of origin] if they want to have any kind of real legal status...then the green card backlog has to be cleared up, which is at least about eight years, some say more than that, before they can get in line behind everybody else to have a truly legal status...I don't view that as amnesty, and I don't see unless you give them some kind of probationary status, the other choice is to deport everyone of them, or leave them in some sort of illegal status--the status quo."

Ann Althouse asked "isn't there some truth to the idea that you were parachuting in as was reported?" McCain explained he'd been "in daily contact with the negotiators, back and forth on conference calls, meetings with Republicans and Democrats--I've been involved with it for many years...in intense negotiations a lot of things are said and my friend John and I had a difference of opinion."

Jennifer Rubin asked if McCain was surprised at the reaction from the conservative base to the immigration bill, particularly the boos that greeted Senator Graham this weekend at a townhall meeting in his home state. McCain: "Well, of course I was a bit disappointed in the reaction because I was hoping they would evaluate it rather than listen to some people's interpretation of it. I think that this is a proposal on an issue that is very well known, I think it's fairly easy to comprehend it. I think we should vote for cloture and then relevant amendments, not irrelevant amendments, will be allowed. I'd like to get it done this week, in five days of intense debate and amendments. If we can't, we can't."

I asked McCain about the rapidly growing MRAP program and whether he's comfortable with where the program is right now--with outstanding requests for as much as $25 billion, from just $2 billion in January. McCain said "everything I've heard and seen of its demonstrated capabilities are that it saves lives, so money obviously shouldn't be the major object here. I've been briefed by many people who say, 'look this can save a lot of American lives, it's an important program, and we ought to pump as much money as possible into it.' I think we ought to have hearings, and I'm sure we will, as to whether there's too much money and they're moving too rapidly, but you know this is kind of a reversal from the usual DoD procedure where they get a good idea and it takes them an inordinate length of time to get it into practice and into operational capability. So far I'm happy with the reaction we've gotten from DoD, particularly given the increased lethality of some of these IEDs coming out of Iran."

Asked if the 9/11 "truther virus" is damaging American prestige at home and abroad, McCain said that "it's something that happens in America, and probably a sign of a healthy America that these theories are given visibility...but at the same time it does hurt us, particularly in this war of public opinion, where we're not doing as well as we should be, to say the least, to have some credible people, quote members of Congress, questioning the whole rationale for our response...he [Ron Paul] is entitled to his views. I don't believe that--that number is disturbing, of the 30 percent of the Democrats [that believe that Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11], but I think that has more to do with the dislike, the irrational dislike in my view, personal dislike of President Bush than it does of most anything else...at the end of the day, I rely on the good sense of the American people."

On Iraq, McCain said there has been a dramatic turnaround in Anbar, but that he worries "a great deal" about the Maliki government. He repeated several times that the war in Iraq is going to be "long, and hard, and tough" and that it will take "patience and time" to win. "I'm afraid time is not on our side, but I still believe that this is the best strategy, and I still believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic."

Multinational Forces Iraq has killed a major player in the January 20 kidnapping and murder of five American soldiers during a complex attack on the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala. On May 19, Coalition forces killed Azhar al-Dulaimi during a raid north of Baghdad after he resisted attempts to detain him. Azhar al-Dulaimi is described as the "mastermind" and "tactical commander" of the Karbala attack, as well as other high-profile terror attacks in Iraq.

Azhar al-Dulaimi was a leader in the Qazali network, which General David Petraeus noted was behind the planning, organization, and execution of the Karbala attack. The raid was well planned and executed, as the attackers looked American, spoke English, and carried American equipment in the assault on the Provincial Joint Coordination Center. One soldier was killed and three wounded during the initial attack, and four soldiers were taken hostage. They were executed shortly after their capture as Iraqi police and Coalition forces tracked their movement eastward towards Iran.

Azhar al-Dulaimi's fingerprints were found on the SUV where the four soldiers were found handcuffed and murdered. The discovery of a torture room and weapons cache in Baghdad's Sadr City on May 6 led to information about Azhar's location. Ten Mahdi Army fighters were also killed during the raid.

The Qazali network receives arms, training, funding, and other assistance from Iran's Qods Force, which reports directly to Iran's Supreme Leader. "[The Qazali network] were provided substantial funding, training on Iranian soil, advanced explosive munitions and technologies as well as run of the mill arms and ammunition, in some cases advice and in some cases even a degree of direction" from Qods Force, General Petraeus stated last April.

Azhar al-Dulaimi is also believed to have been involved in numerous kidnappings, including that of U.S. Army Specialist Ahmed Altaie, who disappeared in Baghdad on October 23 after visiting family, as well as the abduction of 70 workers from the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education in Baghdad. He is believed to be funneling terrorists into Iran for training, as well as transporting weapons and the deadly armor piercing explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) from Iran into Iraq. "Intelligence reports indicate Dulaimi received military training from Iranian intelligence agents and from Lebanese Hezbollah, to include training on how to conduct terrorist-style kidnapping," according to the Department of Defense.

The latest issue of Study Times, a weekly published by the Central Party School of the Chinese Communist Party, carries a lengthy article titled "China's Military Diplomacy." The author, Lieutenant-General Zhang Qinsheng, is deputy chief of the general staff of the PLA with responsibility for the PLA's foreign affairs.

Zhang writes that "international security cooperation" is the guiding theme of Chinese defense policy and further states that "a modernized military that pursues a defensive strategy with the purpose of maintaining peace and achieving open cooperation has even more justification for advancing onto the world stage."

He offers frequent assurances that, despite China’s having formed military relations with more than 150 countries and established military attaché offices in 107, the "substance and nucleus" of its policy remain "defensive in nature."

Zhang notes that China has participated in a number of joint military exercises since 2002, but he also emphasizes Beijing's increasing involvement in international humanitarian missions: "The means to accomplish peacekeeping cannot be limited to 'hard power.' Political wisdom and strategic artistry are even better embodied in the application of 'soft power.'"

The Study Times article is an expanded version of a February interview with Zhang published in China Daily. During that interview, while claiming "Chinese defense policy is always defensive in nature," Zhang defended the PLA's modernization drive by explaining that "China has never joined any military alliance, never sought military expansion, nor built overseas military bases."

Zhang was less contentious when he met with Admiral Timothy Keating, Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, in Beijing on May 11 (just a few days before publication of the Study Times piece). During that meeting, Zhang "positively appraised exchanges between the Chinese People’s Liberation Army and the US Pacific Command."

As noted by veteran China-watcher Willy Lam, President Hu Jintao, who is also chairman of the Central Military Commission, has made military diplomacy an increasingly important element of China's foreign policy, evidenced by the frequent high-profile trips taken over the past few years by leading military officials. Just this month, defense minister Cao Gangchuan visited Cuba, Argentina, Chile and Greece. These examples of military diplomacy reflect Beijing’s global strategy and have not only military, but significant economic, security, and political implications as well.

The immigration compromise was the top issue on the Sunday morning show this week. On This Week, Fareed Zakaria gave his interpretation of the events:

Both sides have compromised significantly on principles, so it is what legislation in a large, diverse country should be. When people hearken back to the good old days, when there wasn’t polarization, and when people reached across party lines, this is what it produced. … It is not amnesty; to say that these people who you are not going to deport are finally registered with the government and have legal status. Amnesty means “no punishment,” if you look at any dictionary definition of the word. These people have to pay fines, they have to go through very arduous processes, they have to return to their home countries, the fines are not $5,000, it’s probably more like $15,000 fully loaded, it will probably take 13 to 18 years. To call that amnesty is to suggest that there is no option other than deporting them that will satisfy.

Senators Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer were on Fox News Sunday, where they shared their thoughts on the proposal with Chris Wallace. Schumer said,

You have to learn English, pay a fine, go behind everybody else who's been in line. It would probably take about 15 years. So those two are good things, and I think that's a good balance in the bill. I have two problems with it. One, while I certainly believe that immigration--we need to bring in people who have skills, who the economy needs, we also need to take care of families so they can be unified. I think the bill is a little stinting on that. I'd like to see some changes there. But the biggest objection I and many Democrats have, which could be a stumbling block to the whole bill, is this guest worker program. It's an additional program. Hundreds of thousands of people come in. There’re virtually no protections.

Graham echoed those sentiments:

I think we have struck the right balance here. We're securing our borders. We're controlling who gets a job on our terms. As Chuck says, this is by no means forgiveness. This is a probationary sentence for the 12 million” illegal immigrants currently in the country.

On Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich brought some historical perspective to the debate on Iraq:

But notice, there are two things there. First of all, even if you accept that this is a civil war, people have won civil wars. I devoted three novels about winning the American Civil War. And the fact is, civil wars are hard. But we also--I just did a novel on Pearl Harbor and the Second World War. The Second World War was hard. Guadalcanal was hard. If we'd had today's Congress during Guadalcanal, the number of people who had said beating the Japanese is too hard, let's find a negotiated peace, would have been amazing.

Meet the Press also featured an interview with Douglas Brinkley and Michael Deaver about The Reagan Diaries; not particularly newsworthy, but a fun and interesting read nonetheless.

And over at the Face the Nation, Senator Arlen Specter said he believed that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would soon resign:

Well, I think so. I think you already have six Republicans calling for his resignation. I have a sense, Bob, that before the vote is taken that Attorney General Gonzales may step down. … It is a very forceful, historical statement. Votes of no confidence are very rare. More than a century ago, one was leveled against a sitting president. And I think, historically, that is something which Attorney General Gonzales would like to avoid. And the most important thing, though, is the inability of the department now to function. I was about to say, U.S. attorneys met in San Antonio this past week, and there was a lot of criticism, a lot of dissension. And that department is very, very important, functioning for the welfare of our country.

Iraq has seen yet another relatively quiet day, with no major suicide bombings or large scale attacks. The most serious reported incident occurred in Mussayab, south of Baghdad, where three were killed and four wounded after a suicide bomber attacked a police checkpoint. The large scale attacks appear to be coordinated and meted out over regular intervals.

The big news from Iraq today was an operation against a terror cell smuggling weapons from Iran and facilitating the movement of fighters between the countries. "The individuals targeted during the raids are suspected members of a secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training," noted the Multinational Forces Iraq press release. Six were captured, including two who are believed to be cell leaders. Coalition and Iraqi Special forces have been actively pursuing these Iranian backed EFP cells--this is the sixth such raid on this particular network in less than two weeks, resulting in a total of 13 cell members killed and 29 captured.

Iraqi civilians in Duluiyah in Salahadin province came to the aid of Iraqi police as they were attacked at their checkpoint in the city. "In response to the attack, 20 armed men from a nearby neighborhood assembled and quickly came to the aid of the policemen manning checkpoint," Multinational Forces Iraq stated. "This grass roots effort contributed a significant impact in thwarting the attack... local citizens also responded according to a plan they developed for neighborhood defense."

In neighboring Diyala province, "gunmen in four vehicles laid an ambush in central Baqubah for government accountants [carrying] one billion Iraqi dinars [$860,000] as a monthly social security program fund for poor families." Also in that province, three American soldiers were killed in an unspecified location after their vehicle was struck by an IED.

In Mosul, one of the two Mosul bridges struck by suicide car bombs on May 15 was repaired by U.S. Army engineers. Al Qaeda has struck seven bridges spanning over the past two months. At least two were destroyed.

Last night the New York Republican party held a major fundraising dinner in Manhattan, headlined by Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Both candidates delivered very strong speeches, which were largely devoted to the importance of winning the war on terror. While Giuliani kicked the evening off with a lengthy and polished address from prepared remarks, McCain batted cleanup, with a short and rousing dose of off-the-cuff red meat. But despite their complementary messages, the most striking element of the evening was the mayor's attention to some new themes--the greatness of America, the resourcefulness of her people, and the strength of the nation's spirit--which gave Giuliani a surprisingly upbeat tone.

Both the New York Sun and the New York Daily News report on the dinner. They note that both men spoke highly of each other and saved their fire for their Democratic opponents. Regrettably, neither candidate has posted his address on YouTube (at least not yet).

Speaking first, Giuliani talked about the challenges of governing New York City, of cutting spending and taxes, reducing welfare rolls, and bringing crime down--all while working with a lopsided Democratic majority on the City Council. He noted that while no job can prepare a person to be president, being mayor of New York City comes pretty close. He spoke eloquently about how the Democrats--well-intentioned and patriotic though they might be--could not lead the nation in a war against Islamic terrorism, because they do not believe in the threat it poses.

But the novel portion of the mayor's speech was a long section devoted to discussing the greatness of America and the hard work and inventiveness of its people. He contrasted himself to the 'downcast' Democrats, who act as if America's best days are behind her. He talked about how the transformation of New York came from bright and committed people working together to solve problems--not from new government mandates and regulations.

In this portion of the speech, Giuliani sounded positively sunny. He clearly recognizes that Americans have traditionally chosen a president the more upbeat and optimistic candidate. Communications guru Frank Luntz--who was also in attendance--told me he saw this as an important theme that any serious Republican candidate would need to incorporate into his message for 2008. If this speech is any indication, the Giuliani intends to do just that.

McCain also performed well, particularly given that the evening had the feel of a Rudy homecoming rally. The New York audience was clearly there to give a warm welcome to a hometown boy. I was even told by an official of New York's conservative party that they were looking forward to endorsing Rudy. When I commented that it was odd that they'd give an endorsement to someone who ran for mayor with the backing of the Liberal Party, he told me "we see a whole different set of issues in a presidential race than a race for mayor of New York City."

You can see part of the Giuliani's speech here, courtesy of the Observer:

Bloomberg reports:

The U.S. House of Representatives, by a vote of 397-27, authorized $644 billion for defense spending in fiscal 2008.

The measure includes $483 billion for regular Defense Department programs plus $20 billion for the nuclear weapons programs at the Energy Department as well as military-related programs within the Justice and Homeland Security Departments.

It also includes $141 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, marking the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that this war funding is covered within the regular defense budget.

This money is separate from the $124 billion in supplemental funding for this fiscal year now before Congress. That bill is stalled over President George W. Bush's objections to language proposing a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The authorization measure passed today has no mention of withdrawal or of another proposal -- setting benchmarks to measure progress in Iraq.

Congressional Quarterly reporter Josh Rogin adds:

The House also retreated, in the face of White House veto threats, by rejecting attempts to restrict the president’s authority in dealing with Iran.

One amendment that was rejected, 202-216, offered by New Jersey Democrat Robert E. Andrews, would have prevented the Pentagon from using any Iraq or Afghanistan funding to plan military operations in Iran.

The House also rejected, 136-288, a proposal by Peter A. DeFazio, D-Ore., and three other lawmakers that would have required congressional authorization before any military action could be taken against Iran.

It seems odd that an amendment requiring Congressional authorization for military action against Iran would have less support than an amendment preventing the Pentagon from planning for such action. If a member of Congress is worried that the Bush administration is preparing for a possible strike against Iran's nuclear facilities--which the administration would be unbelievably foolish not to do--then wouldn't that representative also want to require that the Bush administration seek Congressional approval before putting those plans into action? Is there something I'm missing here?

Also included in the Bloomberg piece: the House approved $4 billion for MRAP vehicles, which is on top of the $3 billion set aside for MRAP vehicles in the still unresolved supplemental, and the Army wants to spend a total of $19 billion on MRAP through 2009. The Marine Corps, too, has made clear its desire to switch over its entire fleet of Humvees to MRAP as soon as possible. At the beginning of the year, the program was expected to deliver roughly 4,000 vehicles at a cost of some $2 billion. Then it was 7,700 MRAPs for $8 billion. And now were talking about what, maybe $25 billion when all is said and done? The size of the MRAP program is growing at a remarkable rate.

From the Washington Post: Tony Blair's Unshaken Logic, by Michael Gerson.

From the Jerusalem Post: Olmert, Master Politician, by Caroline Glick.

From the Washington Post: Prelude to the Six Days, by Charles Krauthammer.

From Towhnhall.com: Sovereignty at Stake, by Rebecca Hagelin.

From Ares: A Failure of Intelligence, by Bill Sweetman.

Thursday has been relatively quiet in Iraq, as al Qaeda in Iraq appears to have spent its energy on a major offensive conducted in Diyala, Niwena, and Kirkuk on Wednesday. A significant number of Iraqi Army units have redeployed to secure Baghdad, and al Qaeda and other insurgent groups have exploited the security gap.

In Mosul, over 200 al Qaeda attacked a police station on Wednesday. Fifteen terrorists and four police were killed in the battle. Also, al Qaeda attacked and destroyed two bridges in Mosul in a coordinated suicide car bomb attack. These are the sixth and seventh bridges hit over the past two months. In Kirkuk, al Qaeda conducted a series of attacks against municipal leaders, police, a school, and a health center.

The casualty toll in yesterday's suicide bombing in Abu Sayada in Diyala has increased, and it was confirmed that chlorine gas was used. Forty-five were killed and 60 wounded in the chlorine suicide attack, al Qaeda's tenth successful employment of the poisonous gas in Iraq. Elsewhere in Diyala, al Qaeda "abducted 21 civilian passengers at a fake checkpoint near Al-Ghalibiya" and brought them to Al-Hashemeyat, which is a known al Qaeda stronghold.

Coalition and Iraqi forces continue operations against al Qaeda's network nationwide. On May 15, Task Force 145 killed four al Qaeda and captured 30 suspected members of the network during raids in Karma, Anbar province, Mosul, and Tarmiya. Four al Qaeda were killed and 17 captured in Karma alone. Iraqi Army operations inside Baghdad resulted in two insurgents killed and another 51 captured. A further 13 roadside bombs were disabled.

In the south, the Iraqi Special Forces captured the leader of a "a rogue element of the Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) which is involved in extensive improvised explosive device (IED) attacks in the Basrah area." Violence in the Basra region has increased remarkably since the British announced they would begin withdrawing troop and rival Shia factions, some backed by Iran, started to battle for power. The increase in violence in the south has caused the British military to nix the deployment of Prince Harry, a lieutenant in charge of a reconnaissance section. "Britain's Ministry of Defence said specific threats made by insurgent groups against Harry, including listing him as a kidnap target, had made any deployment far too risky," Reuters reported.

From June 6-8, Germany will be hosting the 2007 G8 Summit at Heiligendamm, the country’s oldest seaside resort, which is located on the Baltic Sea shore. Apart from the usual rich country suspects, German Chancellor Merkel has also invited the leaders of five major emerging economies--Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa--as well as five African nations--Nigeria, Egypt, South Africa, Algeria, Senegal, and Ghana--to discuss a wide range of global economic and developmental challenges under the Leitmotif “Growth and Responsibility.” In contrast, World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz--another G8 regular--will probably need to cancel his participation in the coming days.

For the time being, however, German authorities are primarily concerned about how to deal with those who have not been invited to the G8 Summit, namely the 100,000 anti-globalization protesters they expect to face off against some 16,000 police, 1,100 soldiers, and nine naval vessels the government in Berlin plans to deploy. A few days ago, 900 interior ministry agents already launched dawn raids against suspected left-wing extremists in 40 apartments across Germany, netting 21 suspects who were charged with planning violent attacks against the G8 Summit.

At the same time, it is also becoming clear that right-wing extremists are preparing to stage their own, albeit smaller, G8 protests, drawing on anti-capitalist sentiment that's much the same to that motivating their left-wing comrades. According to Der Spiegel,

Intelligence officers fear that by using obvious anti-capitalist rhetoric the [extreme right-wing party] NPD could succeed in scoring points in the disadvantaged regions of the former East Germany. In one of their anti-G8 flyers, the extreme right-wingers fulminate in classic leftist mode against “competition with low-wage countries, which leaves infrastructure deserts and mass unemployment in its wake.” And the criticism of the “involvement in global military intervention and virtual enforced rearmament,” could strike a chord with many former East Germans. Only the frequent use of words like “nation” and “homeland” distinguishes the flyer from many of the left-wing anti-G8 tracts.

German authorities are already gearing up to prevent violent clashes between left and right-wing extremists at the G8. Of course, the vast majority of protestors will not turn to violence. The most prominent demonstrator among them will be Bono, the U2 singer and activists who has hailed Germany for its commitment to increase official development aid to 0.7 percent of GDP per year, and who will give a concert at one of the G8 protest sites on June 7.

From THE DAILY STANDARD: The business of Iran's hardline military elite, by Omeed Jafari.

From the Washington Post: Salute to a Memorable Marine, by Dan Morse.

From the Jerusalem Post: Shin Bet Uncovers Plot to Kill Olmert, by Yaakov Katz.

From FP Passport: Russia: Burma's road to nukes? by Christine Y. Chen.

From the Guardian: Russia Accused of Unleashing Cyberwar to Disable Estonia, by Ian Traynor.

Congressional Democrats claimed majorities in the House and Senate partially on the promise to clean up Washington. With that in mind, the House Democratic leadership has at last introduced ethics reform legislation. There are only two problems: it doesn't go as far as many of their own Members had hoped; and, it's already in trouble.

We kick off with coverage from the Politico:

House Democrats introduced a lobbying reform bill Tuesday night that requires more disclosure of links between lobbyists and lawmakers, but stops short of the toughest reforms floated in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal.

The bill would require members to disclose K Street job offers, ban them from lobbying former colleagues for two years, and demand greater disclosure of fundraising on behalf of members.

It also imposes fines and a possible 15-year prison sentence on anyone who uses their position to force a lobbying shop or business to hire – or not hire – someone because of their partisan political affiliation...

But the reform bill would not create an independent investigator to conduct ethics inquiries or require detailed disclosure of lobbyist bundling for lawmakers.

House leaders decided to take up the bundling issue separately, a move that makes it much more vulnerable to defeat.

Bundling is the practice by which a lobbyist aggregates donations from many individuals and presents it to a lawmaker in one 'bundle.' In that way, a single donor might be able to deliver tens or even hundreds of thousands for a lawmaker. Flush with cash after their first taste of the majority in years, Democrats are reluctant to do anything that would put a chill on their fundraising machine.

Roll Call reports that this weak the legislation has already come under attack from House Democrats--for going too far:

Two groups causing particular concern are the Congressional Black Caucus and the conservative Blue Dog Coalition. Both maintain generally friendly relations with business lobbyists, and senior members of each faction have raised objections to proposals that would double to two years the cooling-off period for lawmakers and staff taking lobbying jobs and require lobbyists to disclose campaign checks they bundle for candidates...

As prospects for the overhaul teeter, outside reform advocates said they are unsure whether House Democratic leaders can pull their Members together. “I’m worried about it, absolutely,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen. He said leaders and freshmen, many of whom campaigned on cleaning up the process, will have to overcome “the old bulls of the Democratic Caucus, who don’t want to see much change...”

The measure does not call for a new independent office to replace the ethics committee and help enforce the laws, a top priority for reformers. Instead, a bipartisan task force is examining the issue and will deliver its findings this month. Democratic freshmen have rallied behind a proposal to outsource ethics policing duties and will try to offer it as an amendment to the reform bill.

It's clear that the ethics package needs serious improvements if Democrats really want to gain the public trust. In particular, they will never be able to convince voters that they're truly adhering to a commonsense code of conduct as long as sitting Members of Congress are left judging each other's ethics. This is the ultimate case of the fox guarding the hen house.

Republicans ought to push for the strictest ethics reform possible. And they ought to back the creation of an outside body to review allegations of misconduct. In this case, it'd be both good policy and good politics.

Although Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s visit to Moscow on Tuesday resulted in a cordial agreement to "tone down the rhetoric," the relations between Russia and the United States remains relatively tense.

Some astute analysts have pointed out, however, that the current rhetoric of confrontation may stem largely from domestic conditions in Russia, namely the high-stakes "succession games" now being played out in the Kremlin. Writing for the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, Leon Aron, the director of Russian Studies at AEI, argued that

While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is in Moscow for talks, she might see for herself the reason for the increasingly tense relations between the two countries, and the increasingly harsh climate inside: the jitters that next year's presidential succession is already generating in the Kremlin. . . . The erosion or outright eradication of what might be called shock-absorbers of democracy that endow the process and the result of a transition with legitimacy…has ushered in uncertainty and risk.

Perhaps with this conundrum in mind, the Russia weekly Kommersant-Vlast’ has released a series of fascinating transcripts that shed some light on the inner workings of the Kremlin. Mockingly titled “The Self-Manual of the [Ruling] Apparatus” and interspersed with sardonic “administrative instructions," the article presents 33 instances of President Putin’s interaction with members of his “vertical of power."

One preferred method of keeping underlings in line, according to the Russian weekly, is "the Loyalty Test:"

Subordinates must be concise and uncritical. Loyalty of the subordinate is easy to test, for instance, by misstating his [family] name or the patronymic. The main purpose of this exercise is to carefully gauge his reaction. The most loyal subordinate will pretend that he has not noticed the error. Conclusion: subordinates must respond to the names that are assigned by their superiors.

The paper gives numerous examples in which Putin appears to intentionally misstate the names of his subordinates. At a meeting on June 15, 2004, Putin addresses his foreign minister Sergei Viktorovich Lavrov:

PUTIN: "Sergei Leonidovich, you will take part in the next meeting of the foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Which issues will be addressed?"

LAVROV: "A wide variety of questions: the situation in the Middle East, the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cyprus, other regions…"

And again on December 20, 2004, Putin addresses Lavrov by a different name:

PUTIN: "Sergei Dmitrievich, today we will begin international consultations with our German partners. What is our level of readiness and what main issues will we discuss?"

LAVROV: "We have conducted thorough preparations, in consultation with all government agencies. The talks promise to be highly productive…"

Yesterday was a good day for House Republicans, who threw a spotlight on the attempt by Democrats to change House rules to avoid tough votes. Simply put, the 'motion to recommit' allows the minority to force a vote on any germane amendment to a given bill. The move by House Democrats would have dramatically narrowed the scope of what could be offered. This is particularly important in the context of the new House rule that blocks enactment of legislation that would increase the deficit. Democrats would be required to spell out spending cuts, or go on the record in support of tax increases to pay for new programs

But faced with the prospect of the House floor blowing up in their faces, Democrats backed down--for now, at least. It's very likely that they will try to change the rules again--perhaps in a matter of a few weeks.

The whole incident led to this great piece in the Politico:

Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power.

So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.)...

The Democratic spokesman for the Rules Committee sees it differently.

"We've passed a lot of bills, and we've passed them through the committees," said spokesman John Santore. "We're operating in an objectively fair way..."

Veterans of Capitol Hill will notice 'the dog that didn't bark' in this statement. When speaking about rules, the key descriptor is 'open' or 'not open.' Even the Democrats' chief spokesman can't bring himself to say that the Committee is operating in an 'open' way--because it's not. Of course, that was their campaign promise.

Not only are Democrats not running the House in an open way, they're operating it in a less open way than the people they tossed out:

But Democrats this year have brought a greater percentage of bills to the floor under a totally closed rule that prevents members of the minority from offering amendments--45 percent under Democrats, compared with 35 percent under Republicans.

On earmarks, ethics, House rules, and other process issues, the Democrats are falling far short of their promise to improve the way Washington does business. Not only is it not better, it's arguably worse. Lamentably for them, they're not producing anything of substance, either. As I covered here last week, they're essentially without any major legislative achievements--so far.

This Congress is not even five months old, but already it looks like Democrats need to think about changing course.

U.S. and Iraqi forces continue to scour the farming regions around Yusifiyah and Mahmudiyah in an effort to recover the three missing U.S. soldiers.

As the search for the three missing U.S. soldiers enters its fifth day, the U.S. military continues to pour more troops into the region south of Baghdad known as the Triangle of Death. The U.S. military has offered a $200,000 reward for information leading to the discovery of the U.S. soldiers, and significant resources have been diverted from Baghdad and Taji to assist with the search operations.

As we noted yesterday, the search has narrowed to the farming regions around Yusifiyah and Mahmadiyah, which have been divided up into 35 zones, of which 32 were searched. Some zones have been searched multiple times. Yesterday, commandos of the I Iraqi Special Operations Force (I SOF) captured 16 suspects during raids in the region after "acting on tips received from the local population."

Yesterday, a battalion commander involved in the search told CNN's Arwa Damon that two suspects involved in the assault had been captured. "They do not appear to be al Qaeda members, the commander said. They told interrogators they were paid by a middle man to take part in the attack." The suspects are said to be part of the Cargouli tribe, "a Sunni tribe [which] dominates the area where many former intelligence agents, Baathists, and Republican Guards from Saddam Hussein's government live." An American military intelligence official informed us the local tribes are being pressured to provide information on the location of the missing soldiers.

Multinational Forces Iraq and the Iraqi military have devoted significant resources to conduct this search. Reports indicate over 4,000 American and 2,000 Iraq troops have been tasked to the search. Elements of the I Iraqi Special Operations Force (I SOF)--likely a battalion--have been shifted to the region. Prior to this deployment, the I SOF has been assigned to target Mahdi Army cells in Sadr City in Baghdad. The 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment of the 3rd Stryker Combat Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, which was previously based in the Bayaa district in southern Baghdad, has also shifted to the region. Task Force 145--the hunter killer teams assigned to dismantle al Qaeda's leadership and networks--has no doubt been assigned to operate in the region.

Multinational Forces Iraq have also shifted two aviation battalions,--the 3rd Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment [Blackhawk transport helicopters] and the 4th Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment [Apaches attack helicopters] from the 1st Air Cavalry Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division based out of Taji. The Blackhawks may serve as transports for the I Iraqi SOF. The shift of the 1-23 Stryker Battalion and I Iraqi SOF will impact operations in Baghdad, while the movement of the two aviation regiments from Taji will impact operations in Salahadin and Diyala.

Prior to the search operation, the five battalions of the 4th Brigade of the 6th Iraqi Army Division have been forward deployed in outposts in Mahmudiyah, Yusifiyah, Lutifiyah, and Shakriyah, along with an air assault battalion in FOB Kalsu in Iskandariyah. The 2nd Brigade of the U.S. 10th Mountain Division, augmented with the 2nd Battalion of the 69th Armored Regiment, is also operating in the region. The units have been establishing smaller Combat Outposts in the region over the past six months to forward deploy forces.

Even with the influx of U.S. and Iraqi forces, the search seems to be focused on the region around the attack site. "They're searching the area in the vicinity of where the attack occurred," said Brigadier General Perry Wiggins in a Pentagon briefing yesterday, while refusing to get into details of the search location. But an anonymous Army source told us yesterday that the hunt for the missing soldiers has not been limited to the Triangle region alone. The regions south and east of Fallujah in Anbar province are also a focus of Coalition and Iraqi operations. "Things are pretty hot and heavy over in Zaidon and across the river from Amiriyah," the soldier serving in Anbar province had noted yesterday. This is the region where al Qaeda maintains base of support, and where it was initially believed al Qaeda would transport the captives.

The Triangle of Death Region is one of the sore spots in the Baghdad belts, a region where al Qaeda and allied insurgent groups have established bases of operations to launch attack against targets in both Baghdad and Karbala provinces. U.S. and Iraq forces have been preparing to conduct operations in the region in support of the Baghdad Security Plan. The capture of the three American soldiers has forced Multinational Forces Iraq to change the time line and push forward operations south of Baghdad. The Triangle of Death is getting its surge early and hard, and the hunt for the soldiers is turning up intelligence on al Qaeda's network in the region.

Update:

The rules of the House of Representatives give a committed majority a lot of power to push through legislation favored by the leadership. Most significant legislation is considered under 'special rules' designed to structure (or limit) debate. Contrary to their campaign promises to change the way Congress does business, Democrats have used such special rules to stifle debate and arrive at a pre-determined outcome -- much the way Republicans did.

But it seems that despite party discipline and stifled debate, Democrats are still managing to lose some votes. So today in the midst of a debate on the budget resolution -- House Democrats will 'go nuclear,' in a way that Republicans never tried, and change a rule that has stood on the books since 1822.

The Politico explained recently what the GOP is doing:

Democrats have been stingy about allowing Republican amendments to their bills early on, despite claims that they would be more inclusive, so GOP leaders have worked out a convenient loophole that allows them to amend these bills on the floor without working through the Rules Committee.

This is fairly insider stuff, but it does mean Republicans have found a vehicle to offer politically popular revisions to the bills Democrats bring to the floor. The goal is to either win the motion and amend the bill or put members of the majority on the record supporting something that will be used against them during their reelection campaigns in 2008.

This is a far cry from Ms. Pelosi's promise last year that if Democrats took the majority, they would lose votes when a majority was against them. Almost exactly a year ago, Congress Daily reported:

In perhaps the biggest break from the current practices of GOP leaders, Pelosi said she would be willing to lose votes on the floor.

"Absolutely," she said. "It's not about a defeat, it's about a decision. I certainly would not say that we can't bring things to the floor because we'll lose ... [Republicans] are afraid of ideas.

That's why we can't have amendments, substitutes, and all the rest for the most part. When was the last time you ever saw a Democratic bill come to the floor of the House except to name a post office when they name five? It just doesn't happen and that's not right."

It looks like the Democrats are really rushing this through before anyone can notice; while the House Rules Committee website is generally a pretty good place to find information on major votes upcoming in the House, this one is nowhere to be found.

It's been reported that Republican Leader Boehner had told his Democratic counterparts some time ago that any attempt to change such a longstanding rule would lead the GOP to tie the House floor in knots. We'll see this afternoon whether they'll make good on that promise.

As we noted late last night, the search for the three missing U.S. soldiers has intensified in the "Triangle of Death," the region south of Baghdad, particularly in the areas near Yusifiah and Mahmudiyah. This region "has been divided into 35 zones of which 32 have been searched," according to CNN. Two suspects involved in the assault have been captured, a battalion commander involved in the search in the region told CNN's Arwa Damon. "They do not appear to be al Qaeda members, the commander said. They told interrogators they were paid by a middle man to take part in the attack."

The hunt for the missing soldiers has not been limited to the Triangle region alone. The regions south and east of Fallujah in Anbar province are also a focus of Coalition and Iraqi operations. "Things are pretty hot and heavy over in Zaidon and across the river from Amiriyah," an unnamed soldier serving in Anbar province informed us earlier today. This is the region where al Qaeda maintains a strong base of support and where it was initially believed al Qaeda would transport the captives.

Diyala province remains a hot spot, and al Qaeda pulled off a major attack at a predominantly Shia market in the village of Abu Saydah. At least 32 Iraqis were killed and 50 wounded after a suicide bomber attacked the open air market. Doctors treating the victims of the attack claim they was evidence of exposure to chlorine gas, however Iraqi police have denied this.

Elsewhere in Diyala, Voices of Iraq, an independent Iraqi newspaper, is reporting a large scale operation against al Qaeda in the province has now begun. "Forces from the Iraqi 2nd and 4th Divisions, backed by U.S. troops, started on Monday a wide-scale security campaign to track down armed groups all over the province," an anonymous Iraqi Army source told Voices of Iraq. "The operation began by tracking down groups that have strongholds in the Hamrin mountains and in adjacent spots to the area of al-Aazim during the first phase." While Iraqi units may be conducting operations in the outlying areas of Diyala, the major offensive is not expected to begin until June, when the last U.S. combat brigade arrives in theater. The current operations are likely preparing the battlefield for the larger fight.

In the Shia south, Iraqi police and Army clashed with Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army in the city of Nasiriyah after police detained "two members of the powerful Shiite militia and accused them of targeting US-led and Iraqi forces with homemade bombs and mortars." Two Iraqi soldiers and nine civilians were killed, and an unknown number of Mahdi fighters were wounded in the clash. Fighting between Mahdi militiamen and Iraqi forces was also reported in the cities of Diwaniyah and Al Shatra.

From THE DAILY STANDARD: Giuliani's Debate, by Fred Barnes.

From Commentary: The Case for Bombing Iran, by Norman Podhoretz.

From the Telegraph: We Must Attack Iran, by Toby Harnden.

From National Review Online: Time for Choosing, by Senator Joe Lieberman.

From the Wall Street Journal: Was Osama Right? by Bernard Lewis.

From the DEW Line: It's the Bullets, Stupid, by Stephen Trimble.

I just concluded a conference call with Mayor Giuliani in which he spoke with bloggers regarding the state of his campaign in the wake of last night's debate. All-in-all, he sounded pretty pleased.

While a candidate who underperformed in the debate might open the call with revisions or additions to remarks made on the stump, or by calling attention to the mistakes of others, the Giuliani used this as an opportunity to plug Fox News. He said this debate format was superior to the one in California, in that contenders had to answer tough questions, but had 30 seconds or a minute to explain their positions.

In response to questions, Giuliani said that the vote in the Senate today to withdraw immediately American troops from Iraq was not helpful to U.S. interests--even though it was defeated 29-67. He pointed out that while the Democratic Senators seeking the presidency once had varied positions on when U.S. forces should leave Iraq, they were all united today in support of a fast withdrawal. The mayor offered--'respectfully'--that the Democrats 'don't get it.' He said they do not understand the threat of Islamic terrorism, and their inability to utter the words in their recent debate showed as much.

When asked why his polls had slumped a little from the high 30s and low 40s to where they are now, Giuliani quickly answered (paraphrasing) 'I don't pay attention to polls, but I did notice the Wall Street Journal poll yesterday that had me at 38--down just a point from a month ago.' So much for not watching polls.

On Israel and Palestine, he said that the ball is still in the court of the Palestinian Authority, and he said in strong terms that there could be no successful two-state solution until Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist and forswears terrorism. He said that in that sense the U.S. message in the Middle East must be clear.

The discussion became a little muddled when the topic turned to torture and interrogation, and a rehashing of the 'Jack Bauer' scenario set up in the debate. Perhaps in a reference to Romney's answer that a president cannot let things get to that point, Giuliani commented that he learned in law school to answer those hypotheticals--even if you disagree with the premise. He said that we should definitely use enhanced interrogation... or aggressive interrogation (forgetting exactly what phrase was used last night), but he said we should never use torture.

Then in a thinly-disguised reference to McCain's answer yesterday, Giuliani said that we should not eschew torture because we think it will get better treatment for Americans captured by the enemy, but because the U.S. does not torture. He said that our enemies 'will do what they do,' and that right now that means beheading people. And he refused to get drawn into a discussion of what constitutes torture and what does not, saying--perhaps problematically--that those questions should be decided by treaty, the Geneva Convention, and the like.

The next debate is scheduled for June 5, at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire. If he can avoid any major pitfalls before then, the mayor might draw more concerted fire at that time, as his challengers try to take him down a peg. That might be the lead story, unless another strong contender jumps in before then.

There seem to be a lot of folks upset by the widespread support for "enhanced interrogation techniques" among the Republican hopefuls in last night's debate. Romney said "we ought to double Guantanamo . . . And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used--not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes." The good folks at FP Passport filed this under the headline "Twice the Gitmo, Twice the Fun."

Giuliani went even further, saying that interrogators should use "every method they could think of" in order to get information out of terrorists. I think Tancredo had the best response when he said what I expect many Americans were thinking:

You say that nuclear devices have gone off in the United States, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a bad thing to do. I'm looking for Jack Bauer at that time, let me tell you.

McCain, who has long been an opponent of such measures, was the only serious candidate who seemed to have any qualms about using enhanced interrogation techniques:

If I knew for sure that they had that kind of information, I, as the president of the United States, would take that responsibility. That is a million-to-one scenario. But only I would take that responsibility.

The use of torture -- we could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people.

So a couple of points here. First off, Romney's proposal to double the size of Guantanamo was a little silly. Matthew Yglesias asks "What does that even mean?" Well, we all know exactly what it means: he doesn't have any problem with keeping suspected terrorists in a legal no-man's land free from the interference of the ACLU and its ilk. But if doubling the size of the detention center there offered any kind of advantage--and I don't think it does--then how about quadrupling it. Still, Romney got the point across...just because the rest of the world has a problem with Gitmo, the Republican party doesn't (and I think most Americans don't either, otherwise the story would cause as much anger here as it does over there).

As for Giuliani, his response was superb--he made clear that he would not hesitate to do what was necessary, regardless of the political consequences or the effect it might have on the country's image, which, if you listen to the Democrats, couldn't possibly be any worse, so why worry?

But I think what's really interesting here is that while Tancredo mentioned Bauer by name--and let's be honest, Bauer's interrogation techniques are obviously not frowned upon by the millions of viewers who watch him torture another bad guy each week--McCain's response struck me as the most Baueresque of all.

Bauer tortures people out of necessity, not as a matter of course. It just so happens that he's confronted with a ticking time-bomb situation each week. Still, he understands that torture is both ugly and illegal, but in that "million-to-one scenario" that he finds himself in on an hourly basis, he "take[s] that responsibility." Bauer understands that he is breaking the law and that he may be held accountable for his actions--when terrorist mastermind Marwan hired an ACLU-like lawyer to slow down CTU's interrogation in Season 4, Jack quit his job, had the suspect released, and proceeded to break the guy's fingers in the parking lot as a private citizen. He was subsequently arrested for his misconduct, but he did what was necessary, and he took responsibility for his actions.

This is precisely the kind of torture policy we ought to embrace. Of course, torture should be illegal, but there may be times--one in a million, perhaps--when the laws must be broken out of necessity. At those times, the decision should be made at the top, and the man who makes that decision should be prepared to face the consequences. However, if the public deems the action appropriate, as it does every week in Bauer's case, then there should be no consequences.

McCain never said he wouldn't allow torture, he just said it shouldn't be official policy--if any of the candidates articulated a 24-style policy on torture, McCain was the guy.

On a final note, Fred Thompson may not have been at last night's debate, but, for what it's worth, a reliable source informs us that 24 is the former senator's favorite show.

You’d be hard pressed to argue that 28 Days Later/28 Weeks Later are inherently conservative movies (and you’d probably hear some complaint from series creator Danny Boyle if you did), but there are certainly some conservative undertones. If the sequel, released on Friday, was meant to be an allegory for the evils of the Iraq war (as some have claimed), it’s a terribly confused one. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s look at a few aspects of the series that merit closer attention (SPOILERS FOLLOW. Stop reading now if you don’t want the film ruined).

In the original, the film kicks off when a group of do-gooding PETA/Earth Liberation Front types break into an animal testing lab to free some cute, cuddly monkeys. Except these cute, cuddly monkeys are infected with the Rage virus, the disease that ends up destroying England. Instead of listening to reason, the radicals threaten the scientist who discovers them with bodily harm and release the animals.

Similarly, in 28 Weeks Later, an American sniper refuses to fire on a crowd of civilians who are quickly being turned into rampaging zombies by their infected countrymen. This action is supposed to gain our sympathy--indeed, the sniper pays the ultimate price for refusing to kill, and later helping to escape, the child within his scope’s sight. His refusal to follow orders and his imploring a helicopter pilot to carry the child to the European continent and safety, however, will lead to millions, if not billions, more deaths, as the boy is a “carrier” of the disease. He doesn’t show any symptoms, but he can infect others through his saliva and blood. The final scene of the movie is that of a cadre of zombies rushing the Eiffel Tower--by transporting the boy to the mainland, one American soldier with a conscience has doomed the Eurasian landmass to a nasty, horrible death.

My basic point is this: In both films, liberal good intentions are the catalyst for the deaths of millions of people. Another example from 28 Weeks Later: if the military doctor overseeing the case of an infected survivor had followed her superior’s orders and promptly killed the woman, the plague wouldn’t have been reignited (we also wouldn’t have had a movie, but you see my point).

Also, the portrayal of the militaries in the two films is fundamentally different. In 28 Days Later, the British military is depicted as a group of sadistic rapists. In 28 Weeks Later, the American occupiers of Britain are depicted as benevolent, if incompetent. Once the virus breaks free again, it’s hard not to agree with the decision to firebomb the affected area in hopes of containing the outbreak and saving the rest of the “green zone” from infection and certain death. Even the use of nerve gas is understandable in the context of the film. A.O. Scott, the superlative film critic for the New York Times, said it best in his review: “It is only when things spin out of control that the inherent brutality of the situation becomes clear, but here again the movie poses intractable conundrums rather than scoring easy points. To the soldiers and the survivors alike, there are only bad choices, and doing what seems like the right thing--firebombing an open city or rescuing children from the bombs--can turn out to have horrendous consequences.”

Coalition forces may have narrowed the search for the missing soldiers missing since last Saturday's attack.

U.S. and Iraqi security forces, backed by the local tribes in Karbala and Anbar provinces, have poured into the region known as the Triangle of Death, where three U.S. soldiers were captured by al Qaeda in Iraq after a complex attack on a U.S patrol about 12 miles East of Mahmudiyah. The search appears to have been narrowed down to the region near where the attack took place last Saturday, and the U.S. military may have caught a break. Operations appear to be focused in the regions around Yusifiyah and Mahmudiyah, which largely consist of farmlands.

Multinational Forces Iraq stated it captured 11 suspected al Qaeda believed to be involved in the operation. Four are said to be "high value suspects," which may have led to information on the soldier's whereabouts. "Right now our focus is on searching for the missing soldiers, and we're trying to isolate the areas where we think they could be," said Major Kenny Mintz, the brigade operations officer for the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division. "The (captors) don't have freedom of movement; if they have the soldiers, they can't move them from where they are. We're doing a deliberate search of the areas for the people responsible for the soldiers we're looking for."

The U.S has poured over 4,000 troops into the region, and are backed by an unspecified number of Iraqi Army, police and tribal allies throughout eastern Anbar and Karbala. An American military intelligence source informed us that the Anbar Salvation Council has devoted assets in the region and is working tribal and insurgent contacts to develop leads in the case. "Every asset has been brought to bear in the hunt for the missing troops," according to a Multinational Forces Iraq press release, "including search dogs, trucks with speakers, unmanned aerial vehicles, law enforcement advisers, and both U.S. and Iraqi troops." Pamphlets have been dropped via air and phone tip lines have been established.

While it was initially thought the al Qaeda assault and kidnap element would move the captured soldiers from the Mahmudiyah region into the desert expanses in eastern Anbar province, where al Qaeda maintains a base of support, the al Qaeda team appears to have stayed in the farming regions just south of Baghdad. Either al Qaeda never planned to move the soldiers far from the capture point, or the cordon was established quickly enough to have trapped the terrorists in the box. The U.S. and Iraqi security forces maintains a network of forward outposts in Mahmudiyah, Yusifiyah, and Sadr al Yusifiyah which would make safe transit through these regions difficult.

Yusifiyah has been an al Qaeda stronghold in the past. Task Force 145 fought pitched battles against al Qaeda in the winter and spring of 2006, and nearly captured Abu Musab al Zarqawi there before he was killed in Baqubah in June.

Al Qaeda in Iraq mocked the U.S. efforts to recover their soldiers, and stated the efforts may in fact endanger their lives. While al Qaeda has claimed it has captured the soldiers, it has yet to release photographs, video, or audio to support the claim.

Al Qaeda will want to broadcast footage of the captured soldiers both to demoralize the U.S. public and to reap the rewards of a major propaganda coup. The U.S. will likely have Internet access locked down in the region to prevent the tape from being transmitted digitally, but an individual courier should eventually be able to slip the cordon. If the kidnap cell did not bring its own recording equipment, it will either push to a safe house to make the recording, or a team will press to reach it. Either act can lead to exposing the location of the soldiers. But their chances of survival decrease as soon as the tape is made.

Cross-posted at The Fourth Rail.

It seems that everyone has an opinion on the debate, and the consensus seems to be that Giuliani won, and that Huckabee helped himself as well. THE WEEKLY STANDARD's own Fred Barnes weighed in early, saying:

...in a few emotional moments in the debate, he grabbed the national security issue and didn't let go. It trumped abortion and, for now at least, it's the issue that's likely to come to mind when reporters and commentators and Republican voters think about Giuliani.

Byron York at National Review compliments the performance of both McCain and Giuliani, saying of the latter:

He was solid on terrorism, solid on the war in Iraq, solid on taxes, solid on lots of things. On abortion, he was not exactly solid, but his answers were more coherent than they had been in the first debate

Ed Morrissey scores it a Giuliani win, but tempers that finding by arguing that Ron Paul threw the debate. PowerLine renders a split decision, with John Hinderaker saying that McCain and Giuliani did the best, and Paul Mirengoff finding a lot to dislike in McCain's answers. RedState also splits its vote, with Bluey scoring a Giuliani knockout, while Erick is a Huckabee fan.

Dean Barnett praises Romney, and says that Giuliani excelled as well. Michelle Malkin compliments Giuliani and Romney too, but says that McCain is 'flagging.' Mary Katharine Ham has a funny summary of the highlights, including a loose paraphrasing of the Paul-Giuliani exchange. She names Giuliani and Huckabee the winners.

The American Spectator seems united in the idea that Giuliani won, with Philip Klein making an interesting observation about Huckabee:

One interesting moment in the debate came when Mike Huckabee praised Giuliani for being honest about his pro-choice views, despite their profound disagreement on abortion. This made me wonder whether the former Arkansas governor was auditioning to be Rudy's vice president should Giuliani get the nomination.

At this writing, Glenn Reynolds's poll shows (Fred) Thompson the winner, with Giuliani in a strong second. Kathryn Lopez picks out a nice post-debate clip with Romney, where he rejects the 'Kobayashi Maru' scenario (as he did in the debate).

To me the key is this: the expectation going into the debate was that Mayor Giuliani would have a difficult time defending his recent 'conversion to candor' on abortion, and would be attacked by the other candidates. Not only did he do better on abortion by keeping his comments more general, but he took advantage of an opening to highlight his commitment to fight terrorism. By avoiding the expected abortion misstep and scoring points on terrorism, I think he clearly emerged as the winner.

The campaigns were quick to highlight the moments in the debate that they would like you to remember. Governor Romney highlighted this clip:

Senator McCain's team sent out this one:

And Mayor Giuliani sent this:

If you're interested in more debate highlights, you can check out the YouTube channels of Governor Romney, Mayor Giuliani, and Senator McCain. Or, if you want to watch the debate in its entirety, Fox News has posted videos here.

The search for the three captured American soldiers has entered its fourth day. Over 4,000 U.S. troops, along with Iraqi security forces, are scouring the Triangle of Death regions southwest of Baghdad, as well as the desert expanses southeast of Fallujah. "We have conducted more than 450 tactical interviews and detained eleven individuals" thought to be linked to the assault over the past 24 hours, said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq. Four of those captured are said to be "hight value suspects." Al Qaeda in Iraq claimed it has captured the three soldiers, but has yet to release a tape. Al Qaeda has told U.S. forces to call off their search for the soldiers.

Today, Coalition forces captured ten Ansar al Sunna and al Qaeda in Iraq operatives during raids in Mosul, Fallujah, and Taji. It is believed the Mosul raid resulted in the capture of "a senior leader in the Ansar al-Sunna terrorist group." Monday's raids resulted in the capture of eleven al Qaeda in Baghdad, Ramadi, Hit, and Karma. The Iraqi Army said it killed 16 insurgents and captured another 109 nationwide during the past 24 hours.

In Diyala province, the situation is worsening for the civilians caught in the path of al Qaeda's attempt to create an Islamic State. A curfew has been imposed in Baqubah, the provincial capital and the scene of recent fighting. Civilians have been fleeing the province by the thousands. "In the past six days more than 900 families, about 5,000 individuals, have fled Diyala governorate. Some of them were forced out by militants and others were scared of the clashes," Faris Abdallah, the media officer for Diyala governorate office told Reuters.

Al Qaeda is imposing Taliban-like law in the region, much like they attempted to do in Anbar province. "They banned smoking and the consumption of any kind of product that might have been imported. Also, in some areas girls are prohibited from going to school as it is considered unnecessary; men cannot wear Western clothes and the Internet has been banned," Abdallah said.

Last week we noted the formation of the Diyala Salvation Front, a grouping of local tribes that have organized to fight al Qaeda just as the Anbar Salvation Council has done. Baqubah tribal leaders are now organizing. "Shaykh 'Awad Najm al-Rabi'i, the head of the new 'Baquba Salvation Council' announced that around 280 tribal leaders, academics, military leaders, from the full range of sects and ethnicities have formed the council to confront the deteriorating security situation in the province and confront the 'gangs' that operate under the organizational rubric of the 'Islamic State,'" notes IraqSlogger. The Baquba Salvation Council committed to "“declaring war against [al Qaeda in Iraq] and expelling them from the province and bringing security back to the citizens.”

Al Qaeda has conducted another mass casualty attack in the north. After two suicide attacks in the Kurdish areas over the past week, al Qaeda struck today in Mosul. A suicide car bomber killed at least 25 civilians and four police and wounded another 125 in the northern city. Al Qaeda has stepped up its bombing campaign in the north, with Mosul, Kirkuk, and Tal Afar seeing an increase in attacks as Iraqi and Coalition forces concentrate on securing Baghdad and the belt regions.

On the Iranian front, an interesting development is occurring behind the scenes. Iranians are increasingly looking to Ayatollah Ali al Sistani for religious guidance, and eschewing Iran's theocratic leadership. “Some Iranians are intrigued by the more freewheeling experiment in Shi'ite empowerment taking place across the border in Iraq, where--Iraq's myriad problems aside--imams can say whatever they want in political Friday sermons, newspapers and satellite channels regularly slam the government, and religious observance is respected and encouraged but not required,” reported the Boston Globe. Sistani's quietist “school of thought...says Shi'ite leaders should stay out of government, and Sistani has stuck to it despite the great temptation to wade into the chaos of Iraqi politics.” This follows the news that SCIRI has dropped the “revolution” from its name, and is abandoning Iran and seeking religious guidance from Ayatollah Sistani as apposed to Iranian Supreme Leader Khameini.

Posted by Bill Roggio at 04:13 PM
Iraq War News | E-mail the author | E-mail article

A study from the UK's Tyndall Centre finds that alarmist messages about the dangers of global warming tend to promote feelings of apathy and helplessness in the audience:

"There has been over-claiming or exaggeration, or at the very least casual use of language by scientists, some of whom are quite prominent," Professor Hulme told BBC News.

His concern is that these exaggerations have given the green light to the media to use the language of fear, terror and disaster when covering scientific reports - even when those reports are much more constrained in their description of the course of likely future events.

He says extravagated claims simply generate a feeling of helplessness in the public.

"My argument is about the dangers of science over-claiming its knowledge about the future and in particular presenting tentative predictions about climate change using words of 'disaster', 'apocalypse' and 'catastrophe'," he said.

It's about time that someone in the climate change movement realized this. Al Gore and his disciples waste no opportunity to warn Americans that unless we dramatically change our lifestyles today, the Earth is doomed. Indeed, it's 'Earth in the Balance' at 'This Moment' -- a message almost as encouraging as 'Repent! The End is Near!' Is it any wonder so many throw up their hands with a sense of futility at this message?

If we can set aside the doomsday warnings for a minute, perhaps we can have a conversation about legitimate concerns regarding climate change.

Marine Corps Times reported yesterday that General James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, has lowered the drinking age

from 21 to 18 for Marines on liberty overseas and for leathernecks taking part in official on-base command functions — including the birthday ball.

It seems underage Marines had grown tired of watching their Navy peers drink freely at port--the Navy only requires sailors to follow local laws--while they were forced to adhere to American drinking laws--ridiculous American drinking laws if I might say so.

Now Marines, too, will only be required to follow local drinking laws, which means that pretty much anywhere in the world where drinking is legal, they'll be free to blow off a little steam with a cold one. Until they come home at least. But, on Marine Corps bases here and abroad, the drinking age will be disregard during special events such as the Corps' birthday.

Really, is there anyone in this country who believes that a 19 year-old United States Marine returning from seven months in Iraq--where drinking is a no-no regardless of age--shouldn't be allowed to order a round of beers for his buddies when he gets back home? A more debatable issue is whether U.S. troops should be allowed to drink while serving in Iraq, at least while getting some well-deserved R and R at bases where insurgent activity is an uncommon occurrence. Military.com's Christian Lowe tackled this question in a piece for Doublethink magazine a few years ago:

Of course, nobody said joining the military would be a frolicking good time, despite the abundance of guns and off-road vehicles. No, the U.S. military--especially in the Middle East--is an almost monolithically un-fun organization. And from the stress and uncertainty of brutally hard, sweaty, scary, and boring work, the soldier gets little relief. No drinking and no sex. No fun.

According to General Order Number One, troops can't have a drink, gamble, or look at a nudie magazine when they're in the war zone. For crying out loud, you can't even have a pet!

To be sure, the military has good reasons to keep the booze away from the troops and the fraternization to a minimum. Loaded soldiers and loaded guns don't mix. While reporting from Iraq, I heard several stories of troops getting hold of some local whiskey in Baghdad, taking one sip too many, and deciding to pop off a few rounds in the barracks.

Now imagine some drunken 19-year-old with access to assault weapons, who, in addition, is suffering through the inevitable jealousies that erupt from short-lived teenage romances. Not a good idea.

But, like some individuals, some forces can do it in moderation. The Italians, the Spaniards, the Dutch, and other soldiers helping the United States in its war on terrorism are allowed to take an occasional nip. If moderation works for them, why not for us?

I'm inclined to believe that whatever the chances are of alcohol-related misconduct, U.S. troops ought to be given the benefit of the doubt--innocent until proven guilty of poor judgment. But, I can see why the military would be reluctant to allow its men to drink in a combat zone, when even a base far out in the desert might be targeted by insurgents on any given day, or night.

Still, when these men--and that is precisely what they are--return home from a tour in Iraq, they ought to be able to enjoy the little things that make this country great, i.e. beer. And wasn't the Vietnam War the impetus for lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 in the first place, only to be raised again by the Reagan administration in what, as far as I can tell, was the only mistake the great man ever made?

The Marine Corps should be commended for making what may turn out to be a controversial decision. Mothers Against Drunk Driving will surely condemn the move, but, given that the Long War is unlikely to end anytime soon, there ought to be a pretty broad consensus for lowering the drinking age back to 18--or at least exempting combat veterans from a law that no college kid ever follows anyway.

From THE DAILY STANDARD: Can Bush Recover? by Fred Barnes.

From the Washington Times: LOST at the Helm, by Frank Gaffney, Jr.

From the Wall Street Journal: Surging Ahead in Iraq, by Max Boot.

From the Fourth Rail: Pakistan Unraveling, by Bill Roggio.

From the Danger Room: Shortages for New Armored Vehicles? by Sharon Weinberger.

Posted by Michael Goldfarb at 12:43 PM
Required Reading | E-mail the author | E-mail article

There's stunning news this morning. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has declared that while he believes the president has made numerous mistakes in the prosecution of the war in Iraq, he is scheduling a vote this week on legislation to provide full funding for the conflict and affirm the president's constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief. Reid stated 'there will be plenty of time to analyze our mistakes after our troops are out of harm's way. In the meantime, I believe that it's important to make clear now that the country is united in defense of our interests, as it will be -- I hope -- under a Democratic president in 2009.'

At least, that's what we might be writing if the Congressional leadership were not determined to use Iraq as a political football. Since it is, the story is that Senator Reid has decided to sneak a funding measure through by attaching it stealthily to a pork-barrel bill that Senators regard as 'must-pass.' He'll offer a vote on a forced retreat from Iraq to satisfy the base, and then offer an Iraq funding bill:

Caught between a Democratic base hungry for increased congressional pressure on President Bush and a White House not shrinking from a second veto, Reid proposed — and cosponsored — two Iraq redeployment amendments to the water-resources bill. The amendments, which could come to a vote as soon as tomorrow, are certain to present a tangle of choices for senators chasing both reelection and the White House.

Reid’s first amendment, mirroring a measure first crafted by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), would give the Senate’s strongest war critics a symbolic victory similar to that won by the House Out of Iraq Caucus late last week. The second amendment replicates the first emergency supplemental that was vetoed last month, while adding waivers to allow Bush to sidestep any Iraq withdrawal timeline.

The unexpected strategy of using the water-resources bill as a testing ground for war policy puts Democratic leaders on track to start a conference with the House by week’s end. Yet the outcome of the two Iraq votes does not guarantee that strong withdrawal language will make it into the bill that reaches Bush’s desk. Reid is leaving all options on the table, according to a spokeswoman...

Reid’s move also sets up a potentially sticky situation for Republicans, who would be forced to vote against a water-resources bill that includes billions of dollars in GOP-backed special projects if either of the anti-war amendments hitch a ride on the must-pass water measure.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) office did not immediately return a call for comment on Reid’s new approach. But Reid said he discussed strategy with McConnell before offering the water-resources amendments, and some Republicans even praised Feingold’s language this year as an intellectually honest approach that would force Democrats to acknowledge a desire to cut off funding for the war.

This is not far from the 'placeholder' approach that Reid floated yesterday. By offering the same bill as the president recently vetoed--but with waivers to make it less objectionable to Republicans--Reid should be setting up a conference that might ultimately produce a compromise the president can sign. At the same time, Carl Levin remains rather lonely; he's the only Democrat continuing to promise that the Congress will ultimately fund the troops.

The unwillingness of Senator Reid to speak truth to power--and tell the netroots that the Congress won't pull the rug out from under the troops--is becoming extremely troubling. The refusal to make such a clear statement is whetting the appetite on the left for a decisive vote in favor of withdrawal. It's not getting any easier to pull the bandaid.

McQ is on top of this news as well.

Newt Gingrich is letting it be known that he will probably get into the Republican presidential race:

Newt Gingrich, the controversial former speaker of the House of Representatives, on Monday said there was a “great possibility” he would enter the Republican presidential field later this year and dismissed the 10 existing contenders as an “American pop idol” line-up.

Mr Gingrich also said the early and unusually intense 2008 presidential cycle was less likely to produce a good national candidate. “We are now in this virtually irrational process,” Mr Gingrich told ABC in an interview on Monday. “It becomes more and more partisan, more and more narrow. It’s exactly the wrong way of choosing a national leader.”

Count Gingrich as one potential beneficiary of the Fred Thompson boomlet. Many commentators argued that the GOP field was missing a strong, traditional conservative. Mr. Thompson's flirtation with a bid has shown that there are plenty of primary voters who will back an alternative to the 'Top 3.' Perhaps Bob Novak's recent warning that a Thompson run is no sure thing has led Gingrich to think that he can be 'the guy.' Polls show him tied with Mitt Romney--not too bad for a candidate who isn't even running. Nevertheless, we will apparently have to wait until Fall to get a straight answer from Gingrich.

And by then there may well be fewer GOP presidential aspirants. There's also good chance that we'll know whether Rudy Giuliani has been able to get past concerns over his views on social issues, and we will certainly know whether Fred Thompson intends to run.

And if you still don't have enough Republican options for president, Chuck Hagel might give you one more. Based on his comments yesterday, it seems like he's still looking for a critique of his party that tests well, since those critiques still show no consistency:

At times Hagel sounded like he was simultaneously prepping for an independent bid and explaining why he was leaving the Republican Party.

Take this passage: "I've been a Republican all my life ... I am not happy with the Republican Party today. It has drifted from the party of Eisenhower, of Goldwater, of Reagan, the party I joined. It isn't the same party. It's not."

He didn't stop there. Hagel went on to say that the GOP has been "hijacked by a group of single-minded, almost isolationist insulationists, power-projectors..."

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, either 'isolationist' or 'power projecting' does not mean what Hagel thinks it means. It's pretty hard to maintain a real isolationist foreign policy while irresponsibly projecting power--unless maybe Hagel means flower power.

This isn't the first time Hagel has made an important statement about his presidential plans seemingly without editing his remarks first. Perhaps he wants to be a straight talker in the mold of Yogi Berra.

In either case, most Republicans will probably welcome an independent presidential bid by Chuck Hagel. If the election is indeed largely about Iraq, the Republican nominee is likely to be helped by a third-party candidate who splits the anti-war vote.

The past week in Iraq has been a mixed bag of political success coupled with several successful high profile attacks by al Qaeda. The situation is heating up in Diyala, and al Qaeda conducted a highly successful assault on a U.S. Army team operating south of Baghdad.

The search is on for the three missing soldiers who are believed to have been captured after a complex assault on a U.S. Army patrol on the outskirts of Mahmudiyah Saturday morning. Over 4,000 troops are involved, along with aerial and satellite surveillance and elements of the Anbar Salvation Council. Al Qaeda in Iraq's political front, the Islamic State of Iraq, claims it has captured the three soldiers, but the group has not offered any evidence. Al Qaeda in Iraq will make every effort to exploit the captive soldiers both to influence its American audience and to shore up its base of support in jihadi circles and beyond.

In Baghdad, there has been very little change to the disposition of forces. The focus in the eastern zones of the city has been clearing Sadr City. Over 40 percent of the city was reported to have been cleared since the last update over a week ago. In the west, Iraqi and U.S. forces have moved forces into the Bayaa and Doura districts and initiated clearing operations after sweeping through the Mansour district last week.

Diyala province remains the hottest and most dangerous region in Iraq. The tribes of Diyala, tired of al Qaeda's attempts at imposing a Taliban like regime through its Islamic State of Iraq, are beginning to organize along the lines of the tribes in Anbar province. Several tribes have banded together to form the Diyala Awakening and have vowed to battle al Qaeda. "Tribesman Sheikh Wameed al-Jabouri told al-Hayat that a number of tribes had signed a cooperation agreement to undertake this mission and to bring the city [of Baqubah] back to how 'it used to be,'" reports Deutsche Presse-Agentur. "The agreement could be considered 'a national charter' that proves their rejection of the actions of the terrorist groups, al-Jabouri said."

This development comes as U.S. forces are finishing their surge and preparing to retake the province from al Qaeda. Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the Commander of Multnational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division, briefed on Diyala late last week and stated "I do not have enough soldiers right now in Diyala province to get that security situation moving . . . We have plans to put additional forces in that area."

"In Diyala province, we are working in a combined effort with Iraqi security forces to achieve tactical parity," said Maj. Gen. Mixon. "The tactical situation there is very difficult, and the fight is ongoing. Across MND North, we'll continue to work to improve Iraqi security forces, and they will become more capable, and we will work with the police units until they are fully established and capable of providing for their own security."

Multinational Forces moved a 700 man Stryker battalion to Baqubah in March and have just deployed an additional Stryker Brigade, the 4th Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, into Diyala. "The most recent unit to have arrived up there is the 4th brigade 2nd infantry division, which is comprised of two Stryker battalions and one artillery battalion," Major General William Caldwell said in a recent press briefing. The Iraqi government has stated it is deploying an unspecified number of Iraqi Army and police to Diyala.

From the New York Sun: As Surge Begins To Take Hold, Tribal Leaders Turn on Qaeda, by Eli Lake.

From the Washington Times: Promoting a manly politics, by Suzanne Fields.

From Townhall.com: Congress Is Still Feeding at the Trough, by Robert Bluey.

From the New York Post: Where Jackals Play Watchdog, by Peter Brookes.

From U.S. News: Too Soon to Leave, by Mortimer B. Zuckerman.

On May 9th, citing sources at the 301 military hospital in Beijing, the Times (London) reported that Chinese vice premier Huang Ju had died of pancreatic cancer. A short while later, Hong Kong’s Phoenix TV, which has close ties to Beijing, also reported that Huang Ju had passed away.

Within the hour, and after the State Council--China’s Cabinet--took the unusual step of denouncing these reports as “totally unfounded,” Phoenix TV retracted and apologized for the story, calling it “purely a rumor.”

The Times followed by reporting both the government’s denial and the fact that its sources “expressed surprise at the denial of his death.”

The next day, Hong Kong’s Ming Pao reported that Huang Ju was in a coma and on life support at the PLA General Hospital (i.e., the 301 military hospital) in Beijing and that the State Council’s press office had issued an urgent bulletin to all media outlets, including websites, instructing them to use the “standard-issue Xinhua script” and to comply with Xinhua editorial guidance as to how news related to Huang was to be presented.

Meanwhile, official Chinese media have made no mention of the condition of the man who ranks number six in the country’s political hierarchy and who, as executive vice premier, is in charge of national economic and financial affairs.

Huang Ju, aged 69 and a member of the Shanghai clique, is a protégé of former president Jiang Zemin. With Jiang’s active support, Huang, a former mayor and party chief of Shanghai, was promoted to the Politburo’s standing committee in 2002.

Jiang Zemin, Huang Ju, and Chen Liangyu (who succeeded Huang as party chief of Shanghai) have formed the clique’s “iron triangle.” In September 2006, Chen Liangyu was ousted as Shanghai party boss for his involvement in a social security fund scandal. Whether Huang Ju was involved as well is unclear; however, there has been speculation that Huang was next in line to get sacked.

Huang’s demise--literal or figurative--would constitute a heavy blow to the Shanghai clique in its ongoing struggle with incumbent President Hu Jintao for control of the policy agenda. Reports of Huang’s death occur only months before the crucial 17th Party Congress, when Hu is expected to replace many of Jiang’s men with his own. The timing of the Party Congress may explain the sensitivity and confusion surrounding news reports of Huang’s condition.

Last month, ostensibly to further the goal of greater transparency, Beijing unveiled its long-awaited “Regulations on Government Information Openness.” These are scheduled to take effect in May 2008. Under the new regulations, the government will maintain its right to prevent release of state secrets. The health of a leader has traditionally been treated as a state secret. It remains to be seen whether, after May 2008, cases such as Huang’s will be reported any differently.

The big story last week in the House was an attempt to guarantee funding for the Iraq conflict for only a few months and to set up a vote on de-funding the conflict in July (a possibility I wrote about in February). While that approach isn't getting any traction, it's unclear what Congress will send to the president instead. It seems that dozens of Senators are offering suggestions on how to arrive at a compromise bill built on benchmarks, but it's hard to guess what will happen next. If you're a Nevada Senator and know how to play poker, maybe it's time to 'check:'

The discussions have included the idea of passing a shell bill that does not have any language in it or a measure that is not necessarily a war spending bill, both Democratic and Republican aides said.

The Bush administration is pushing the notion of passing a shell, said one Senate GOP aide...

The idea of a 'shell bill'--one that offers no policy decisions, but simply sets up negotiations with the House--is a sign that Senate leaders want to claim some progress while avoiding votes on any bill except for the final product of negotiations among the Senators and with the White House. If the administration is encouraging such an approach, it must indicate that they are content with the progress they are making with Senate leaders.

Meanwhile, House liberals are pushing to avoid a compromise with the Senate. It looks like they are content to let Harry Reid jump under the bus:

Even as the House leaders touted their Thursday victory in passing a controversial second version of the war spending bill, Democratic sources suggested Friday the outcome of another vote — on a measure that would have dictated the immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq — would provide House lawmakers with leverage when the chambers meet in conference...

The outcome of the Thursday vote could embolden the Progressive Caucus in its efforts to preserve the House position in conference, which many had expected would be watered down...

In the Senate, negotiations have centered on how to get the 60 or more votes for a strong response to the president’s veto of the first war spending bill, which would have set a goal of ending combat operations in Iraq by next year. That bill garnered only 51 votes...

That aide said Sen. Olympia Snowe’s (R-Maine) proposal with Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) might have a better chance of moving.

Snowe said Thursday that she has concocted “an interesting blend in this proposal,” noting that her idea would force the White House to at least come up with a plan to begin a phased redeployment of forces but would not force the administration to adopt such a plan within any specific time frame...

The Senate Democratic leadership continues to reject the increasingly serious effort by House liberals to simply end the war. Levin and others continue to push for funding. This could set up a serious conflict with the House over the final conference product--particularly since it now appears that anything the president would sign will be opposed by a strong majority of House Democrats. That means that Speaker Pelosi will be calling up a bill that she knows must be passed with mainly Republican votes. That's not a politically attractive option for any Speaker--particualrly on an issue as contentious as this.

Chris Wallace spent 30 minutes with Rudy Giuliani this morning on Fox News Sunday, leading off the interview with the issue that will present “America’s Mayor” with his biggest challenge in the Republican primary: abortion.

I oppose it, that’s a principle I’ve held for forever and I’ll hold it forever, that’s not gonna change. But I also believe that, in a society like ours where people have very very different consciences about this, it’s best for us to respect each other’s differences and allow for choice. … I am open and will continue to be open to ways to limit abortion. What I am not open to is to removing the right. … If you can find ways to limit abortion, which I would think would be a constructive thing to do, I will probably find a way to support that.

Over at This Week, Barack Obama was the featured guest, and George Will paid the freshman senator from Illinois an exceptional compliment:

He has perfect pitch, I think, for the mood of the country, which is a flinch from the rhetorical vitriol for the mood that is consuming this town. He’s a little like Ronald Reagan in this regard: Reagan used to drive people crazy, in the Democratic party, because they’d say “The public doesn’t agree with him on this or this or this or this, and they vote for him.” They voted for him because they said we like him, he’s not off putting, he’s not frightening, and I think this is another 1980.

Meet the Press spent an hour with John McCain, who was called on yet again to remind the American people of just what’s at stake in Iraq and what failure would mean (namely, chaos).

The consequences of failure, Tim, are that there would be chaos in the region. There's three--two million Sunni in Baghdad. The Iranians would continue to increase their influence, the Saudis would have to help the Sunni, the Kurds would want independence, the Turks will never stand for it. Some people say partition. You'd have to partition bedrooms in Baghdad because Sunni and Shia are, are married. This, this is a very, very difficult situation, but the consequences of failure, in my view, are unlike the Vietnam War where we could leave and come home and it was over, that these people will try to follow us home and the region will erupt to a point where we may have to come back or we will be combating what is now, to a large degree, al-Qaeda, although certainly other--many other factors of sectarian violence, in the region.

Countering McCain’s view was Chuck Hagel, who appeared on Face the Nation and repeated his call for retreat.

That's right, this is a--this is a civil, sectarian war. Yes, al Qaeda's there. Yes, terrorists are there. But they are not the predominant aspect of this. And I'm really sorry to see some of the administration continue to say that this is the [central] front [in the war] on terrorism, this war. It's not. This is a sectarian, civil war.

NATO and Afghan forces have struck a major blow to the Taliban's military leadership. Mullah Dadullah Akhund, the Taliban's top military commander, has been killed during fighting in the volatile southern province of Helmand. "He was killed last night and right now I have his body before me," Governor Assadullah Khalid of Kandahar province told Reuters. Governor Khalid displayed the body to a group of reporters in neighboring Kandahar province.

An AP reporter recognized Dadullah's corpse from television interviews and said the body "had no left leg and three bullet wounds: one to the back of the head and two to the stomach." NATO's International Security Assistance Force has confirmed his death. "Mullah Dadullah will most certainly be replaced in time, but the insurgency has received a serious blow," according to an ISAF statement. Qari Yousef Ahmadi, a Taliban spokesman, has denied Dadullah was killed.

Some reports indicate Dadullah was killed in the Gershk district, others claim he was killed near the Sangin and Nari Saraj districts. NATO and Afghan forces have been conducting major operations against the Taliban in these regions. Just yesterday, NATO said it killed over 70 Taliban and wounded another 30 during a week long battle to clear the Nari Saraj district. Another 20 Taliban were reported killed in the Sangin district yesterday.

Dadullah was thought to have been surrounded in the Chora district in neighboring Uruzgan province along with 200 of his fighters on April 26, but the Taliban said Mullah Dadullah was not among them. Dadullah then appeared on an interview on Al Jazeera, and claimed Osama bin Laden was alive, well, and leading the jihad in Afghanistan. "His recent al Jazeera interview and phone calls may have played a huge role in his death," Matt Dupee of Afgha.com said in an email.

Mullah Dadullah sat on the Taliban Shura Majlis--or executive council. He was the Taliban's most senior military commander and reported to have been one of Mullah Omar's most trusted advisers. Dadullah joined forces with the Taliban at its formation in 1994, but fell out of favor "after he was accused for a bloody genocide in the central Bamyan province."

"Largely known for his brutality on the battlefield, he is labeled a blood-thirsty sadist who enjoys killing and torturing by military analysts," said Dupee. "Hazara residents in the central highlands who endured mass killings and a scorched earth campaign by Dadullah and his men in the late 1990's agree; referring to him as the 'Black Mullah,' a term signifying his dark heart." Dadullah was later reactivated to fight the Northern Alliance.

Dadullah escaped capture after the fall of the Taliban in late 2001 during the U.S. led Operation Enduring Freedom. He fled to South Waziristan, Pakistan, where he reconstituted his forces and continued to fight NATO and Afghan forces. Dadullah has orchestrated and promoted the Taliban's suicide campaign in Afghanistan and led the Taliban's conventional military operations in the critical southern provinces of Helmand, Kandahar, Uruzgan, and Zabul. Recently, Mullah Dadullah was said to have personally mediated between feuding Taliban and Uzbek forces in South Waziristan.

Dadullah's death may have a significant impact on the Taliban's much heralded "Spring Offensive," which NATO has countered by launching preemptive strikes since late winter against Taliban positions in Helmand and Uruzgan provinces.

Cross posted at The Fourth Rail.

Video of Dadullah's last interview with Al Jazeera on April 30, 2007:

Al Qaeda in Iraq was able to conduct three successful suicide attacks today. All three targets were bridges spanning major rivers--two were in the Shia region south of Baghdad, and one up north near Taji. Al Qaeda in Iraq attacked two bridges in Baghdad in April, and destroyed one of them. Also, al Qaeda in Iraq, through its political front the Islamic State of Iraq, released a video of the execution of nine Iraqi police and soldiers. The men were shot in the head.

In the embattled town of Karma, U.S. forces killed "an estimated 10 to 14 terrorists" after discovering them test firing anti-aircraft weapons. A truck with anti-aircraft weapons mounted in the bed was destroyed; along with two other vehicles (you can watch the video here). Coalition forces also killed four terrorists and captured nine during raids targeting car bomb cells in Baghdad, Taji, and Mosul.

Diyala continues to remain the hottest battleground in Iraq. One U.S. soldier was killed and nine wounded "from an explosion while conducting combat operations in Diyala province, Thursday." Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the Commander of Multnational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division, briefed on Diyala this afternoon, and stated "I do not have enough soldiers right now in Diyala province to get that security situation moving... We have plans to put additional forces in that area."

"In Diyala province, we are working in a combined effort with Iraqi security forces to achieve tactical parity," said Maj. Gen. Mixon. "The tactical situation there is very difficult, and the fight is ongoing. Across MND North, we'll continue to work to improve Iraqi security forces, and they will become more capable, and we will work with the police units until they are fully established and capable of providing for their own security."

On the 'where's Muqtada al Sadr' front, David Satterfield, the senior adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Iraq, stated that the U.S. is certain Sadr is currently in Iran. "We know he's out of the country, we don't think," Satterfield told the Associated Press. "He's in Iran, which is where he has been since mid-January." Yesterday the Sadrist bloc pulled off a propaganda stunt by claiming it had passed a bill requiring U.S. forces to halt their buildup and forcing the government to seek parliamentary approval for the extension of the UN mission in Iraq. It turns out the Kurdish block was deceived on the legislation, and the bill was only a draft.

Are you a "career-minded" college student with no hope of finding a summer job? How would you like to make $400 a week, plus expenses, campaigning "for safe redeployment out of Iraq, targeting congressional and senate war votes in selected states/districts?"

That's the pitch that one anti-war group sent out in a solicitation to political science professors seeking their help in identifying "the best of the best"--or at least the best of the too stoned to have lined up a job yet. The letter goes on, "For those wishing to further a career in politics, the timing and training involved is a great opportunity to situate yourself for '08 races as an experienced campaigner." Don't do it because you believe in it...do it to advance your career.

The campaign is called "Iraq Summer," and it's being run in conjunction with MoveOn.org, USAction, and Americans United for Change. Comparing the campaign to the "Mississippi Summer that helped pass the civil rights laws, and Viet Nam Summer that helped end the Viet Nam War. . . . Iraq Summer will be the 21st century edition of those historic projects."

Ah yes, just like those kids who campaigned for civil rights, and the hippies that spent their summers sticking it to the man, you too can be a part of history by becoming a mercenary in the grass roots army to "fracture critical elements of the Republican base of support for the war."

Absent a real grass roots movement among young people to end the war in Iraq, the left seems to have decided it might just be easier to buy one. But one wonders if there's been any thought to the possibility of provoking a backlash from sending a bunch of lefty college kids into Republican strongholds with the aim of convincing voters of the error of their ways--the error of the "President’s disastrous policy in Iraq," which, despite all the disastrousness of it, still polls pretty well in Red America. Does anyone remember what happened to Howard Dean when he sent his grungy left-wing minions forth in Iowa:

Of course, those kids were, for the most part, true-believers. Maybe the idea here is to pay the kids and offer them career advancement in the hopes that the most offensive, anti-establishment candidates will choose not to participate. I mean, it all sounds so Republican...working for money and a chance to get ahead. And the campaign also requires all applicants to have access to a car--not very eco-friendly.

From the Washington Post: How the CIA Failed America, by Richard Perle.

From the Times: French fries are back on the US menu, by Gerard Baker.

From the Wall Street Journal: Everything Old Is New Again, by Peggy Noonan.

From USA Today: Gitmo detainees have all the rights they need, by David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A. Casey.

From the Fourth Rail: Anbar Rising, by Bill Roggio.

My colleague Mike Goldfarb noted yesterday that House Democrats were preparing to pass an intelligence authorization bill that directs the CIA not to get bogged down on things like the war on terror, but instead to focus on global warming. It was only later that we--and opponents of pork-barrel spending in Congress--became aware that the legislation had also been loaded up with 26 earmarks with a total cost of $100 million.

It's troubling that some of the earmarks were included at the request of Republicans, but it's also worth noting that the only effort to strip them was mounted by Republican reformers. Those include Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who went to the committee offices days before the vote to examine the pork-barrel items, but was unable to get explanations. Some earmarks were not properly disclosed (due to a GPO printing error, according to committee Democrats) and others were not on the list of earmarks included in the report accompanying the bill. When Congressman Flake moved to begin a secret session to discuss the matter, the majority voted him down.

Attracting the most attention was an earmark proposed by Congressman Murtha--$23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, conveniently located in his district. Murtha argued that this would only bring the authorization for the project in line with its previously-approved $39 million appropriation. But, of course, Murtha is one of the most powerful Democrats on the Appropriations Committee. The president's request for the center was $16 million--the amount required to shut it down.

A highlight of this kerfuffle was an attempt by Republicans to raise a point of order, since not all earmarks were listed as required (under the new House rules enacted by Democrats). In this dense exchange, Democrats explain that a committee report need only claim to list all earmarks--not actually list them--in order to satisfy House rules. The relevant portion of the debate is around the 4:20 mark:

Speaker Pelosi asserted yesterday in debate on Iraq that "benchmarks without consequences and enforcement are meaningless." You could say the same about House rules. Why claim to require that earmarks are disclosed if you have no interest in ensuring that the disclosure is accurate?

Oh--and in case you're wondering, Democrats voted 230-185 against stripping the provision on global warming. Remember that when they complain that U.S. intelligence agencies aren't properly addressing their core mission

While Iraq war opponents are loathe to admit it, the departure of U.S. troops from Iraq is not a 'freebie.' Once the United States ends its military involvement, Iraq will still be home to sectarian violence, al Qaeda fighters, economic and political unrest, and a host of other problems. Indeed, these problems are generally the rationale Democrats use to justify a pullout.

But while opponents have not tired of asking for a 'Plan B' in Iraq, they have paid scant attention to the issue themselves. Roll Call's Mort Kondracke offers one possible plan for victory in Iraq that does not require the continued involvement of American forces:

Without prejudging whether President Bush's "surge" policy will work, the administration and its critics ought to be seriously thinking about a Plan B, the "80 percent solution" - also known as "winning dirty." Right now, the administration is committed to building a unified, reconciled, multisectarian Iraq - "winning clean." Most Democrats say that's what they want, too. But it may not be possible.

The 80 percent alternative involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.

No one has publicly advocated this Plan B, and I know of only one Member of Congress who backs it - and he wants to stay anonymous. But he argues persuasively that it's the best alternative available if Bush's surge fails. Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows...

Prudence calls for preparation of a Plan B. The withdrawal policy advocated by most Democrats virtually guarantees catastrophic ethnic cleansing - but without any guarantee that a government friendly to the United States would emerge. Almost certainly, Shiites will dominate Iraq because they outnumber Sunnis three to one. But the United States would get no credit for helping the Shiites win. In fact, America's credibility would suffer because it abandoned its mission. And, there is no guarantee that al-Sadr - currently residing in Iran and resting his militias - would not emerge as the victor in a power struggle with al-Maliki's Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

Iran formerly backed the SCIRI and its Badr Brigades but recently switched allegiances - foolishly, my Congressional source contends - to al-Sadr, who's regarded by other Shiites as young, volatile and unreliable. Under a win dirty strategy, the United States would have to back al-Maliki and the Badr Brigades in their eventual showdown with al-Sadr. It also would have to help Jordan and Saudi Arabia care for a surge in Sunni refugees, possibly 1 million to 2 million joining an equal number who already have fled.

Mickey Kaus has pointed out before that by refusing to leave prosecution of the war in the hands of the president alone, Democrats have turned the political debate over Iraq from a 'lay-up' into a 'toss-up.' That is, while American voters in 2008 might reasonably decide that it was a mistake ever to go into Iraq, the aggressiveness of the Democratic Congress in its attempts to end the war render that question moot. Instead, voters are likely to look at Iraq as it exists on election day.

As policymakers eagerly discuss benchmarks and consequences, it may be time to begin a dialog over what's next. Democrats have variously endorsed a federalist system, complete withdrawal, and a narrow focus on training Irai troops, rooting out Al Qaeda and self-defense. None of these is without costs to American interests. With the national debate to choose our next president well under way, it's about time to discuss the future.

The BBC has posted a story on their website titled "Cyberspace War" in which THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD's own Bill Roggio is quoted discussing the impact of the Multinational Force Iraq channel at YouTube.

Here's what Roggio had to say:

So what is the reaction in the blogosphere to the military establishment's own move into the internet "battle space"?

Blogger, writer and former US soldier Bill Roggio says it is really just an extension of the US military's attempt to reach the public through mainstream media.

"It's really a smart move. One thing that al-Qaeda does very well is put its own videos of attacks on Americans or Iraqis up on their own websites. They dominate that terrain and they get the hits."

By getting a good YouTube and Google rating, the US military will improve the chances of theirs being the first site people go to when they search on topics relating to Iraq, he says.

"They are very slow, very behind the times in things like blogs," he argues. "But they are starting to move forward and recognising the medium - they have to, the enemy is doing it and they have to counter that."

Mr Roggio - who has been embedded with the military in Iraq three times since the 2003 US-led invasion - says he is willing to give the US military the benefit of the doubt over its choice of videos.

"Some of these are very military friendly but not all of them are," he says.

He points to one clip where the footage is murky, one of the soldiers looks scared and the viewer is left wondering what is going on.

"It certainly wasn't a recruiting commercial. I think it was a pretty frank look at what combat looks like in our generation.

"I don't think they are going to put something up that shows them in a bad light, but I do think they are trying to give you a little snapshot of 'one day in the life of...'."

Lt Col Garver would agree. "All I'm looking to provide is another view of things that are happening here in this very complicated, very complex place that is Iraq."

It's more than four months into the new Democratic Congress--not a bad time to see how they're doing. So far there have been 25 bills signed into law. Here's the list:

A bill to redesignate the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the State of Vermont as the "Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area."

To revise the composition of the House of Representatives Page Board to equalize the number of members representing the majority and minority parties and to include a member representing the parents of pages and a member representing former pages, and for other purposes.

To provide a new effective date for the applicability of certain provisions of law to Public Law 105-331.

An act to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small business Investment Act of 1958 through July 31, 2007, and for other purposes.

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.

To amend the Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, to extend the term of the Antitrust Modernization Commission and to make a technical correction.

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1300 North Frontage Road West in Vail, Colorado, as the "Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Post Office Building".

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 152 North 5th Street in Laramie, Wyoming, as the "Gale W. McGee Post Office".

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1700 Main Street in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the "Scipio A. Jones Post Office Building".

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 16150 Aviation Loop Drive in Brooksville, Florida, as the "Sergeant Lea Robert Mills Brooksville Aviation Branch Post Office".

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3903 South Congress Avenue in Austin, Texas, as the "Sergeant Henry Ybarra III Post Office Building".

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the "Lane Evans Post Office Building".

To designate the United States courthouse located at 555 Independence Street in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the "Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Sr. United States Courthouse".

Geez, this is unusual. I find myself in nearly complete agreement with one of the bloggers at TAPPED, the group blog run by the American Prospect. Robert Farley posts there today with a really insightful take on the hype surrounding the MRAP program, which got a front page spot in USA Today. MRAP is an exciting program, not least because it offers the chance to replace the Humvee on some of Iraq's most dangerous roads long before production begins on the Humvee's real replacement, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.

Still, there's reason to worry that we might be betting a little to heavily on MRAP. Farley links to Armchair Generalist, who writes:

Let me make a few observations. We're talking about making a multi-billion dollar procurement deal on a system that hasn't been run through any operational tests, to replace a system that cost about a fifth of the armored vehicle, and the military wants to rush production of "low rate initial production" vehicles through five contractors to meet the demand. This is a capability that hasn't been analyzed prior to the decision to go with a material solution, because it would make too much sense to suggest that a non-material solution - say, eliminating the source of the IEDs rather than beefing up the protection requirement - might be a really better idea. No, it's always better to go with the high tech solution than the tougher, but more effective, common sense approach.

I'm not a regular reader of this blog, which is advertised as offering "a progressive view on military affairs," but if this is what progressives are all about, sign me up. "Eliminating the source" is indeed the only way to stop the bleeding. MRAP is a stop-gap measure, and a good one, but the idea that we should replace every Humvee in Iraq with a truck that costs $1 million a copy--at a total cost of nearly $8 billion--may be an expensive mistake. Again, Farley: "The cost is certainly a concern. It's easy to say 'we'll spend whatever we need to protect our troops', but that obviously isn't true, and every new expense takes away from something else."

Farley goes on to point out that "insurgents are going to come up with new methods of attack, and those attacks are going to destroy these extraordinarily expensive new vehicles." They will deploy more powerful (larger) and more lethal (EFPs) devices than they have in the past, just as they did when the Army started up-armoring its fleet of Humvees. EFPs in particular are certainly capable of penetrating the armor on MRAP--they can penetrate the armor on a tank. But the insurgents don't have a silver-bullet in the EFP either. Ceramic armor and reactive armor offer U.S. forces increased protection, but neither is insurgent-proof:

“A multi-slug [EFP] causes a lot of problems,” said Vernon Joynt, lead scientist for Force Protection , the South Carolina-based vehicle maker known for the improvised-explosive-device-stopping Buffalo and Cougar [the two most widely used MRAPs]. “It shoots all the slugs like a machine gun in line. Problems arise with certain kinds of ceramics. They defeat the threat but do not remain in place. They are brittle. If you have one slug hitting them it will defeat the slug but shatter in the process, so if you have a multi-slug the rest [of the slugs] will come flying through like through a tunnel.”

The point is, as the Armchair Generalist said, there is no technological solution to the IED, there is only "eliminating the source," i.e. killing the bad guys. And now we have the Congress and the military hopping on the MRAP bandwagon as if we're going to see a more sustainable number of casualties if only we can get our guys better protected--a game we've been playing and losing since 2004. It's a horrible approach to fighting an insurgency. There is no sustainable level of casualties, and no technology will ever get IED casualties to zero. The enemy will always find a clever way to blast a whole in metal, unless they're convinced not to plant the bombs in the first place. If we can kill enough of these guys, we ought to be able to deter the rest, provided we can also engage them politically and economically.

With so much support for MRAP in Congress, and from Joe Biden in particular, the Senate Armed Services Committee has now halted funding for JLTV. JLTV will offer much of the protection of MRAP--v-shaped hull, improved armor, advanced jamming capability--but it will also be a hybrid, meaning a significant reduction in the logistical burden compared to MRAP, which are huge, gas-guzzling vehicles. And that's not about saving the environment, its about saving lives and money--fewer Americans will be driving trucks on Iraqi roads and there will be a significant savings in the cost of supplying gas to troops in Iraq. Globalsecurity.org explains: "70 percent of the logistic burden on a battlefield is fuel, and that fuel delivery can cost between $ 30 (by Hemtt tanker) and $ 400 (by CH-47, as in Afghanistan) per gallon."

Factor in that eight companies are bidding on MRAP, many offering more than one vehicle, and we are talking about a tremendously expensive logistical nightmare--and the vehicles may be made obsolete by a clever terrorist with a few hundred dollars worth of materials. It's not that MRAP is a bad idea, but the scale of the program and the political support for it may be way out of proportion to the impact it will have--and at this scale, MRAP might even have a negative impact (it's "too big and intimidating" for day-to-day operations in friendly areas says Christian Lowe; it certainly won't help in the battle for hearts and minds). If the Democrats want out of Iraq, they shouldn't spend $8 billion on MRAP, and if they want a major reduction in IED-related casualties, they ought to support an offensive, rather than a defensive, solution. Either way, MRAP isn't the answer. The answer is to "eliminate the source."

In Iraq, the major developments over the past two days occurred in the political realm. First, the tribes of Diyala are beginning to organize along the lines of the tribes in Anbar province and have now vowed to battle al Qaeda. "Tribesman Sheikh Wameed al-Jabouri told al-Hayat that a number of tribes had signed a cooperation agreement to undertake this mission and to bring the city [of Baqubah] back to how 'it used to be,'" notes Deutsche Presse-Agentur. "The agreement could be considered 'a national charter' that proves their rejection of the actions of the terrorist groups, al-Jabouri said." This development comes as U.S. force level increases for the surge are nearly complete, and the Coalition is preparing a move against al Qaeda in that province.

Back in Baghdad, controversy continues over the decision of the Iraqi parliament to take a summer recess, despite the fact that outstanding issues such as the petroleum law and the status of federalism in the Iraqi constitution have yet to be resolved. This impasse is creating enormous political pressure back in the United States, where Congress and the Bush administration are battling over a funding bill. Vice President Cheney visited Baghdad to reinforce the need for political progress to accompany the military 'surge'.

In Baghdad, the Sadrist block has pushed a draft bill through parliament calling for "a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and a freeze on the number of foreign troops already in the country." The parliament would also have to approve the UN mission in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007. A Sadr aide claimed to have 144 of the 275 parliamentarians supporting the bill. The bill is under legal review and has yet to reach the speaker of the parliament's desk.

According to Alertnet, the bill is actually a "petition, which is nonbinding," and must be presented to speaker. "Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that's called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear."

The Kurdish block backed the legislation but "only on the condition that the withdrawal timetable be linked to a schedule for training and equipping Iraq’s security forces." The Sadrists didn't include this requirement, prompting the Kurdish block to refer to the legislation as a deception.

The Sadrist block pulled off a masterful propaganda stunt. Expect the bill to be defeated when it comes to the full vote in parliament, as prior versions have been.

We linked earlier today to the House Select Intelligence Committee's decision to mandate that the director of Central Intelligence spend more time worrying about global warming and less time worrying about terrorism. Unfortunately, that seems to be fairly representative of the priorities of the Democratic party these days.

The good folks over at the Unalienable Right pull this quote from a speech Obama gave in Detroit today:

"At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the country that faced down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called to challenge the tyranny of oil."

Challenge the "tyranny of oil?" Is that really the challenge that Obama believes America is now faced with. Look, we're all for reducing dependence on foreign sources of oil--and we could start by drilling some holes in ANWR, on the continental shelf, etc.--but Obama seems less concerned with where the oil's coming from, then the deeply suspect premise that oil "threatens to destroy [our way of life] if our generation does not act now and act boldly."

Still, there's at least one Democrat who is willing to speak to the real danger we face, and the need for this generation to act now and act boldly in confronting it. Here's Joe Lieberman on the floor of the Senate today:

But, leadership requires sometimes that we defy public opinion if that is what is necessary to do what is right for our country. In fact, at a time like this, we are required to do what each of us believes is right, and that might not be what is popular.

And what is right, I firmly believe, is that we cannot allow our nation to be defeated in Iraq by the same terrorist enemy with which we are engaged in a world-wide conflict. The global war on terrorism which we are waging is a world-wide struggle against a barbaric totalitarian foe that is Al Qaeda. And today, it is Al Qaeda that we are fighting in Iraq. Al Qaeda itself has declared Iraq to be the central front of their larger war against our way of life.

Oil isn't the problem, radical Muslims terrorists are the problem. Surely we must reduce the flow of petrodollars to the Middle East, but not so that Hollywood can force us all to drive go-carts while they fly around in private jets. Obama's railing against oil might help his fundraising, but comparing oil to fascism and communism, and ignoring the real threat to this country in the 21st century...that's not leadership.

Some hours ago I planned the post I was going to write today on the big news you weren't hearing much about: the bipartisan legislation introduced yesterday to trigger a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Now it looks like that post may have been overtaken by events.

I'll just give a few quick links since I suspect my colleague Bill Roggio will soon provide additional information, but in just the last 24 hours we learned that the Shias and Sunnis both seem to want us out of Iraq (according to the leader of the Sadrist bloc, anyway), and that Congressional Republicans are telling the president that he has lost credibility and there are only a few months left to make lasting progress.

These are noteworthy events. But the latter, at least, likely will have little effect on the situation on the ground. It was being whispered some months ago that the White House recognized that by the end of this year, troops would have to be coming home from Iraq. Further, General Petraeus had said that it was reasonable to begin to assess the effectiveness of 'the surge' by the fall. It was never likely--given domestic political pressure--that Republicans or Democrats would wait any longer than that. The eagerness of some Republicans to be seen expressing frustration sends a message to the Iraqi government--perhaps an unhelpful one--but it changes little here. Secretly unhappy Republicans who were committed to waiting until the fall to pass judgment are now publicly unhappy Republicans who are waiting until fall to pass judgment.

So on to legislative matters.

The House continues to claim a stranglehold on pointless theater. Knowing full well that their funding bill is DOA, House leaders continue to press for it. That move has political consequences, as the anti-war left is already drawing up enemies lists--comprised mostly of the conservative Dem freshmen who brought the party its first majority in 12 years. A lot of these members have already taken tough votes that will be used against them in their campaigns next year; now some of them seem to be making enemies on the left. So much for gratitude.

Yet if the House bill is merely a distraction, what will the actual funding vehicle be?

There's a decent chance it will be some version of the Snowe-Bayh compromise introduced yesterday. Senator Snowe spoke about it yesterday on PBS:

From RealClearPolitics: Your War, Not Mine, by Victor Davis Hanson.

From the New York Post: For Colombia, a Chill on the Hill, by Robert D. Novak.

From the Washington Times: Money Well Spent, by Raymond E. Johns.

From the Danger Room: Armored Vehicle Demand Blows Up, by Noah Shachtman.

From FP Passport: FP Contributor Imprisoned in Tehran, Christine Y. Chen.

The big political news coming out of Europe this week was the election of Nicolas Sarkozy in France. In Washington, the imminent arrival of Sarkozy--already hailed as the “most pro-American president in recent French history” (admittedly, the competition for this accolade is not that stiff)--is seen as welcome news. In his acceptance speech, Sarkozy assured his “American friends” that “France will always be on their side when they need her." At the same time, however, Sarkozy made only brief references to his “European partners,” and he failed to mention Germany--traditionally France’s closest EU ally. In fact, he spent more time making the case for a Mediterranean Union “linking Europe and Africa” than he did talking about the European Union.

So what are the implications of Sarkozy’s election for future relations between Paris and Berlin, the so-called “couple franco-allemand?" In general, German newspaper commentators have welcomed Sarkozy’s win and see it as an opportunity for renewed Franco-German cooperation, especially with regard to the stalled EU constitutional treaty. As the Financial Times Deutschland put it:

The more sedate German chancellor Angela Merkel and the bundle of energy that is Sarkozy appear at first glance to come from two different planets. However, they have certain elements in common. Both have fundamentally favorable attitudes towards the United States. Both favor pragmatism over principles and grand visions in the way they do politics. That surely cannot hurt the European project--many EU citizens are tired of big words anyway.

Sarkozy wants to water down the EU constitution to the necessary institutional reforms and then pass it without a referendum. For Europe it could be the much longed-for kiss that wakes it from the slumber that it has been in since the failed referenda.

Sarkozy and Merkel are also united in their strong opposition to Turkey’s attempt to join the European Union. This is a stunning reversal of political fortunes for Ankara, which, back home, is plagued by massive political tensions between Islamist and secular forces. Just 18 months ago, then-German chancellor Schroeder and outgoing French president Chirac were the most powerful advocates of Turkish EU membership.

The CIA has a lot on its plate these days, mainly a global war on terror...oops, I mean "ongoing military operations throughout the world." Besides detecting terror plots, the agency must also provide policy makers with accurate and timely information on threats to proliferation, i.e. Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc. Add to that the ever increasing threat from China, and now, courtesy of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the director of Central Intelligence is also required to:

(1) assess the political, social, agricultural, and economic risks during the 30-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act posed by global climate change for countries or regions that are-- (A) of strategic national security importance to the United States and at risk of significant impact due to global climate change; or (B) at significant risk of large-scale humanitarian suffering with cross-border implications as predicted on the basis of the assessments; (2) assess the capabilities of the countries or regions described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) to respond to adverse national security impacts caused by global climate change; (3) assess the strategic challenges and opportunities posed to the United States by the risks described in paragraph (1); and (4) assess the impact of global climate change on the activities of the United States intelligence community throughout the world. (c) Coordination- In preparing the national intelligence estimate under this section, the Director of National Intelligence shall consult with representatives of the scientific community, and, as appropriate, multilateral institutions and allies of the United States that have conducted significant research on global climate change.

This according to Ares blogger Catherine MacRae Hockmuth, who also includes this reaction from the committee's Republicans:

The task of the intelligence community is to steal foreign secrets. Global climate change simply does not require clandestinely acquired, classified information or analysis. The United States is spending more than $6.5 billion in FY07 on global climate change. Thousands of reports have been paid for on global climate change across the U.S. government. Hundreds of universities and private organizations have written many more reports on climate change. This is not the time to force our intelligence professionals to waste scarce intelligence resources on trendy topics such as global warming for the purposes of `political correctness'.

Byron York writes on this over at NRO today:

Hoekstra and other Republicans worry that Democrats want to return intelligence policy to a time in the 1990s when the Clinton administration established what was known as the DCI Environmental Center within the CIA. The Center used satellite spying resources to track environmental matters. “They took pictures of volcanoes and sea turtle nests and took air samples of air pollution, as opposed to checking for traces of biological or chemical weapons, and it was all done at the behest of Al Gore,” says one Republican knowledgeable about intelligence affairs.

Former CIA director George Tenet mentions Gore’s environmental emphasis in his new book, At the Center of the Storm. “True to his interests, [Gore] had a fascination for wonkish issues,” Tenet writes. “He asked lots of questions about the impact on national security of water shortages, disease and environmental concerns.” Tenet reveals that some inside the CIA derided Gore’s priorities as “bugs and bunnies.”

“We started allocating precious intelligence resources to environmental issues just as al Qaeda was on the upswing,” says Rep. Hoekstra. “We were becoming politically correct. My fear is that we’re going back to the same place.”

“We started allocating precious intelligence resources to environmental issues just as al Qaeda was on the upswing,” says Rep. Hoekstra. “We were becoming politically correct. My fear is that we’re going back to the same place.”

Surely the DCI can find better ways to spend his time than worrying about "bugs and bunnies."

The Financial Times reports that a DC-based consulting firm called PFC energy has released a report warning of a reduced oil supply in years to come. The twist is that PFC isn't concerned (for now anyway) with a lack of petroleum reserves, but with decisions by governments to nationalize and limit investment in the energy sector:

Resource nationalism, which is limiting access for international oil companies, and the national oil companies’ failure to reinvest profits in production, are limiting outlay required to replace existing resources, which are being substantially depleted.

Robin West, chairman of PFC Energy said: “The concern is not that the world is running out of oil, but rather it is running out of oil production capacity.”

Before 1961 the industry could invest almost anywhere except the Soviet Union and Mexico. Then it was pushed out of the Middle East and Venezuela. Investment by international companies shifted to the North Sea, north slope of Alaska and offshore. But the North Sea and Alaska are maturing even as output in key producers is declining.

Mr West said: “Should demand outstrip supply, you will have a run-up in prices, massive demand destruction and substitutions. It will create tremendous pressures in the international petroleum system, the international economic system, the international political system.”

Read the whole thing. It's both interesting and worrying. State-owned energy companies underspend on exploration and new production; they siphon profits into state coffers, or are used as employment programs. (I've written about Pemex before--here, for example. ) Now we see that the proliferation of state ownership threatens not just a nation's economic vitality and energy future, but potentially the world's as well.

If looking at the list of the world's major oil exporters didn't convince you of the need to treat energy as a national security issue (the top dozen exporters include Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, Libya, and Iraq), then stories like this one will. It's probably impossible for this country to eliminate it reliance on imported oil for the foreseeable future, but it's critical that we look seriously at a broad range of policy options to reduce our dependence.

In March, we noted the successful model of the Anbar Salvation Council will very likely be replicated elsewhere in regions where al Qaeda has established bases of operation. We singled out Diyala in particular, as al Qaeda's campaign of murder and intimidation there was beginning to anger the tribes much as it did in Anbar province. Al Qaeda's establishment of its Islamic State of Iraq, with its capital in Baqubah, made the province ripe for a major Coalition operation in the region. In early March, Al Sabaah reported that the local sheikhs in Diyala were organizing against al Qaeda and its Islamic State of Iraq, "which [is] spreading corruption in the province districts." Today, the speculation has become a reality, as "Arab tribesmen in Baqubah have said they will form a tribal alliance to cleanse the Diyala province of foreign fighters and those of the al-Qaeda terrorist network in Iraq."

"Tribesman Sheikh Wameed al-Jabouri told al-Hayat that a number of tribes had signed a cooperation agreement to undertake this mission and to bring the city back to how 'it used to be,'" notes DPA. "The agreement could be considered 'a national charter' that proves their rejection of the actions of the terrorist groups, al-Jabouri said."

The Diyala tribes have requested the U.S. military "not to interfere with their plans," according to DPA. "The US forces committed fatal mistakes in handling the security situation in Baqubah," said Sheikh Dari Fahd al-Assadi, the deputy governor of Diyala. This resentment stems from the U.S. draw down of forces in Diyala last fall, and the handover of security to the Iraqi Police and Army. Mistakes by the Iraqi security forces were compounded by a concerted campaign by al Qaeda to destroy the security forces, particularly the police, and intimidate the local population.

The reality is, absent a dramatic organization by the local tribes and a massive co-opting of sympathetic insurgent groups, U.S. and Iraqi security forces will need to conduct major operations in Diyala to uproot al Qaeda and its Islamic State.

The recent debate over the tightening of regulations pertaining to military blogs has reverberated in the mass media and the govenrment. According to the April 19 Army Regulation 530-1, the restriction on OPSEC content “includes, but is not limited to letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (e-mail), Web site postings, web log (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or other forms of dissemination or documentation." Christopher Griffin, the associate editor of Armed Forces Journal, has recently pointed out a brewing First Amendment conflict between milbloggers, their commanders, and the media--a dispute that may lie at the root of the newest policy.

Strangely enough, it has now become an issue of concern for the Russian media as well. Yesterday, Izvestiya printed a provocative article, titled “I am Tired . . . I Cannot Do This Any Longer," where the paper (one of the largest in circulation in Russia) presents a compilation of Russian-language blog entries by an American who is currently serving in Iraq. The article leads with this “breaking news," stating that “From now on, [American] military staff and officers--under the threat of punishment--are banned from publishing in their blogs (online journals) news that sullies the image of the US Armed Forces."

Apparently, having had the fortune of locating such a journal in the Russian blogosphere, Izvestiya reporter Dmitry Sokolov-Mitrich directly copy and pasted around a dozen entries from the American soldier’s blog. The entries, presented in chronological order, are clearly meant to reflect the sense of desperation and discontent among the Army’s ranks: according to Izvestiya’s compilation, the U.S. soldier in question decries sanitary conditions, frequent explosions near the base, petty conflicts among military personnel, and expresses a sense of personal frustration. In the conclusion of the article, another Izvestiya contributor, Petr Inozemtsev, adds that “American soldiers in Iraq face morale and physiological-related issues" and concludes with the observation (attributed to Russian news agency ITAR-TASS) that “only 47 % of [US] Army soldiers and 38% of Marines agree that the local population must be treated with respect."

Besides the issue of dubious journalistic ethics--Izvestiya also printed the soldier’s name, rank, and even a photo--and propagandistic intent, the publication of such articles must now raise another concern for Army brass: “The Army of One” is decidedly not “The Army of One Language."

The president has promised to veto the House Iraq appropriations bill if by some miracle it were to make it to his desk. Both Tony Snow and Secretary Gates have discussed the problems with the approach.

As I've noted though, the real challenge for the White House is not what to do in the unlikely event that the 'micro-funding' measure makes it to his desk, but what to do about compromise legislation that includes unacceptable language on benchmarks. Administration officials are undoubtedly reaching out to GOP Senators and Congressmen to help influence the final Senate package.

There have been no major suicide or car bombings inside Baghdad over the past two days. Mortar, roadside bombings, and small arms attacks persist, but sectarian killings are still below the levels prior to the implementation of the Baghdad Security Plan. Much of the significant violence has occurred in Baghdad's "Belts," the regions about 20 miles outside Baghdad. This is where the latest two significant attacks occurred.

South of Baghdad in Kufa, the sister city of Karbala, al Qaeda struck with a suicide car bomb near a market, killing 16 and wounding another 70. "Witnesses said the bomber drove a minibus into an open-air market packed with morning shoppers in central Kufa," Reuters reports.

Another suicide bomber struck outside a police station in Diyala province. Two Iraqis were killed and 15 more wounded during the strike. This follows a deadly attack on a U.S. military convoy on Sunday. Six soldiers and a Russian journalist were killed after an IED struck their vehicle.

Task Force 145 captured 13 al Qaeda operatives during a series of raids in Baghdad, Karma, and Tal Afar on Monday and Tuesday. The Baghdad raid also resulted in finding "several documents related to a chemical VBIED operation." Fifteen al Qaeda operatives were captured during separate raids in Balad, Hillah, Fallujah, and near Taji. The raid west of Taji netted "three individuals with suspected ties to al-Qaeda senior leadership during two separate raids." Al Qaeda in Iraq's information minister and two other senior operatives were killed in this region last week.

Iraq security forces are also on the offensive against al Qaeda and the insurgency. Eighty-six suspected insurgents were captured and one killed during raids inside Baghdad. Iraqi soldiers also captured four insurgents near Mosul after they placed over 300 pounds of explosives under a oil pipeline which runs into Turkey.

Say Anything takes a closer look at CNN's latest poll on Iraq -- the one that CNN headlines 'Americans disapprove of Bush's Iraq veto -- and finds that the picture is not that simple. Rob notes that when you look more closely at the questions, you see the following:

A lot more poll respondents favor a bill from Congress with set benchmarks for Iraq rather than a hard withdrawal date which the Democrats wanted...

The sort of Iraq funding bill poll respondents favor most is one that does not set a hard withdrawal date...

Poll respondents think the President is very supportive of the troops while the Democrats....not so much...

Poll respondents blame the Democrats most for not getting funding to the troops...

This is worth paying attention to, if only because the Democrats seem convinced that extremism in pursuit of failure is no vice. In fact, President Clinton's former pollster Doug Schoen has been criticized for several pieces he wrote recently counseling Democrats not to overplay their hand:

It is the so called "clean bill" simply providing funding for the war that offers the greatest hope to Democrats going forward. By compromising with the White House--even if it be largely on the president's terms--the Democrats will be able to maintain the high ground with swing voters. At the same time, there is every reason to believe that Democrats can--and indeed should--continue to criticize the prosecuting of the war for its failure to promote political reconciliation, end sectarian violence, and develop an equitable distribution of oil revenue.

It seems unlikely that Congressional Democrats will reject Schoen's advice. That is, they seem likely to compromise with the president at some point soon. There's clearly a constituency however, for brinkmanship. If they overplay their hand, it could win up doing them significant and long-term political damage.

Roll Call ($) takes a lengthy look at the Congressional debate on the Iraq/Afghanistan appropriations measure and reports that each House is doing what it must to get a funding measure to conference. The piece notes the Senate's reluctance to pass a short-term bill, and gives a more detailed look at exactly how the House bill will be structured:

Indeed, Levin and other pivotal Democratic Senators coming out of their regular Tuesday lunch cast doubt on whether the Senate could pass a short-term war funding bill and questioned the practical and political wisdom of doing so.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who provided the crucial 51st vote on the original war supplemental and is likely to be a conferee on the second version, poured cold water all over the House proposal, saying he sensed that it “would be dead on arrival over here...”

Under the proposal outlined by House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.), the two-tier spending bill would require Congress to approve the full $95.5 billion allotted for military operations in Iraq. However, only $30 billion of that amount would be made immediately available, enough to fund troops for about two to three months.

The remaining funds could be distributed to the military only after a subsequent vote by lawmakers, which would occur in late July under the current proposal...

The Snowe-Bayh bill would require the Iraqi government to make “substantial progress” toward political reconciliation among warring factions in the country. The Government Accountability Office would have to conduct a review of the benchmarks set out in the bill 120 days after enactment, and if any of the benchmarks had not been met, the U.S. commander in Iraq would have to come up with a plan for the redeployment of U.S. forces...

It's significant that Senators Snowe and Bayh are working on a bipartisan bill that calls for redeployment if benchmarks are not achieved. I imagine that Senator Reid will back this approach -- or something similar -- as the best way to force a withdrawal. Senator Snowe's support means that this measure will draw at least a few Republican votes.

Would the White House try to block a bill with such penalties? It might require a filibuster, and it's unclear whether the Republican votes would be there for such a move. The president could wind up again facing a decision about whether to veto a bill with a timetable for withdrawal -- this time one that triggers a redeployment only if benchmarks are not achieved.

In its piece on this fight, the Washington Post quotes a State Department official who lays out the problems with the House approach:

Calling the Democrats' action a "moral hazard," the official said, "Okay, let's pass a law saying no more funding past July 31 if the [oil] package of laws doesn't pass. What do you suppose happens next? If I was sitting in a neighboring country, really looking forward to saying bye-bye to the Americans, you've just shown me a way to do it."

Strong diplomatic pressure is already being applied on the Maliki government, a senior administration official said, and mandating political reforms by a certain date would drive Iraqis further apart. "It allows extremist factions to say that these legislative benchmarks, which were an Iraqi political agenda, is an American agenda," the official said.

"If you say the next two months are make or break, I think I can predict what we'll see," the official said. "We will see a sustained trend of suicide attacks" by al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni extremists, making the Shiite-led government even less willing to move on de-Baathification.

"It's a really harmful approach," the official said. "There is a risk you can push [the Iraqi government] off a cliff."

It's important that policymakers make clear the situation in Iraq. At the same time, it seems extremely likely that there will soon be benchmarks spelled out -- by the president, or Congress, or both. One has to expect that the president will soon respond directly to the question of what benchmarks are acceptable -- if any -- and what consequences he might support.

Yesterday I wrote that there was a good chance that House Democrats--having tired of micromanaging the war--would now try to micro-fund it. Funding the war in installments--which John Boehner likens to a monthly allowance for our troops--is an idea which originated with the House Blue Dogs, but whose eager embrace by the Netroots helped it make the quick leap to official House Democratic policy:

House Democratic leaders planned to brief party members Tuesday on new legislation that would fund the Iraq war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve.

If members agree to back the plan as expected, a vote on the new war spending bill could come as early as this week. The proposal, pitched last week by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., was first disclosed Thursday by The Associated Press.

White House spokesman Tony Snow on Tuesday called the approach "just bad management."

"We think it is appropriate to be able to give commanders what they are going to need, and also forces in the field, so that you can make long-term decisions in trying to build the mission," Snow said.

OMB Chief Rob Portman argues that--shock of shocks--wars are not fought in two-month increments:

"A short-term supplemental funding bill is no substitute for Congress acting quickly to provide the resources needed for our troops," Portman told The Politico at OMB headquarters in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. "It would only irresponsibly kick the can down the road, cause inefficiency and disruption in DOD budgeting, and create uncertainty in military planning."

"The military has said repeatedly that the current delays in funding for our troops is already having negative consequences, including disruption to operations, decreasing efficiency and potentially degrading the readiness of troops awaiting deployment," he said. "We can debate how much harm is being caused, but our military commanders are sending a clear message and Congress needs to listen...

This is a an act of political cowardice by the House, since this approach can't pass the Senate. Ben Nelson--whose opposition to a forced surrender date probably kept it out of the original Iraq funding conference report--has already stated his concern. If the Senate passes a full-funding compromise with benchmarks, as seems likely, there's no way conferees will defer to the House approach. Conferees will be forced to adopt the Senate approach or no bill at all--which is probably the unspoken hope of many liberal House Democrats.

But more likely, Congressional Democrats will ultimately decide that they cannot de-fund the war right now, and pass the Senate bill. In that case at least, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Murtha will be able to say 'we didn't compromise; it was those moderate Senate Democrats.'

And let's for a moment consider an unlikely possibility: imagine that Senate Democrats do refuse to jump under the bus and manage to pass the House's two-month funding bill. Does anyone imagine that come July--when the next bill must be passed--Democrats will happily provide the full funding needed?

No.

This is nothing but a gimmick to force the Pentagon to beg once again for the money to fight the war for a few more months. Congressional leaders will gauge the political winds then to see if it's politically safe to vote their convictions--and pull the plug on the military and the people of Iraq.

It's clear they're not fighting the same war the United States is.

This post was written by DJ Elliott and has been cross-posted at The Fourth Rail. DJ is a retired US Navy Intelligence Specialist with 22 years of service, the primary author of the Iraqi Security Forces Order of Battle and co-author of the the Baghdad Security Operation Order of Battle .)

Most people do not realize that Chris and I were bouncing Order of Battle [OOB] data between each other for a year before the OOBs were finally published. I started my collection of data as a hobby to see just what the real status of the Iraqi Security Forces was since the published press reports were far off base and contradictory in their own stories. My principle motivations for my involvement in publishing these OOBs are somewhat contradictory. First, I wanted to get the principle operational security [OPSEC] violators to tighten their OPSEC. Second, I want to further an understanding of the development of the Iraqi Security Forces and the Baghdad Security Plan. As a retired intelligence analyst, I could not believe that the Public Affairs Officers [PAOs] and Commanders were releasing this much operational data in a time of war.

Since we started to publish the Iraqi Security Forces OOB and the Baghdad OOB, Bill has received the occasional complaint about the reports being a violation of OPSEC. The complainers continually miss the point.

The Order of Battles we have published are not OPSEC violations, they are reports of OPSEC violations. All of the data contained within the OOBs is available with a simple word search on the Internet and any intelligence operation worthy of its name already has the data in far greater detail than what we publish in these OOBs. Most of the information used to compile the OOB comes from the PAOs and senior officer briefs. By far, these are the source of the greatest OPSEC violations in this war.

Also since we started publishing these OOBs, the reported unit IDs have dropped by more than half. Some of the previous OPSEC violators have either rethought what they were doing or been "counseled". Good. The harder it is for the OOB to be updated the better I feel.

The worst OPSEC violator in the senior staffs is the Pentagon. I get more advance notice from a Pentagon Press Brief of US movements from Kuwait into Iraq than I get from all other sources combined. The Pentagon acts as if it is not at war, and the leaks emanating from Arlington are enormous.

From THE DAILY STANDARD: Trading Places, by Fred Barnes.

From the CS Monitor: The case for strikes against Iran, by Louis Rene Beres.

From the Washington Times: Defending Against Iran's Missiles, by James T. Hackett.

From Investor's Business Daily: Nordic Awakening, by the editors.

From Defense Tech: The COIN Aircraft Comeback, by Stephen Trimble.

Posted by Michael Goldfarb at 12:25 PM
Required Reading | E-mail the author | E-mail article

Not only can Citi afford to sponsor the New York Mets' new stadium (an offense to my sensibilities as a Yankees fan), but they can apparently afford to spend $50 billion on green projects over the next ten years (offending my sensibilities as a free-marketeer):

Citigroup will on Tuesday commit to providing $50bn (£25bn) to environmental projects during the next decade in Wall Street’s boldest statement of the business risks and opportunities presented by climate change.

The world’s largest financial services group will commit to increase 10-fold to $10bn its planned investment to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions.

It has also begun to advise borrowers about how to make their projects more environmentally sustainable to reduce their risk from future environmental regulation.

Whether I'm talking about using my credit card or investing money, I see no reason not to demand the best return on my dollar. If Citi can afford to sacrifice profit maximization in favor of sustainable development, perhaps they're making too much money off of my business.

As the late great Milton Friedman said:

What does it mean to say that the corpo­rate executive has a "social responsibility" in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price increase would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expendi­tures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the cor­poration or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire "hardcore" un­employed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.

In each of these cases, the corporate exec­utive would be spending someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his "social responsi­bility" reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money.

Maybe I need to look for an investor who'll maximize my profit and let me decide what to do with it.

The upcoming 30th anniversary of Star Wars is generating all sorts of coverage. Variety has a full slate of stories on it, the History Channel has put together a feature-length project titled Star Wars: The Legacy Revealed, featuring interviews with Dan Rather, Newt Gingrich, and Nancy Pelosi. And now our friends at MEMRI report that Iranian television is getting in on the act, too.

MEMRI notes that on March 22, Iran's Channel 3 aired a commentary on the final installment of George Lucas's prequels, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Here's the transcript:

The Revenge of the Sith is, in fact, a political film about a free world facing a satanic empire. The film shows that even this evil empire was an ordinary republic in the beginning. This is why many film critics draw a parallel between the plot of The Revenge of the Sith and political events in the U.S. One of the statements cited by these critics is uttered by Anakin Skywalker when he becomes Darth Vader. He says: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." This sentence bears a strong resemblance to the famous statement by American President George Bush, following the events of 9/11. Then, he officially declared: "In the war on terror, you are either with us or with our enemies."

The use of these words in the film undoubtedly demonstrates how clever and up-to-date Lucas is. In what seems like a children's film, he predicts the dark and gloomy future of the U.S.A. Elsewhere in the film, the discussions between Lord Sith and Anakin remind the viewer of the opinions held by White House politicians. It shows that for the sake of popularity, regimes talk about the rule of the people and democracy, but, in fact, they are tyrannies and dictatorships. Elsewhere in the film, Lord Sith says to Anakin and others: "We must bring democracy to every part of the world, and we must never allow the world to turn back on democracy."

In Star Wars, the characters who abandon the light side for the dark side believe that they will achieve great power and wealth this way. But in fact, they are misled by power and money. The same is true with regard to the American soldiers sent to Afghanistan and Iraq.

That's an interesting interpretation. The conventional analogizing has always supposed that the Imperial forces in Star Wars were modeled on an amalgam of ancient Rome and Nazi Germany. Some dorkofascists have argued that the "Evil Empire" was actually the force for good when viewed objectively in the broad sweep of all six films. And some noted that the early prequels contained ham-handed swipes at modern Republicans (one minor baddie is clumsily named "Nute Gunray").

But I've never seen anyone suggest that Sith is an attack on the Bush Doctrine. The Iranian commentator's "Lord Sith" (one assumes this refers to Senator Palpatine) quote--"We must bring democracy to every part of the world, and we must never allow the world to turn back on democracy."--does sound an awful lot like something President Bush might say. Except that nowhere in the film does Palpatine say any such thing. (The closest anyone comes to this misquotation is Bail Organa, one of the early rebels, who exclaims, as Palpatine assumes imperial powers, that "We can't let a thousand years of democracy disappear without a fight.")

In fact, very much counter to President Bush, Senator Palpatine distrusts the efficacy of democracy because the Galactic Republic has grown so large as to be ungovernable. And while Palpatine has other motives, by the evidence, his analysis of the Republic is at least close to the truth. Democracy is never shown to function well in the Star Wars universe and many of the epic's heroes--Bail Organa, Princess Amidala, Princess Leia--are royals, not democratic leaders.

But that doesn't mean that the Iranian commentary is totally without foundation. When Revenge of the Sith was released, some of those involved in the production claimed that the movie was an attack on President Bush himself. Lucas explained that, "As you go through history, I didn't think it was going to get quite this close. So it's just one of those recurring things. I hope this doesn't come true in our country."

Hayden Christensen, when asked if Sith "takes metaphoric shots at the war-mongering politics of U.S. presidents Richard Nixon and the two George Bushes" replied "Absolutely." As Jeanette Walls reported at the time, "[Christensen] went on to say that he thinks that some people who weren't American allies in the Iraq war will love "Revenge of the Sith" because of it."

It's interesting that the makers of Sith saw their film as an attack on President Bush, while the Iranians see it as an attack on America and the Bush Doctrine. Perhaps in Tehran and Marin County this is a distinction without a difference. In any event, Lucas's movie seems to have found a happy audience in Iran.

One wonders if that gives him any pause.

Bing West, an embedded reporter, former Marine infantryman, and the acclaimed author of No True Glory, the story of the Second Battle of Fallujah, has returned from his thirteenth trip to Iraq and posted an assessment on the situation there and the path forward at Small Wars Journal.

Mr. West properly describes both the successes and shortfalls in the execution of the new counterinsurgency strategy in Baghdad and beyond, and the challenges facing the Iraqi government and security forces. He correctly describes the nature of the fighting in Iraq. "Iraq is a low-level war with scarcely any firefights above a squad level," said West. "In this war, the moral/psychological is to the physical as 20 is to 1. The new American military team has infused the effort with energy and strategic clarity, and seized the initiative."

On the upside, West noted the strategy to push from the large bases into the population centers is indeed working to build trust with the locals. The Iraqis by and large are welcoming the greater U.S. presence. He recognizes the success of the Anbar Salvation Council in the province. He also notes the Iraqi Army is performing well at the battalion level and below.

On the downside, he recognizes the greatest challenges in Iraq exist at the national level of governance."The national level--not the local level--is the critical impediment," says West. "The Iraqi army at the battalion level--and many police unit--is advancing at an acceptable pace; it is the performance at the national level that is unacceptable." There are serious logistical problems inside the Iraqi Army. He is highly critical of the Ministry of Interior, and advocates it being disbanded and giving control of its forces to the provincial governments. He questions the central government's sincerity in moving forward with reconciliation, and he advocates increasing the number of the Iraqi security forces in Anbar to counter al Qaeda's murder and intimidation campaign against our tribal allies.

The document is well worth reading, and I agree with the assessment--of the situation in Iraq and Baghdad. The overall recommendations of the report are another matter. It is impossible to recommend a path forward in Iraq without mentioning the situation in Diyala. In the third paragraph, Mr. West provides an abbreviated description of his recommendations for succeeding in Iraq.

In a nutshell, for the US to achieve the goal of relative stability in Iraq, by the end of 2007 three battlefield conditions must be met. First, Iraq's predominantly Shiite army must demonstrate a strategy and a momentum against a resumption of Shiite ethnic cleansing in and around Baghdad. Second, in Anbar the Iraqi army and the predominantly Sunni police must sustain the momentum for eradicating al Qaeda in Iraq. Third, in the rest of the Sunni Triangle, the Iraqi Army must prevent al Qaeda from developing sanctuaries.

Not even once is Diyala mentioned in the report or its final recommendations. He describes "the two primary battlefields" as Anbar province and Baghdad.

The reality is that there are four primary battlefields in Iraq: Baghdad, the center of gravity; Anbar province; Diyala province; and the "Belts" of Baghdad, the region approximately 20 miles outside Baghdad in all direction. The Belts region consists of the greater Baghdad province, plus sections of Diyala to the northeast, Salam Pak to the southeast, the "Fiya" towns of Northern Babil province to the south, and Abu Ghraib to the east.

Diyala has become the main hub of al Qaeda's operations. Al Qaeda in Iraq made Baqubah the capital of its rump Islamic State of Iraq. Since the inception of the Baghdad Security Plan in mid-February, the security situation, which was deteriorating after U.S. forces pulled back last fall, has markedly worsened. Al Qaeda has prepared fighting positions, supply bases, IED traps, bomb rigged buildings, and training camps in the province.

Over 2,000 hardened al Qaeda fighters fled Baghdad and are operating in Diyala. An American intelligence official and a U.S. military officer informs us that al Qaeda is operating along the lines of Hezbollah's military structure in Lebanon. Recent al Qaeda attacks in the region bear this out. Al Qaeda is organized in small military units with infantry, mortars, anti-tank and anti-aircraft teams, as well as suicide and IED cells and the accompanying logistical nodes. Al Qaeda has been conducting a terror campaign to remove tribal leaders and others who oppose them, while waging a campaign of intimidation designed to cower the local population.

The Diyala Campaign is on the horizon, and it is a vital component of General David Petraeus' strategy to secure Baghdad and greater Iraq. You cannot propose a way forward in Iraq without mentioning the need to drive al Qaeda from its safe havens in the strategic province of Diyala. Again, West's assessment still has merit. In particular, he nails one of the most pressing issues we now face in Iraq - Iran:

Iran's influence is malign. Probably in reaction to accepting in 2002 intelligence assessments about Iraq that proved false, the press has bent over backward not to link the central government of Iran with explosive devices, money transfers and Iranian agents active inside Iraq. I was surprised how frequently both Iraqi officials and American officers told me that Iran was in essence waging a proxy war against the US. Whatever the extent of its actual influence over and through the Shiite militias, Iran is widely perceived as a malign influence and the US has found no strategy to compel Iran to desist.

I had the opportunity to participate in a blogger conference call with Mayor Giuliani's campaign manager Mike DuHaime and Communications Director Katie Levinson. It amounted mostly to a 'temperature-taking' in the wake of the first GOP debate.

And what does the Giuliani team want you to know, today? They are happy with where the polls have 'settled' (a great phrase--it tells you the Giuliani's lead is durable) and the mayor continues to be excited to talk about his conservative economic views, his leadership skills, and his ability to compete in Blue States.

First off, the campaign would like you to know that they are not surprised at where the polls have settled--with a Giuliani lead nationally of about 10 points. They recognize that it will be close in the traditional early primary states (IA, NH, SC). Florida's shift of its primary to January 29 enhances its importance--and you should note that polls show the Mayor with a double-digit lead. The February 5 'Super Tuesday' primaries favor the Mayor, given his strength in NY, NJ, and CA. He will also do well in the 2/12 regional primary when VA, MD, and DC vote.

On to questions:

Jennifer Rubin (a free-lancer who writes for several publications--including THE WEEKLY STANDARD) asks if there is any concern in the campaign about the forward shift of primaries. DuHaime says that it puts a premium on fundraising and decisions about resource allocation. Campaigns must spend resources where they have a good chance to win delegates, and must properly balance the candidate's time between fundraising and campaigning.

Tim Cameron of South Carolina asks about a reported expenditure by the campaign of about $200 for Starboard Communications (or Starbird?). The Giuliani team doesn't know anything about it offhand.

A New Hampshire blogger asks for comment on the reception to Mayor Giuliani's debate answer that he would be 'okay' with a Supreme Court decision that re-affirmed Roe v. Wade. Is the mayor concerned with a potential loss of support from conservatives? He's told that the Mayor has made his views clear on abortion (he hates it, etc...), but that voters will look at the candidate as a whole. With Giuliani, they will know about the record of reduced abortions and increased adoptions in NYC, as well as his support for a ban on partial birth abortion and for parental notification. They'll know that he dramatically reduced welfare rolls in NYC, reduced crime, cut spending, and cut taxes 23 times. He is a straight shooter, whose positions won't change.

The month of April was particularly hard on both U.S. and Iraqi security forces. As both forces push outward from larger, more secure bases, the casualties have increased. Iraqi security forces--both police and army--had over 300 KIA, while over 100 U.S. servicemen were killed in Iraq this past month. The numbers are likely to increase as the surge continues and Iraqi and Coalition guns train on al Qaeda's havens in Diyala province sometime this summer. As al Qaeda continues to conduct its suicide campaign against civilians and Iraqi and Coalition security forces, there has been some tangible progress against the terror group and the Mahdi Army over the past week. Several high value al Qaeda targets were killed in a multi-day operation north of Baghdad, which included the participation of the Anbar Salvation Council. Also, an important tribe turned against al Qaeda in Anbar province.

Inside Baghdad, four of five U.S. combat brigades are now in place. The fifth combat brigade will be arriving in Iraq by the beginning of June. "We are about 80 percent of the way in the implementation of the troops that are flowing in as reinforcements," said Rear Admiral Mark Fox, the Communications Division chief for Strategic Effects. An estimated 60 of the planned 72 Joint Security Stations and
Combat Outposts have now been established inside Baghdad's neighborhoods, and three of the five U.S. combat brigades have joined Iraqi police and soldiers to man the stations. As a result, tips on insurgent activity are up and sectarian violence inside Baghdad has decreased by two-thirds, according to Brigadier General Perry Wiggins, the Deputy Director for regional operations within the Operations Directorate on the Joint Staff.

But al Qaeda still has weapons in its arsenal. "What we have seen [in Baghdad], though, in response has been an increase in the number of car bomb attacks, suicide vests and so forth," said Rear Admiral Fox. "And what you're seeing is an attempt to have these spectacular attacks, you know, on the council of representatives or taking down a bridge or something that grabs the headlines and in many ways, certainly in a lot of circles, will overshadow any of the less spectacular kind of progress that we may be making."

I guess this is the Palestinian version of the Disney Channel. The irony of those Marines singing the Mickey Mouse Club theme song as they walked the ruins of Hue City in Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket must not have translated well in Arabic.

(HT KMW)

So my colleague Mike Goldfarb calls me this afternoon and the first thing he asks is what do I make of Carmela Soprano reading Rebel-in-Chief by THE WEEKLY STANDARD's own Fred Barnes. I warned him not to read too much into this--some of us are still trying to understand the deeper significance of Gay Vito’s son defecating in the shower. And why must we be subjected to it? In any event, I will try to keep my impressions short.

First, we must remember this is Hollywood and Carmela’s reading Rebel-in-Chief is probably meant to reflect poorly on her and her sense of judgment. Carmela’s support for this highly unpopular president (remember, she voted for him) is the same as her standing by Tony Soprano. Both are equally repugnant and, of course, murderers of hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. Some think Carmela should leave her loutish husband. While she’s at it, she ought to leave that loutish president. Her husband may be arrested any time. Her president may be arrested anytime as well, for war crimes. All in all, a bad sign.

Second, who’s to say that just because Carmela is reading the book, she's actually enjoying it? For all we know, she might hate it. (Then again, who wouldn’t like it? “Crackling with fine reportage and analysis. Barnes knows this subject better than anyone,” said Rich Lowry. “I know Fred Barnes and I thought I knew what he knows about President Bush. Boy, was I wrong. This book is a revelation. I couldn’t stop reading it,” said Brit Hume. Rebel-in-Chief is also now available in paperback for just $11.86 at Amazon.)

It should also not surprise us that Carmela is a conservative. Remember in the second season when A.J. asks his mother “Why are we here?” Carmela’s response: “Because of Adam and Eve.” In the first episode of this season, when Bobby talks about putting up a wall between us and Mexico, Carm adds “Amen.” Not that Tony Soprano thinks any different. After all, he has now joined the war on terror by providing a cell phone number of a possible terrorist to the feds. This goes back to my first point, that Tony Soprano and Bush are the same, at least in the eyes of his wife, though in some respects Tony is more like Clinton.

But like I said, we shouldn’t read too much into this.

From Time: The 2008 Formula, by William Kristol.

From the New York Sun: How Times Change, by the editors.

From the Wall Street Journal ($): Blame America First, by Stephen Rademaker.

From Haft of the Spear: Milblog 2007, by Michael Tanji.

From the POGO Blog: CSAR-X: Did Boeing fail a key requirement? by Nick Schwellenbach.

Study Times, a journal run by the Party School of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, published in its May 1, issue an article titled “National Security in the Information Age.” The author, Gen. Xiong Guangkai (Ret.), is president of the China Institute for International Strategic Studies. Xiong is also the former deputy chief of the general staff of the PLA and, as military intelligence chief, helped shape China’s security policy.

To American readers, Xiong is perhaps best known for his 1995 threat to use nuclear weapons on Los Angeles if the United States intervened to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion; however, there is some indication that the substance of the conversation was simply misreported.

Xiong begins his Study Times article with the statement “information security has become an integral part of comprehensive national security,” and adds “the development of information technology… has presented national security--perhaps even international security--with many challenges.”

He cautions that “the abuse of the information network is likely to affect the political stability of the nation” and “ethnic separatists and religious extremists are using the Internet wantonly to provoke incidents and seriously jeopardize regional security.”

Xiong ends with a call for “greater international cooperation to ensure information security.” He proposes that the following steps be taken: 1) Promote the establishment of a “new order for international information security” based on equality and mutual benefit; 2) Promote the formation of international laws and regulations that can be applied widely; 3) Promote the building of a long-term, effective mechanism for international cooperation in information security.

China watchers in Hong Kong have noted that coming from someone with Xiong’s clout, these statements likely signal Beijing’s intention to pursue a greater global leadership role in information technology.

This is consistent with the September 2006 announcement in People’s Daily that “China has successfully built its next generation Internet with Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6), replacing Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4), to become the world le