« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »

The "Friday" Report

by Mark Gisleson

The Iraqi Governing Council claimed this morning that the US will hand over control of Iraq to "a new transitional government by June." ??? These guys claimed they couldn't even begin to guess how long the war would take or what it would cost, but now they can pinpoint the moment when we'll get to pull out?

Faced with escalating violence in Iraq, the Bush administration wants to speed up the handover of power to Iraqis — dropping its earlier insistence that the Iraqis first draw up a new constitution and hold general elections, a process likely to last at least another year. The Iraqis had been insisting on a faster transfer.

Council member Ahmad Chalabi, appearing at a news conference with other members, said the selection of a transitional government should be completed by May. The government, he said, will be “internationally recognized” and with “full sovereignty.”

Council President Jalal Talabani said the transitional administration would be selected after consultations with “all parties” in Iraqi society.

Council members also said the plans called for a permanent constitution to be drafted and an elected administration chosen by the end of 2005.

Mr. Talabani said the new government would negotiate an accord with the U.S. military on American troops' role in the country after the handover.

[emphasis added]

The BBC just posted a follow up to the Riyadh bombing. Reporter Bill Law gained access to the al-Muhaya compound that was leveled by a car bombing Thursday.

"Over there on the other side of the building is a foot... Do you want to film it?"

I didn't have a camera. I didn't find the foot. I didn't want to find it. But the cloying scent of death hit me.

As did the realisation the Saudis were cleaning up the bomb site with scant regard for those who had survived and those who had not.

I couldn't help but think the remains of some of the victims were still in the rubble being carted off.

The Voice of America has the latest on Rummy's activities:

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the United States understands Japan's decision to delay sending non-combat troops to Iraq. Appearing at a joint news conference with his Japanese counterpart, Shigeru Ishiba, after talks in Tokyo Saturday, Mr. Rumsfeld said every sovereign nation decides on its own about its "appropriate" involvement in Iraq's reconstruction.

The U.S. defense secretary said he appreciates the support that Japan and other countries have provided for rebuilding Iraq. Japan has pledged $5 billion in grants and loans for Iraq over the next three years, making it the biggest donor after the United States.

Mr. Ishiba said Japan intends to dispatch troops to Iraq "as soon as possible," but is carefully monitoring the security situation in that country.

On Thursday, Japan said it was postponing deployment of its troops to Iraq until next year. The announcement came a day after a suicide bombing in southern Iraq Wednesday that killed 18 Italians and nine Iraqis. Another U.S. ally, South Korea, said it would send no more than 3,000 of its troops to Iraq, far fewer than has been suggested by the United States.

I'm not much on reading the warbloggers, but recent events made me curious as to how they are reacting to all this bad news and bluster. I was, to say the least, a little disappointed.

Uber-blogger Instapundit briefly links to Kris Lofgren's post on the synagogue bombing in Istanbul this morning, but then turns a loving eye to a lengthy quote and link to the Media Resource Center's latest propaganda screed, "MSNBC's Arnot Sees Iraqis Angry at TV Coverage, Who 'Love' Bush." Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds then eats up some more column inches by quoting a reader's thoughts about this story which conveniently speculate about how world opinion has been shaped by the liberal American media. Have any of these people EVER read a foreign news report on this war?

Higher up on the Media Resource Center's CyberAlert list are the following two items (deciphered from the original Goebbelese):

Nets Portray Both Parties as Equally Guilty of Blocking Nominees [translation: even though the Democrats haven't begun to sink to Clinton era Republican level obstructionism, we're offended that anyone would even think that the GOP was ever as rude as these stinking liberal busybodies]

CBS Solicits Military Advice from Clark, Doesn’t Challenge Him [translation: all Democrats must be challenged and ridiculed, no matter how great their expertise on the matter at hand]

Steve Den Beste over at the USS Clueless does address a pertinent issue: whether Osama really has a game plan or not. I wish I could summarize his 2,800 word post, but like all things Den Besteian, it meanders a bit. Here's his conclusion:

This is not a war which they expect to win with guns or explosives. It is a spiritual struggle. The word "jihad" is sometimes claimed to have two meanings: one of holy crusade against the infidel, but another representing a struggle within to achieve moral purity and faith.

Those are not separate meanings to the zealots. They are the same thing; they're inextricably linked. If they triumph internally, and achieve purity of faith, they will win the holy crusade against the infidel, because God will aid them and there is no limit to God's power. Not even America's wizard weapons can defeat God. And they can only become pure internally if they are also dedicated to holy crusade.

And that's why al Qaeda's plans seem idiotic to rationalists like Donald and me. bin Laden could not create and follow the kind of plan which we'd think was essential. If bin Laden's plan had been based entirely on temporal power and cogent strategy and real resources, and if such a plan did not rely on miracles, it would have demonstrated lack of faith. If there were no place in the plan for God, it would prove that bin Laden didn't truly believe God would help.

And it would therefore prove that bin Laden didn't deserve any help from God, because it would prove that his faith wasn't really pure. For bin Laden to create such a plan would be a heretical act.

Of course that entire issue is meaningless for an Atheist.

It isn't meaningless for a rationalist post-Enlightenment Christian, but he faces no crisis of faith in a similar situation. He can make rational plans which don't rely on miracles because his faith acknowledges that God doesn't usually work that way. Such a Christian doesn't pray for victory; he prays for the wisdom to create rational plans and the strength to carry them out.

But for bin Laden and other Islamic zealots bent on jihad, even that would be heresy. The only way to truly prove your faith is to rely on miracles, and that's what I think they're doing. I think that was bin Laden's strategy.

It's not enough for them to win or lose their crusade; they have to win it the right way, by showing the purity of their faith and by having God fight beside them. And they only can, and only should win by purifying themselves enough to once again deserve God's aid in the crusade. To demonstrate any doubt whatever in this is to prove that they are unworthy to be Soldiers of God.

And God will prove that by not aiding them, and permitting their enemies to triumph.

Donald Luskin impotently flogs his war on Paul Krugman, linking to David Brooks sophoric "stop the hate" column in today's New York Times. It's hard not to be reminded of Harry Truman's quote, "I never give them hell, I just tell them the truth and they say it's hell!"

As for Brooks latest nonsense, the following purports to be the words of an unnamed Democratic candidate for president (and ain't it amazing how often the pro-war crowd finds it necessary to invent quotes or quote people you've never heard of before?):

If Dean is our nominee, he may fight the Beltway wars more aggressively than other Democrats, but we will still be a nation at war. I have seen Dean up close. The man hates his opponents. His kind thrives only during times of domestic war.

If we nominate Dean, it will be bad for our party and bad for our country. It will be bad for our party because 40 percent of the voters in this nation call themselves moderates.

If we nominate Dean, George Bush will have a good shot at winning a large chunk of those votes. That's disgraceful after the partisan way George Bush has led this country. But it will be our fault because we nominated someone just as partisan on the other side.

But suppose Dean does win the White House. He'll propose some good legislation. I'll support it, but it will never get passed. Because each party will still be down in its trenches, and nothing will move except the bouncing of the rubble and the writhing of the wounded.

We've all seen the Dean style. If he is elected, we will be a nation at war every second of his term. I don't even want to think about what our country would be like after four years of that.

[Gee David, I was having just that exact conversation with one of my minivan driving suburban "bobo" friends just this morning!]

The only good thing I can take from all of that is this: if this is the best the pros can come up with, Bush Wars readers should be able to utterly demolish the arguments of their pro-war drinking buddies.

Iraq is a goddamned mess, and I don't know how anyone could say otherwise with a straight face (the above noted professional liars excepted). The time honored strategy when your cause is hopeless is to accuse the other side of unspeakable crimes. This time around, the real issue is that everyone on the left "hates" Bush, or hates America. They can lie, obfuscate and dodge, but they can't change the facts. We're hip deep in shit, and the big fool says to push on (but not to worry, we'll be out by next June in time for the Republican National Convention in ... New York City?).

Posted by at November 15, 2003 11:28 AM

« Rall you really need to know | Main | Update »