The Baker-Hamilton Panel on Iraq tells us the obvious about the need to change course

By Pamela K. Taylor

Today's headlines:
Panel: Bush's Iraq policies have failed
Gates says U.S. isn't winning Iraq war
Panel Urges Basic Shift in U.S. Policy in Iraq

As much "I told you so's" are not useful, this is really a "haven't we been saying this for months" moment.

The fact of the matter is, having made a huge mess in a country we should have left alone in the first place, we are now stuck. If we pull out, Iraq seems sure to descend into a really nasty civil war, and will likely emerge with an Islamist regime along the lines of its neighbor, Iran. If we stay, we get dragged into the really nasty civil war, lose a lot more American lives, and are unable to prevent that Islamist regime from coming into power. Either way, it seems pretty much inevitable that large numbers of Iraqis are going to lose their lives along the way, and the eventual government of Iraq is going to hold substantial grudges against the US.

So what can we do?

It's pretty clear to me that the longer we stay, the worse it is going to be. Violence against people perceived as collaborators is at an all time high. That's what much of reported sectarian violence is about. It's more the people cooperating with the US vs the people resisting what they perceive as an occupation than it is sunni vs shi'a simply because they are sunni and shi'a. Pre-existing political tensions between the former ruling Sunni minority and the Shia majority, as well as religious differences only exacerbate the situation, but the underlying cause is the continued presence of American combat troops in Iraq and divisions between Iraqis as to what to do about it -- go along with American plans as nicely as possible so we will leave sooner, or try to force us out.

The longer we stay, the greater the military attempts to get us to leave, and to pressure our collaborators, will become. If we leave in three years, it will be worse than if we leave in two years. If we leave in two years, it will be worse than if we leave in one. The sooner we can begin to withdraw, the sooner Iraq can begin to heal.

It is probably not a good idea to simply leave a vacuum. The Arab states, or the UN should send peacekeeping forces to the country in an attempt to minimize the bloodshed, but what really needs to happen is something along the lines of Truth and Reconcilliation a la South Africa.

Iraq has lived for decades under a ruthless military dictator and the wounds from that time are still festering. Two wars with America and one occupation later, and the wounds are becoming life-threatening. Only by a national reconciliation process will the country be able to heal and put the past behind it. Otherwise, simmering tensions will surely erupt in ten, twenty, thirty years as they did in the former Yugoslavia.

As much as I think the US ought to make feasible this sort of effort with monetary contributions, I also think that we need to stay out of the process. It must be 100% genuine and 100% Iraqi, with no possibility of a perception of outside interference.

As we withdraw and after we have withdrawn, we need to make reparations to the Iraqi people. I'm not talking throwing some money at American contractors... money that never gets translated into projects that improve the quality of life for Iraqi people. I mean rebuilding the country's infrastructure, building hospitals, universites, factories, providing scholarships for Iraqis who want to study in American universities, especially Iraqis who want to study medicine, engineering, chemistry, business administration, etc.

We owe Iraq a lot after supporting Hussein, the first Iraq war, ten years of sanctions, and the second Iraq war. Having devastated their country, it is our responsibility to rebuild it. And rather than trying to dominate whatever new government emerges in Iraq with force and military threats, we should win their trust with generosity.

And we shouldn't expect to be met with smiling faces, rather we can expect to be greeted with suspicion and mistrust for many, many years to come. The Iraqis aren't going to forget what we did to them any more than the Iranians forget the Mossadegh and the Shah. Americans may not remember that the Iranian Revolution was a direct result of us toppling the democratically elected Mossadegh and supporting the Shah with his notorious secret police, the Savik, but the Iranians surely so.

So too, we can expect the Iraqis to hold long grudges that we supported Saddam Hussein when he was gassing his own people, and sending political enemies to be tortured. We can expect them to remember that we invaded their country on false pretenses. If we take the steps to atone for our treatment of their country, they and other people's who rightfully view the US as a self-interested bully, will slowly rediscover respect for us.

There is an awful lot that is good about America -- from our Constitution with its freedoms, particuarly freedom of speech and religion, to an insistence on due process in the courts and checks and balances in federal and states governments, and a individualism that has historically resulted in the most class fluid society in the world.

But that beauty and moral high ground has been crowded out by our unconscionable foreign policy since WWII, both in countering the spread of communism and in ensuring access to the world's oil reserves and other natural resources.

I know the deplorable conditions in many countries with rich natural resources cannot be laid solely at the feet of multi-national corporations and the countries that back them up -- indigenous mismanagement and corruption has played a vital role. And I know that people will say that only developed nations had the expertise, wealth, and technology to be able to develop those resources, which may well be true.

But it remains the case that we have developed natural resources without at the same time developing the countries where those natural resources are located, we have protected our own access and ability to continue developing those resources at the cost of human dignity and at the price of huge amounts of human sufferring.

It would have been better to help those countries build the infrastructure, manufacturing base, techonology sector, etc, to use their own resources themselves. Would we have been less wealthy -- in terms of dollars? Yes. In terms of our contribution to human welfare? No. In terms of friends and allies? Definately not.

Our foreign policy has concentrated on material wealth over human dignity and the importance of building allies through generosity for too long. Iraq would be a good place to start changing course.

Iraq Study Group: Looming "catastrophe" & a war already lost

By Diane Silver

What a horrible, bloody mess Iraq has become, and the Iraq Study Group is confirming that fact.

The group has just presented its report to our not-so-beloved president, and first looks at it are available at The Washington Post and New York Times. The Times has a chart comparing options. Both have links to the report itself, which talks about a looming humanitarian catastrophe if the United States doesn't change course.

(Note that The Post has just taken the word "catastrophe" out of its story and headline. That may show that Post editors think that was inaccurate or that they're backing off from strong criticism of President Bush. I haven't had a chance to read the report yet, but I'm going to leave the word in my coverage for the moment because it does seem to convey the situation. However, read that word with caution until either you or I have time to review the report.)

Earlier today The Post reported on some of the background to the report. The emphasis is mine.

Although the study group will present its plan as a much-needed course change in Iraq, many of its own advisers concluded during its deliberations that the war is essentially already lost, according to private correspondence obtained yesterday and interviews with participants. The best the commission could put forward would be the "least bad" of many bad options, as former ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer wrote.

An early working draft from July stated that "there is even doubt that any level of resources could achieve the administration's stated goals, given the illiberal and undemocratic political forces, many of them Islamic fundamentalists, that will dominate large parts of the country for a long time."

The vice president's lesbian daughter is pregnant

By Diane Silver

This should be interesting for the Religious Right. I can't wait to hear the debate about this: Mary Cheney is pregnant.

The Washington Post reports:

She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are "ecstatic" about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.

John at AMERICAblog has some discussion and links about new Virginia laws, which will make life particularly difficult for Mary, Heather and their new baby. The family (and yes, they are a family) lives in Virginia.

Best wishes to Mary and Heather.

Liberals read science fiction

Neural Gourmet, a "community of ideas and ideals," has selected one of our posts here on In This Moment for the First Anniversary Edition of Carnival of the Liberals. The post is "Do you read science fiction," by Nancy Jane Moore from May 25, 2006.

And while you're reading, go check out the other interesting posts that Neural Gourmet selected. This carnival was a roundup of the best posts of the year, so there are some fascinating essays here. It's a great place to find new reading material.

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius gets a high profile job & more talk of higher office

By Diane Silver

Could a Kansas governor ever become president? No one knows the answer to that question, but we may find out someday if Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' political fortunes continue to rise.

That thought comes along with word that Sebelius will take over as chair of the Democratic Governors Association next year. The job is considered one way for a governor to raise her or his profile nationally.

Sebelius is succeeding New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who has been frequently mentioned as a possible presidential candidate.

AP notes:

Sebelius has enjoyed a relatively high profile despite her state's second - tier standing in presidential politics and her relatively new status. As a Democrat leading a traditionally Republican state, she used her identity as a political moderate, her status as a farm-state governor and her gender to create political currency.

She reportedly was on Sen. John Kerry's short list of vice presidential candidates in 2004 despite her professed lack of interest.

The next few years should be interesting.

Not a joke & not science fiction: New device disperses crowds by making people feel like their skin is on fire

By Diane Silver

Wired News has turned up something that makes your skin crawl, literally. What's worrying about their report is that they say this new device has just been certified for use in Iraq.

Wired News reports on the device this way.

The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running too. In a few seconds, the street is completely empty.

You've just been hit with a new nonlethal weapon that has been certified for use in Iraq -- even though critics argue there may be unforeseen effects....

The Air Force's Active Denial System, or ADS, has been certified safe after lengthy tests by military scientists in the lab and in war games.

While an effective nonlethal device for dispersing crowds may be a good idea, just the mention of this thing has me worried.

If it works like Wired News reports, doesn't the fact that it inflicts so much pain (even if it doesn't maim or kill) mean that using it is torture? Could this device be used on prisoners to torture them? Would unpopular administrations be tempted to use it to disperse lawful demonstrations in the United States?

The mainstream media seems to have missed this story completely, but if it is true, we need to look at this device closely and consider the implications. Wired News has also posted documents about the Air Force tests on the device.

The Kansas House ignores moderates & turns hard right

By Diane Silver

[updated 5:45 pm]

Well, this is interesting. Republicans in the Kansas House of Representatives have just thumbed their collective noses at voters by electing arch-conservative Melvin Neufeld as speaker.

Neufeld, a farmer from western Kansas and the current chair of the House Appropriations Committee, is a longtime member of the farthest right wing of the Kansas Legislature. His election yesterday to the 2nd most powerful post in state government is a bad sign for the forces of moderation. It took two ballots for the majority Republican caucus to elect Neufeld, but in the end he won.

I remember Neufeld well from my work as a reporter in the Statehouse. At that time, he was a friendly but powerless back-bencher known to all as simply "Melvin." My most vivid memory of him involved a speech he gave pushing an anti-abortion proposal.

As he stood speaking on the floor of the House, the chamber emptied, particularly of what was then the moderate Republican leadership of the House. They all went back to the then-speaker's office behind the podium and laughed at him. I know this happened because I was standing in their midst at the time.

I guess Neufeld gets the last laugh now. The question, though, is what will he do with his new power?

Will he have grown from the inconsequential person I knew more than a decade ago? Will he have matured beyond the soul who was once accused of trying to blackmail another lawmaker into voting his way? Will he remember that as speaker his job involves the whole state and not just those few who share his beliefs?

The fact that conservatives took over all the majority Republican leadership posts in the House is frightening and frustrating. It's as if the people under the Statehouse dome didn't hear, or perhaps even notice, what the voters did on Nov. 7.

The Kansas City Star provides more detailed coverage of Neufeld's elevation to power. The Lawrence Journal-World has the most complete and interesting story on the speaker's election.

UPDATE: Hat tip to Thoughts From Kansas for providing a link to Kansas RINO's post and details on the Kansas Supreme Court decision involving the blackmail allegations. The decision gives blow-by-blow detail of the accusations against Neufeld.

Maryland Court of Appeals hears argument on gay marriage

The Maryland Court of Appeals will hear argument today, December 4, at 10 A.M. E.S.T. on whether state law prohibits gay marriage.

The argument will be carried live on the Web. The court website warns that the live webcast of the argument is part of a pilot project and may suffer glitches.

The case is Conway v. Deane, No. 44 September term 2006. Briefs in the case are available here.

The plaintiffs are gay and lesbian couples who sued county officials who refused to give them marriage licenses. Maryland passed a law back in 1973 declaring marriage as between one man and one woman. In recent years, though, Maryland has also passed laws prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The plaintiffs are arguing that the law is unconstitutional under the state constitution.

A trial court in Baltimore ruled for the plaintiffs back in January, finding that the law was discriminatory. The Court of Appeals -- Maryland's highest court -- took a direct appeal from the county officials who were sued.

The Washington Post story gives the case a human feel by focusing on a 73-year-old former civil rights activist who is one of the plaintiffs along with his partner of 28 years.

I don't know enough about the Maryland Court of Appeals to call this case -- I don't follow their rulings closely enough to know anything about the justices. But I do recall being surprised by their rulings from time to time. My guess? Anything could happen.

Oh my! The rumors about Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline may well be true

by Diane Silver

It appears that our recently trounced Attorney General, Phill Kline, may seriously want to trade jobs with outgoing Johnson County District Attorney Paul Morrison. I half thought the rumors were a joke, but according to Kansas City Star political reporter Steve Kraske they're not.

Dec. 11 is the date set for the Johnson County GOP precinct members to vote on Morrison's replacement as district attorney.

How could Kline possibly take over the job of the Democrat who creamed him in the Nov. 7 election? I explain it all in a previous post.

I'm with Kraske on this one. As he notes in his column:

For now, though, the question is: What in the world is Kline thinking?

Morrison beat Kline by a landslide, 59 to 41 percent, last month. Kline served four terms as a member of the Kansas House representing Shawnee in Johnson County. They know him well there, and perhaps Kline should consider the fact that Morrison creamed him in Johnson County by a 65 to 35 percent vote.

Perhaps it's time for the one-time darling of the Religious Right to simply move on.

The Dixie Chicks aren't the only people who aren't "ready to make nice"

By Nancy Jane Moore

I must admit that I've been a bit unsure about Jim Webb, the senator-elect from Virginia whose narrow victory put the Democrats over the top. He is, after all, a former Republican.

But Webb did something this week that proves he is exactly the kind of senator the country really needs at a time like this: He refused to make nice with George Bush.

According to The Washington Post, Webb avoided the both the receiving line and individual photo op with the president at a reception for new members of Congress. However, Bush tracked him down and reportedly asked him "How's your boy?" (Unlike the children of most of the power elite in Washington, Webb's son is a Marine serving in Iraq.)

Webb replied that he'd like to bring all the troops home. Bush apparently said that wasn't what he asked, and Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President."

George Will was offended by this behavior, calling Webb a "boor." Will apparently believes that nothing is more important than the social politeness that is the rule for Washington insiders. You can savage each other in the press and on the talk shows, as long as you follow all the forms at social gatherings. And following the rules includes kowtowing to the president.

Maybe in most cases, with most presidents, that's the way it should be. But as one who has long argued that the Bush administration should not be seen as business as usual, but as a serious threat to our country and our democracy, I am glad to see someone in the Senate who is more interested in doing what's right -- and in speaking truth to power -- than in joining the club.

Furthermore, there was nothing polite about Bush's inquiry; he was trying to play his "compassionate" card by acting as if he really cared about Webb's son. If Webb had played along -- had pretended that the issue of his son's welfare has nothing to do with Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq -- he would have been agreeing to a polite subordinate role. People like Bush can always use that.

Webb told The Post:

I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall.

He added that he meant "[n]o offense to the institution of the presidency," but pointed out that "leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."

I'm not sure whether Webb meant to imply that he took the stand he did because he's a leader, or that Bush was attempting, by use of the symbolic act of asking after Webb's son, to convey a message. But it works either way.

I think Jim Webb is going to be a breath of fresh air in the Senate. He's clearly "not ready to make nice."