I recommend Pat Lang's take on the difficulties of enacting what passes for a "serious" solution for our misadventure in Iraq.  I think he makes it clear that when we debate large one time increases of troops to shore up our near term position in Iraq that such proposals are frankly not "serious" solutions but political posturing devoid of any consideration of a suitable timeframes, force structure pressures, logistical concerns or any real sense that a sudden influx of U.S. troops would accomplish anything.

You may occasionally see Pat Lang being interviewed on various news channels, but Pat's blog Sic Semper Tyrannis is also highly recommended; Pat brings a welcome and authoritative voice on not only the Middle East but also the U.S. military and intelligence community.

Happy Thanksgiving from everybody at the Ironmouth! 

In honor of "Turkey Day", here is a clip from one of the funniest moments in TV history:  WKRP's "Turkeys Away!"

....not only do we not have any respect for the institutions of government, we don't take this governing thing seriously either.

Something I did not read in any of the obituaries for Milton Friedman which I meant to write the other day and never got around to: 

1. Monetarism, ie. targeted money supply expansion as monetary policy, as Dr. Friedman prescribed, never, and I mean NEVER WORKED... in fact, it produced pretty disasterous results everywhere (US, Britain, Chile, etc.) it was tried and was often quickly abandoned.  
2. While Friedman's legacy might be reminding us of the importance of keeping inflation in check and advocating price stability (both pretty basic to the discipline of Economics in general) his assertion that "inflation is always a monetary phenomenon" is widely disputed and you won't find anyone, especially a reputable economist, who calls him or herself a "Monetarist" nowadays. 

Okay, that felt good to get off my chest.

Wow.  The cost of five years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (adjusted for inflation) is on the verge of surpassing the total amount spent on the Vietnam War?  That's amazing especially when you consider the Vietnam War not only lasted longer, but also had a much larger commitment of troops and military resources than either Iraq or Afghanistan.  I know the Pentagon is historically notorious for not being able to balance its books or account for all its stuff, but come on!  Is an "all volunteer" force really all that much more expensive than the mix of draftees and volunteers sent to Vietnam?  New technology?  Anyone remember the "McNamara Line" or where expensive laser-guided munitions got their first use; Vietnam was a treasure trove of new weapons and technology.  

My hope for the coming year is that the new Democratic Congress will not only restore proper budgetary processes and do away with "war by supplemental funding", but also take a hard look at where all the money's going; don't be surprised if this is just one more area in which the Bush administration has both let down the troops in field and the American taxpayer at large.

Evidently the only thing more senseless than getting stuck in a land war in Asia is asking the President to provide a real world historical analogy.

Grim assesment on Iraq in today's Post:

While American commanders have suggested that civil war is possible in Iraq, many leaders, experts and ordinary people in Baghdad and around the Middle East say it is already underway, and that the real worry ahead is that the conflict will destroy the flimsy Iraqi state and draw in surrounding countries.

Whether the U.S. military departs Iraq sooner or later, the United States will be hard-pressed to leave behind a country that does not threaten U.S. interests and regional peace, according to U.S. and Arab analysts and political observers.

"We're not talking about just a full-scale civil war. This would be a failed-state situation with fighting among various groups," growing into regional conflict, Joost Hiltermann, Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group, said by telephone from Amman, Jordan.

"All indications point to a current state of civil war and the disintegration of the Iraqi state," Nawaf Obaid, an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and an adviser to the Saudi government, said last week at a conference in Washington on U.S.-Arab relations.

"To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale," Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, said Oct. 30 at a conference in Washington. "Since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited."

"When the ethnic-religious break occurs in one country, it will not fail to occur elsewhere, too," Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told Germany's Der Spiegel newsweekly recently. "It would be as it was at the end of the Soviet Union, only much worse. Large wars, small wars -- no one will be able to get a grip on the consequences."

Apparently we could do some things to help.  The price?  So steep that Bush could never swallow:

"The thing is, because Iran and Syria both have spoiling power in Iraq, if you could neutralize them," it would ease some of the many pressures within Iraq, Hiltermann said. But he said the two countries may demand a mighty trade-off: for Syria, U.S. help with its biggest stated aim, winning back the Golan Heights from Israel; for Iran, U.S. compromise over its nuclear program.

Hiltermann acknowledged the difficulty. "I'm saying it's required," he said. "I'm not saying it's possible."

 

Fox News internal memo, last week:

 

"And let's be on the lookout for any statements from the iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress."

We report, you decide.

David Kurtz (TPM Reader DK) over at Talking Points Memo:

After the 1968 elections, not many Americans would probably have guessed that we would be in Vietnam for another six and a half years. We're at a similarly decisive moment now.

That's why she's thrown her support behind Murtha.  A bold move worth of a leader, no matter what Andy Sullivan thinks.

Wouldn't a better title for this article be "How Can One Failed Presidency Help Save Another: Does Anyone Remember That George H. W. Bush Was a Lousy President, Too?"

Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.

The latest indication that there has been a massive wave of change overtaking Washington:  John Amato at Crooks and Liars catches cable news cutting into its broadcast to bring you a member of the Democratic Party giving a press conference!  What's it been six or seven years, maybe more?  Well I guess it adds a little variety to all the hours, ney months of time, already spent cutting away to the President giving the same speech over and over and over and over...

...and domestic terror suspect.  Sad thing is that if someone who posted to Dailykos was sending packets of fake anthrax to noted conservative politicians and media celebrities, progressive bloggers would be forced on television to defend the entire community and for weeks you'd hear nothing but how dangerously unhinged left-wing bloggers are.  I'm not holding my breath that you'll see Jim Robinson, Kristinn Taylor or noted conservative bloggers like Hindraker or Malkin on the news defending Castagana any time soon.

I hate to rain on everyone's "bipartisan" parade, but when evaluating the veracity of any new direction the White House proclaims its best to remember that its not what the Bush people say, what you think they'll say, or what you think they'll do, but what they actually do.  Now, can anyone explain why the President not only renominated John Bolton but why is the White House pressing a divisive lame-duck session vote on the nomination even though they know they don't have the votes?