The other day I posted a somewhat optimistic diary about the future prospects for Iraq. My arguments were predicated on many ifs, the main one hinged on greater Sunni particpation in the political process. As we learn more about the election results and subsequent fallout, I feel somewhat foolish for even entertaining any positive thoughts with regards to this mess. Violence is permanent, civil war is imminent and the Iranian model has found new, fertile ground. We are all losers.
I have read several feel good pieces on the Iraqi elections and the future prospects for stability. I always take these optimist assessments with a grain of salt because generally the reality on the ground doesn't support the positivity. However, my anti-war bias aside, I can't deny that right now there does appear to be some justification for hope.
The people who oppose drilling in Alaska are using the environment to support their socialist philosophy, so says George Will. I have read this piece a couple times and the logic Will presents boggles my mind. Choice excerpts below the flip.
Reading the latest Knight Ridder piece on the rising Iranian influence in Iraq, we may be witnessing a new shift in focus. This diary already outlines the rise of the Iranian backed militias and Iran's infiltration of Iraq's government, but I would like too speculate on what this means for the future.
Watching the daily carnage in Iraq, it becomes clear that our level of outrage has a correlation to whom the bloodshed is directed. The media is fascinated by numbers, with reports dictated by the scale and ferocity. Reports of American casualties receive far greater weight than do those of ordinary Iraqis, unless an attack is especially violent. The notion of human cost is not uniform and it would appear the administration is now employing tactics to continue the war, without those pesky American deaths to interfere. The death toll may well rise, but it will only be amongst the lowly Iraqis which don't require such considerations.
I just finished reading this CSM piece and I think it offers some encouraging possibilities about the upcoming Iraqi elections. Politics aside, any potential sign of nation-building is positive if the goal is American withdrawal and some hope for stability.
A general theme has emerged to justify Democratic support for the Iraq war. No one could argue that vital information was withheld and what was offered was manipulated. However, does the administration's manipulation absolve our representatives or are the recent mea culpas dishonest revisionism? This American Prospect piece offers some food for thought.
The Washington Post has an story discussing the recent surge of violence in Afghanistan. What is interesting about this piece is the connection between the insurgency in Iraq and these developments in "relatively" calm Afghanistan.
Last night, this diary questioned the potential hypocrisy of selective criticism. Is our outrage more a function of personality than policy? Do we give certain Democrats the benefit of the doubt when they stray, while at the same time vilifying any move by the usual targets? If you isolate reaction to a single statement or issue there does appear some bias in the tone of commentary. I would argue that those who think this approach unfair don't see the forest from the trees.
I watched the President spew his tired rhetoric today in some vein attempt to garner support for "his" war. He attacked Democrats, highlighting their support as collaborators and questioned the patriotism of any naysayers. I would offer Russ Feingold as the perfect counter-point to these hysterical accusations. Actions, not words, with no need to apologize.
Global warming is irrefutable to anyone with a functioning cranium. The conservative resistence too acceptance of global warming as human caused has been beyond maddening. Well, it looks as though Republican mouthpiece Fox News has actually seen the light.
If you took a poll of Democrats, it would be reasonable to assume that, at this junction, most would be inclined to support a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Any hope of a "successful" resolution now seems more wishful thinking than sound logic. With this sentiment in mind, I confess I find it curious that Wesley Clark garners such widespread support and generally gets a free pass for his Iraq position. The Clark approach demonstrates a lack of pragmatism and offers little divergence from the Democratic hawks like Biden and Clinton we so love to vilify.
Increased American casualities due to IED's may soon be a thing of the past. The Pentagon has unravelled the mystery of defeating the insurgency. Quite simple really, it's all in the stars.
It appears Bush is set to announce his new Supreme Court appointment tomorrow. Speculation has ultra-conservative judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. a likely choice. Alito is nicknamed "Scalito" and represents the neocon wet dream. The other two names floated about, Michael Luttig and Alice M. Batchelder look equally as appalling. Now that Bush seems poised to ignore the calls for a moderate and stuff an arch-conservative into the court, the question now is are the Democrats ready to fight?
The constant tension between Democrats who think we have moved too far to the right and those whose who think we still need further realignment has led the Democratic party to a positon of ideological bankruptcy. The Democratic think tanks seem to believe that "liberal" views are taboo, that America is more conservative and we need to reflect that fact with new policies. Eric Alterman has an interesting article that reveals how Democrats have been manipulated into betraying their core beliefs and misinterpreting the electorate.
The constitution, instead of bringing Iraqis together, now serves as another concrete example of fracture and a dangerous trend towards civil war. This piece details the slow march to the inevitable, as well as new admissions from the military.
One of the main obstacles to profound reform is the presence of cynicism. Anytime we engage in a discussion of the political process it is always viewed through a jaded lens. This perspective often leads to a sense of hopelessness, when faced with the uncompromising, corrupt machine that confronts us. Political paralysis is often not a byproduct of laziness or lack of interest, but a sense that it is pointless to row against the unyielding tide of the status quo.
