John at Americablog brings it to our attention that Turkey is considering invading northern Iraq in order to strike Kurdish insurgents operating from there. 

Tell me if this sounds familiar, but the Turkish government is under pressure to do something after an overall increase of insurgent violence in southeastern Turkey and the fact that Kurdish guerillas recently killed a number of Turkish soldiers and border guards in a cross border raid.  Bear with me, but it seems that neither the Iraqi government, nor the autonomous government of Kurdistan nor the American government have done anything to help reign in these insurgents crossing into Turkey despite Turkish protests so looks like they're gonna have to take things into their own hands. 

Now, I don't know if Turkey will do something or if they're just rattling sabres here, but its pretty clear that in Lebanon the U.S. government fully supports Israel's right to defend itself but somehow feels the need to push for restraint from Turkey in a similar situation.  We're prepared to sit back and hope the Lebanese government doesn't unravel due to the Israeli assault, but need to constrain Turkey because we fear a Turkish incursion, however justified, would severely weaken an Iraqi government that can't control Baghdad let alone its own borders.  You also can't tell me that the moral high ground claimed by advocates of preemptive war applies to one autonomous nation and not the other due to what extent it interferes with American foreign policy because frankly we set the standard and now we have to live with it.  A lot of things sound good in theory or as a cheap political soundbite but I think we're finding they also have real world implications that are far more messy than the "grown-ups" in charge are willing to admit. 

Garance Franke-Ruta at Tapped says her sources at the State Department suggest that the U.S. hasn't rushed to evacuate Americans from Lebanon because it would  a.) create the impression that American citizens are being threatened by the actions of a longtime U.S. ally, and b.) contradict our stated support for the Israeli assault and willingness to wait and let it continue.  This explanation is most likely, but its hard not to notice that a lot of other countries haven't had that dilemma, and the fact most have pulled their people out of the country very quickly suggests the situation is quite dangerous and uncertain.  It is my hope we don't see any American citizens accidentally killed for the sake of avoiding some potential public relations problem. 

 If you to have been shaking your head as to how most foreign governments have gotten most of their people out of Lebanon while we seem to dilly-dally, you're not alone.  However, the folks at TPM Muckrakers have unearthed one possible explanation as to why there is so much confusion:  the U.S. Embassy in Beirut is telling Americans in Lebanon to stay by their phones or go to the embassy website to receive updates on evacuation planning in a place where Israeli bombing of basic infrastructure has severely limited electricity and phone service in many parts of the country, especially Beirut and southern Lebanon.  Gotta hand it to the State Department, they think of everything!  The U.S. government is really outdoing itself on how shockingly bad it is at managing crises that might require rescuing or protecting American citizens at both home and abroad. 

Congressman Gil Gutknecht found the situation in Iraq more bleak than he anticipated during a weekend visit to the war zone, and said a partial withdrawal of some American troops might be wise.  Gutknecht, a strong supporter of the war since it began in March of 2003, told reporters in a telephone conference call Tuesday that American forces appear to have no operational control of much of Baghdad.  “The condition there is worse than I expected,” he said. “... I have to be perfectly candid: Baghdad is a serious problem.”

But then he asserts a quarter of a Friedman is critical in determining what Iraq is going to turn out to be:

But he said the next six weeks could be critical in determining whether stability can eventually come to the rest of the country, and he believes removing some American troops is necessary to send the Iraqi government a message that it can’t rely so heavily on the American military much longer.

While Gutknecht is still not in favor of setting deadlines for the withdrawal of all American troops, he said the situation in Iraq’s largest city has clearly deteriorated.  “Baghdad is worse today than it was three years ago,” he said.  Sending additional troops to Iraq would be “a terrible mistake,” Gutknecht said.  Gutknecht compared Iraq to a child learning to ride a bicycle and said America needs to be willing to let the country suffer some bruises as it attempts to take charge of its own affairs.  “I think it’s time to take off the training wheels of their bicycle,” he said.  Gutknecht was in Iraq from Saturday morning until late Sunday afternoon. His time in the country’s capital city was spent almost exclusively within the Green Zone, an area of central Baghdad that is heavily fortified and where all access is controlled by check-points.

So you're not getting the same mileage out of "The War on Terror" that you did four years ago and your party is worried about the upcoming mid-term elections, what do you do?  Yep, roll out a new marketing campaign and replace the phrase "War on Terror" with "World War III", and if anyone objects then demagogue the hell out of it.  Classic Gingrich but anyone see an actual workable foreign policy framework here? 

Nice thing about being an "idea man" like Gingrich is that you're applauded for proposing bold things, yet safe in the knowledge that you'll never have to actually implement any of them.  Unfortunately, this country is at a point where a truly honest debate about foreign policy and America's role in the world is long overdue and all we get is crap like this.

Ask yourself what kinda heartburn White House and personal lawyers for the Vice President are going through right now when they envision the media juxtaposition of their client, otherwise known as the most unpopular member of this administration (19% favorability), with Valerie Plame Wilson. 

On another note, although some are skeptical the courts will let this case go to a discovery phase that might be embarrassing to the President and his minnions, I only offer a recent example that might have bearing:  Read this overview of the Paula Jones case against President Clinton.  Can you find a more baseless suit?  Was there another civil case continuously dismissed that nonetheless kept coming back due to the actions of right-wing activists both inside and outside the judiciary that eventually caused significant political damage to a sitting President?  If there truly is any justice left in this country the Wilson's will have their day in court and let's not rue the implications of somebody like Mr. Bush being deposed... we've already passed over that bridge and under far less honorable circumstances to boot!

Americans Want Democrats In Power

The AP-Ipsos survey asked 789 registered voters if the election for the House were held today, would they vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district. Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent.

Not surprisingly, 81 percent of self-described liberals said they would vote for the Democrat. Among moderates, though, 56 percent backed a Democrat in their district and almost a quarter of conservatives - 24 percent - said they will vote Democratic.

Democrats also held the advantage among persuadable voters - those who are undecided or wouldn't say whom they prefer. A total of 51 percent said they were leaning Democrat, while 41 percent were leaning Republican.

Looking at what's happening in Israel, Gaza and Lebanon its hard to figure out why things have spun out of control so quickly.  One of the more interesting theories offered as to whyHezbollah recently kidnapped a pair of Israeli soldiers (besides the fact that they've done so numerous time in the past to negotiate prisoner releases) is the possibility that  Iran is using its influence to strike Israel and mess up U.S. Middle East policy at a time when the Bush Administration is trying to put maximum pressure on Teheran.  That means what is being described as a local mess doesn't merely have "regional implications" but is actually a big regional mess.  Its hard to say to what extent that is true, and of course Mr. Bush quickly blamed Syria for the mess, but it did remind me of an interview with former CIA agent and Middle East hand Robert Baer for a Frontline special about Iran's support of terrorism.  The interview is interesting not merely because Baer explains Iran's relationship with Hezbollah and other groups, but also in the way he lays out a more nuanced (ie. complicated) picture of Hezbollah, Middle East politics and the continued inability of both the U.S. and Iran to come to terms with one another in any meaningful diplomatic way.  I don't know if it explains rockets falling on Haifa or Beirut International Airport being repeatedly bombed by Israeli jets, but it is a start.

I know that democracies settle their problems peacefully and never go to war against one another, but our oldest "Middle East success story" has invaded and is currently bombing the hell out of our most recent "Middle East success story". 

If you're like me and once again received a raise this year that was significantly lower than the rate of inflation, its hard to appreciate the recent raises handed out at the White House.  Nevertheless, Think Progress decided to go through this National Journal listing of White House salaries and came up with their own list of the four most overpaid White House staffers.  Among the infamous: Director of Lessons Learned?  Fact Checking?  Ethics advisor?  Wow, what does it take to get those plum assignments?  Anyway, I could go on and on but it looks like Rahm Emmanuel covered all the bases on the floor of the House.  Enjoy.

As the White House attacks previous administrations while pondering its next move, or continued inertia, regarding North Korea, one only needs to look at this article to see how badly thing are messed up.  That's right, Japan is considering changing parts of its constitution to allow a preemptive military strike against North Korea if it feels threatened.  While no one challenges Japan's need to defend itself, the remilitarization of Japan does not bode well for relations in East Asia and and one that has much larger implications than most American will appreciate.  For one thing, historically, Korean and Chinese nationalism is not inherently anti-American but it is most definitely anti-Japanese in focus which means two things; further North Korean military demonstrations against Japan, and possible Chinese concerns about Japanese intentions that may further derail our misguided hopes that China will save our butts and make North Korea listen to reason.    Anybody have a clue what happens next?

Apparently bin Laden wants Zarqwai's body released.  We're certainly willing to let you pick it up.  Please call ahead so that we can be ready for you.

Kevin Drum ably picks apart Andrew Sullivan's lament that while he doesn't think we can win in Iraq (especially with the crew in charge) and although things appear to be getting worse not better that nonetheless he can't support the alternative because things could get worse.  What's interesting is that this was the gist of John McCain's speech on the floor of the Senate the other day as well and as I listened to a clip on the radio I was struck by the notion that we are going to continue on the present untenable course not for any obvious hope of success, but so that those who brought us to this point and who shamelessly play politics with our foreign policy and national security can somehow feel that they've saved face in some inexplicable way.  Billions of dollars, thousands dead, unaddressed threats around the globe and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East for lord knows how long not so that we will avoid dishonoring the sacrifice of so many young Americans and Iraqis,  but so the current Administration and its lock-step supporters in Congress can avoid bruising their outsized egos.  That's just wrong. 

They don't have a plan, never have, nor have supporters of our failed policy offered to rethink our involvement and formulate a practical framework for making this enterprise actually succeed.  Instead they choose to engage in decrepit "stab in the back" type metaphors and empty platitudes about freedom and democracy at cheap political photo-ops and meaningless legislative debates while the President has already decided that he's going to let his successor sort this all out?  No one's asking what either the American or Iraqi people want.  After all what's our policy if the Iraqi government suddenly says take off, we don't want you here anymore or, heaven forbid, asks us to negotiate a timetable for withdrawal, what then?  Is it okay or do we stay the course regardless?  Sadly, America deserves so much better.  What a waste...