Over the summer I read a wonderful book about the fall of South Vietnam titled "Decent Interval" by Frank Snepp, a CIA analyst stationed at the US embassy in Saigon.  Snepp weaves an amazing tale of heroism, self-delusion and cynical political maneuvering that is as engrossing as it is disheartening.  One of the more disturbing aspects of the book for me was the extent to which the United States actually controlled and directed what happened in the South Vietnamese government, even up to the last helicopters leaving the embassy compound.  From President Thieu to the military to the local field police Snepp consults with to the ordinary Vietnamese employed by the US government, everyone is so conditioned to waiting for the Americans to provide direction, or step in to save the day, that it is clear Snepp really isn't talking about a sovereign nation anymore but some sort of American protectorate or colony hopelessly incapable of pulling itself together or standing on it's own. 

Now I don't blame the Vietnamese for this mindset, after all it was the result of more than fifteen years of American high-handed meddling in South Vietnamese domestic politics and endless broken promises but I can't help but be alarmed when I see the same patterns in Iraq. 

Question: At a time when we are trying to portray to the world that through elections the Iraqi people are taking their future into their own hands and that democracy will create a stronger,more peaceful and united Iraq, how is it that the US ambassador can get up and just declare that the US military will oversee and inspect Iraqi-run prisons? 

Now, this isn't the best example because I don't condone torture or sectarian violence, but if Iraq is to be a viable sovereign country, at what point do we step back and let them be sovereign?  At what point is our US ambassador to Iraq just another foreign representative and not some quasi-imperial viceroy?  At what point do the Iraqis take over and make their own decision, good or bad, and have to deal with the consequences?  If the answer is that things are way too complicated or we don't want Iranian influence or we don't trust this group or that then what does it say about the enterprise as a whole?  We've spent a lot of time, money and blood with the oft stated purpose that we want the Iraqis to be free and running their own affairs but no one has bothered to ask if we're actually serious about this or just making it up as we go. 

I think history tells us the kind of quasi-colonial puppet-government that underlies Snepp's tale is pragmatic for a time but ultimately untenable and self-defeating...regardless of where you stand on the war I think you'll also agree that it really isn't fair to the people of Iraq or their hopes for the future, either.

As rebuilding New Orleans falls farther and farther off the screen, Daniel Gross puts things in perspective and reminds us of an earlier rebuilding effort undertaken by the federal government known as the Marshall Plan.  Frankly it would strain credulity to suggest this administration could come up with anything resembling a viable plan but take a look at the numbers and wonder at the magic of inflation and the paltriness of our current efforts.  Man, I love that "the devastation is so big..." line.

More from the Boy in the Bubble:

One House Republican, who asked not to be identified for fear of offending the White House, recalls a summertime meeting with congressmen in the Roosevelt Room at which Bush enthusiastically talked up his Social Security reform plan. But the plan was already dead—as everyone except the president had acknowledged. Bush seemed to have no idea. "I got the sense that his staff was not telling him the bad news," says the lawmaker. "This was not a case of him thinking positive. He just didn't have any idea of the political realities there. It was like he wasn't briefed at all."  (Bush was not clueless, says an aide, but pushing his historic mission.)

In subtle ways, Bush does not encourage truth-telling or at least a full exploration of all that could go wrong. A former senior member of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad occasionally observed Bush on videoconferences with his top advisers. "The president would ask the generals, 'Do you have what you need to complete the mission?' as opposed to saying, 'Tell me, General, what do you need to win?' which would have opened up a whole new set of conversations," says this official, who did not want to be identified discussing high-level meetings. The official says that the way Bush phrased his questions, as well as his obvious lack of interest in long, detailed discussions, had a chilling effect. "It just prevented the discussion from heading in a direction that would open up a possibility that we need more troops," says the official.

This is our President.

Congressmen from his own party have been in open rebellion. At their annual leadership retreat at a luxury resort overlooking the Chesapeake Bay two weeks ago, senior congressmen tore into White House aides Card and Counselor Dan Bartlett. The normally mild-mannered Speaker Dennis Hastert, who usually likes to operate behind closed doors, announced to the group, which included staffers as well as members, that the White House had "blown it" when it came to handling congressional relations. There was still incredulity over the Murtha outburst demanding a troop withdrawal from Iraq. "They should have seen that coming like a freight train," said a top Republican. "In any White House the cardinal rule is no surprises," said Duberstein. "I was somewhat surprised, I admit," Card told NEWSWEEK. At the retreat, the Hill Republicans told the White House to do a better job of selling economic progress. The next day the White House put Bush into the Rose Garden to spin good news on the economy.

The election can't come quick enough.

The story of Capitol Manor.  A must read.

"Bush defended Vice President Dick Cheney's pre-war assertion that the United States would be welcomed in Iraq as liberators.

"'I think we are welcomed' he said. 'But it was not a peaceful welcome.'"

March 20, 2003.  The U.S. opens its war against Saddam Hussein.  That was one thousand days ago.  In those thousand days, 2347 coalition troops have been killed.  That's 2.3 every single day.   15,995 troops have been wounded in action.  That's 16 per day.  Total U.S. casualities are 18,141.  That's 18 per day.  President Bush indicated yesterday that 30,000 Iraqis have been killed.  That's 30 every single day or 10 9/11's in two plus years, all for a country less than 10% our size.  To relate what's going on in Iraq to our own situation, if this was our country, it would be 100 9/11's and 300 people killed a day.  Three hundred thousand U.S. citizens would be dead.  The United States has paid $204.4 billion dollars fighting the war, even while promoting tax cuts at home.  The World Bank estimates the cost of reconstruction alone to be 35 billion dollars.     82% of Iraqi's are "strongly opposed" to our presence.

Iran is operating a "fifth column inside the U.S.-backed Iraqi government, running death squads and operating a network of secret prisons."   According to U.S. General George Casey, the Iranians are "putting millions of dollars into the south to influence the elections ... it's funded primarily through their charity organizations and also Badr and some of these political parties."  The leader of the Badr Brigade doesn't deny it:  "We are funded by some (Persian) Gulf countries and the Islamic Republic of Iran. We don't hide it."   Can we do anything about it?  Apparently, no:  "Col. Joseph DiSalvo, who commands a brigade of the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division in eastern Baghdad, where there's a heavy Shiite militia presence, said it would be all but impossible for the American military to defeat the militias."

That's just the government folks--don't forget the insurgents:

It is extremely difficult to attack and defeat because it does not have unitary or cohesive structure or a rigid hierarchy within the larger movements. The larger movements seem to have leadership, planning, financing, and arming cadres kept carefully separate from most operational cells in the field. Accordingly, defeating a given cell, regional operation, or even small organization does not defeat the insurgency, although it can weaken it.

The insurgency has effectively found a form of low-technology "swarm" tactics that is superior to what the high-technology Coalition and Iraqi forces have been able to find as a counter. It can move slowly, in cycles, and episodically, and concentrate on highly vulnerable targets at the time of its choosing.

The ability to "swarm" against vulnerable civil and military targets at the time of the insurgent's choosing, and focus on political and media effects, sharply reduces the need to fight battles -- particularly if the odds are against the insurgents.

Needless to say, this war has not been worth the cost to anyone.  Except perhaps Halliburton, whose stock traded at $9 in mid-2002.  It is currently quoted at $66.96.

Oh, and Osama bin Laden is still at large.

Tapped's Sam Rosenfeld notes that if you look closer at the Allen-Tumulty Time article on Bush's search for a "new groove" it seems less like a new gameplan and more like some sort of stalling tactic until people come around and see what an amazing transformational leader the president is. 

My suggestion is just go balls out, Mr. President!  Why wait for after the mid-terms to unveil your new overhaul of Social Security, Medicaid and, yes, Medicare when you could be out pushing those issues now and showing just what your administration and the Republican Party are made of!  Hell Ya!!!   Now that's what I call leadership!

Much has been written over the last couple days about former Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy who died on Saturday at the age of 89.  Most of it centers around the courage of his supposed takedown of Lyndon Johnson in the 1968 New Hampshire primary (which Johnson actually won despite not even being on the ballot or campaigning in New Hampshire...) or his later futile presidential runs.  I always think of the man who wrote so eloquently about playing amateur baseball in the Great Soo League of rural central Minnesota.    I think of the native son who rose quickly with other MN political heavyweights (Humphrey, Mondale, Freeman, etc.) in the newly created post-war Democratic-Farmer Labor party who nevertheless through spite and aloofness wore out his welcome and was never forgiven for helping torpedo Humphrey's short run against Nixon in 1968.  I think about the self-styled politician-intellectual-poet who so often reveled in being on the losing end of a political contest because of his commitment to the proposition that politics was less about power and more about a commitment to morality. 

Clearly McCarthy was an infinitely complex man but it was one of the things I think that made him interesting to me.  I was alway a fan of his wry sense of humor and wit as well as his uncommon ability to dissect the body politic that was as fresh as it was sometimes curmudgeony.  If you want just a taste of that wit and wisdom check out the Ezra Klein's link over at Tapped to McCarthy's 15 Commandments for choosing a presidential candidate and see what I mean.

Minnesota retains its no.1 ranking as the healthiest state in the Union!  Woo hoo!  I know, I didn't know there was a competition either?

This is our new CEO President:

But when it comes to fresh and concrete ideas, the list of what Bush will actually try to accomplish in 2006 is so modest that one bewildered Republican adviser calls it "an insult to incrementalism."

Maybe we'll be going back to Mars.

Christopher Hitchens waxes nostalgic for a bygone age of journalism by going through a litany of fictional journalist types which inspired him.  Hopefully the new generation of journalists will be less inspired by fiction and more inspired by the truth.

Terrible:

Amtrak certainly knows how to lose money, but the railroad says it can lose less if only it can get out of the business of hauling cars of "premium" freight like perishables behind its cross-country trains.

Instead, Congress has told Amtrak to increase sharply the number of carloads it hauls or forgo $8.3 million in additional federal money.

Whose at fault?

The order, contained in the transportation bill signed by President Bush last month, was inserted late in the process by Representative Joe Knollenberg, an appropriations subcommittee chairman from Michigan. The Detroit businessman who owns the only company that supplies such rail cars happens to be a large donor to Mr. Knollenberg, a Republican, and other Michigan lawmakers.

Congress established the railroad in 1971 as a private, for-profit corporation and has intermittently promised company managers a free hand to run it like a business. But lawmakers continue to exercise influence because Amtrak must curry political favor to maintain its subsidy.

Look at the numbers:

Mr. Knollenberg acknowledged that the order, known in Washington as an earmark, was likely to help the businessman, Anthony Soave, and his company, ExpressTrak. But he said the main goal was to help Amtrak make money by hauling freight.

There are also other problems. ExpressTrak, which is in bankruptcy, and Amtrak, which will get about $1.3 billion from Congress to keep it out of bankruptcy, have been jousting in court for years over a 15-year contract they signed in 1999 requiring the railroad to haul premium freight like fruits and vegetables.

The $8.3 million is notable for another reason: it is almost precisely the amount that ExpressTrak's lawyers seem to have identified as a minimum target figure for settling the company's lawsuit against Amtrak, records show.

A 2003 agreement between ExpressTrak and the law firm Foley & Lardner, which handled the company's dispute with Amtrak and also lobbied for the $8.3 million earmark, called for a sharp reduction in the law firm's fees if ExpressTrak received less than $8.2 million.

That's right--its about a lobbyist's fee.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Time to throw the current leadership out.  We need heavy lobbying reform.  And campaign finance reform.  Why do we allow the existence of legal bribery?

Castro Benefits from America's Moral Slide on Guantanamo.

When trying to convince people you've done nothing wrong, don't act guilty.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE challenged European leaders to back controversial American anti-terrorism tactics yesterday as she robustly defended the CIA’s extrajudicial seizure, transportation and interrogation of thousands of suspects.

Really, if there is nothing wrong with it, why do you run and hide?

Read 'em and weep:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. 803 Adults (713 Registered Voters). December 1-4, 2005. MoE +/- 4%

If Tom DeLay runs for re-election in 2006, in general, are you more likely to vote for the Republican candidate Tom DeLay or for the Democratic Party's candidate for Congress?

Tom DeLay: 36%
The Democrat: 49%

Voters' Opinion of Tom DeLay:

Favorable: 37%
Unfavorable: 52%
Unfamiliar: 11%

Based on what you have heard or read, do you think the charges against DeLay are definitely true, probably true, probably not true, or definitely not true?

Definitely True: 15%
Probably True: 40%
Probably False: 26
Definitely False: 8%

That's right, only 32% of his own constitutents think the charges are not true.  And he's running at 36%.  Wow.  To be frank, I never thought he'd lose support in his own district.  Looks like I was wrong.

No sir:

The nation's top military man, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, said American troops in Iraq have a duty to intercede and stop abuse of prisoners by Iraqi security personnel.When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld contradicted Pace, the general stood firm.  Rumsfeld told the general he believed Pace meant to say the U.S. soldiers had to report the abuse, not stop it.  Pace stuck to his original statement.  "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," Pace told his civilian boss.  The unusual exchange occurred during a discussion at a news conference about the relationship between U.S. forces in Iraq and an Iraqi government considered sovereign by the United States.

Nobody should be on board with torture, torture-light, whatever you want to call it.  Its wrong.  End of story.

Boom.  Our very own 18 1/2 Minute gap:

But those close to the probe tell RAW STORY that Fitzgerald obtained documentary evidence showing that other unrelated calls transferred to Rove’s office by the switchboard were logged. He then called Ralston back to testify.

Earlier this month, attorneys say Fitzgerald received additional testimony from Ralston -- who said that Rove instructed her not to log a phone call Rove had with Cooper about Plame in July 2003.

We shall see on this one.  This is so explosive that it might not be true.  Its almost too good to be true.

Wow.  Again.  Now Bush is touting his own withdrawal plan--despite the fact it called the author of a similar withdrawal plan as  "endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party."

There is a strong consensus building in Washington in favor of President Bush's strategy for victory in Iraq. As the Iraqi security forces gain strength and experience, we can lessen our troop presence in the country without losing our capability to effectively defeat the terrorists. Today, Sen. Biden described a plan remarkably similar to the Administration's plan to fight and win the war on terror.

Looks like Bush is trying to work his way into the Cut and Run Crew.^TM  Wonder how long it will be before he's demanding that he turn over all of the documents on pre-war intelligence and demanding that Alito step down because of his "conservative views."

What's been going on here for some time now is a negative 100 days.  Political scientists have often looked to the first 100 days of a presidency as a barometer to what that presidency may become.  Here we have the opposite, an unraveling of almost everything that this president has done over the last five years in a similarly short period of time.  Few falls have been as precipitous.  None will ever be as memorable.  Our children will ask us about these days.