Obsidian Wings

Meanwhile, On The Home Front...

by hilzoy

Bush is proposing to cut health care for veterans:

"At least tens of thousands of veterans with non-critical medical issues could suffer delayed or even denied care in coming years to enable President Bush to meet his promise of cutting the deficit in half — if the White House is serious about its proposed budget.

After an increase for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing by leaps and bounds, White House budget documents assume a cutback in 2008 and further cuts thereafter.

In fact, the proposed cuts are so draconian that it seems to some that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better. More realistic numbers, however, would raise doubts as to whether Bush can keep his promise to wrestle the deficit under control by the time he leaves office.

"Either the administration is proposing gutting VA health care over the next five years or it is not serious about its own budget," said Rep. Chet Edwards (news, bio, voting record) of Texas, top Democrat on the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "If the proposals aren't serious, then that would undermine the administration's argument that they intend to reduce the deficit in half over the next several years."

In fact, the White House doesn't seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don't represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

"Instead, the president's subsequent budgets have increased funding for all of these programs," said White House budget office spokesman Scott Milburn. "The country can meet the goal of cutting the deficit in half and still invest in key programs for vulnerable Americans, and claims to the contrary aren't supported by the facts of recent budget history." (...)

"The only way you can do what they want to do in terms of actually cutting the budget is to throw a lot of veterans out who are already in the system and/or redefine who is a veteran," said Rick Weidman, director of government relations for the Vietnam Veterans of America."

Oh goody: redefining 'veteran' in order to deprive veterans of health care. Remember when people got all bent out of shape about Clinton's claim that "it all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"? I'd rather worry about my President's views on 'is' than about his redefining 'veteran', or 'rebuild New Orleans', or 'checks and balances', or 'imminent threat'.

In any case: either the President is proposing to cut health care for the very soldiers he sent into harm's way in his war of choice, or he's just lying so that he can make the numbers look good. Like the AP, I tend to the latter view. But two things are worth remembering. The first is that there's nothing that says that politicians have to lie. And until this administration, people did not assume that politicians would lie about things like this, or pretend that their tax cuts were meant to expire to avoid coming clean about their costs, and so on. Bush said that he wanted to restore trust and integrity to the White House. Ha ha ha.

The second point is not mentioned in the article, but it's crucial: there are, basically, two ways of cutting the deficit. Either we make spending go down, or we make revenue go up. Yet in most of the coverage of the deficit that I read in the papers, people talk as though there were only one way: spending cuts. This is wrong, and ignoring it makes it seem as though we face choices we do not actually face: for instance, the choice between veterans' health care and deficits. In reality, if we simply fail to extend some of the Bush tax cuts, we'll have enough money to give our veterans the health care they deserve while cutting the deficit. And we can do it without lying.

Reality: Just Another Loser-Defeatist

by hilzoy

Reality has joined the ranks of losers and defeatists. From the Washington Post:

"Grisly attacks and other sectarian violence unleashed by last week's bombing of a Shiite shrine have killed more than 1,300 Iraqis, making the past few days the deadliest of the war outside of major U.S. offensives, according to Baghdad's main morgue. The toll was more than three times higher than the figure previously reported by the U.S. military and the news media.

Hundreds of unclaimed dead lay at the morgue at midday Monday -- blood-caked men who had been shot, knifed, garroted or apparently suffocated by the plastic bags still over their heads. Many of the bodies were sprawled with their hands still bound -- and many of them had wound up at the morgue after what their families said was their abduction by the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

"After he came back from the evening prayer, the Mahdi Army broke into his house and asked him, 'Are you Khalid the Sunni infidel?' " one man at the morgue said, relating what were the last hours of his cousin, according to other relatives. "He replied yes and then they took him away."

Aides to Sadr denied the allegations, calling them part of a smear campaign by unspecified political rivals.

By Monday, violence between Sunnis and Shiites appeared to have eased. As Iraqi security forces patrolled, American troops offered measured support, in hopes of allowing the Iraqis to take charge and prevent further carnage.

But at the morgue, where the floor was crusted with dried blood, the evidence of the damage already done was clear. Iraqis arrived throughout the day, seeking family members and neighbors among the contorted bodies.

"And they say there is no sectarian war?" demanded one man. "What do you call this?" (...)

The disclosure of the death tolls followed accusations by the U.S. military and later Iraqi officials that the news media had exaggerated the violence between Shiites and Sunnis over the past few days.

The bulk of the previously known deaths were caused by bombings and other large-scale attacks. But the scene at the morgue and accounts related by relatives indicated that most of the bloodletting came at the hands of self-styled executioners.

"They killed him just because he was a Sunni," one young man at the morgue said of his 32-year-old neighbor, whose body he was retrieving."

OK, so the military says that the media is exaggerating the death toll from the violence. The morgue says that both the military and the media have underestimated it. While this battle of words rages, there are so many bodies that they've automated the process of letting people try to identify them:

"Claiming the dead has become automated. Morgue workers directed families to a barred window in the narrow courtyard outside the main entrance. A computer screen angled to face the window flashed the contorted, staring faces of the dead: men shot in the mouth, men shot in the head, men covered with blood, men with bindings twisted around their necks. (...)

"What neighborhood?'' a morgue worker asked one waiting man.

"Adhamiyah,'' the man said, naming a predominantly Sunni neighborhood.

Tapping at the keyboard, the morgue worker fast-forwarded through the scores of tortured faces."

Every one a life ended, a family shattered, and who knows how many other people's lives turned to bitterness and ashes.

So Finally I Get Tagged With A Meme!

by hilzoy

It's never happened before -- for some reason, the world has yet to be consumed with curiosity about which books I've read lately, etc. As always, though, Gary defies popular opinion ;), so here goes:

Four jobs I've had: Killing little baby banana trees by injecting them with kerosene (can't have too many in one place; must clear them away so that the strongest ones can grow unimpeded -- call this one 'banana eugenicist'); being a waitress in a biker bar; copy editing a book called 'The Land of Israel Seen Through Its Stamps'; throwing newspapers (trust me: do not try this as an adult. And never, ever take a job throwing Sunday papers if you value your arms or your sanity.)

Four movies I can watch over and over again: The Sound of Music, Dr. Strangelove, virtually any Jane Austen adaptation that doesn't do violence to the original (cough, Laurence Olivier version of Pride and Prejudice, cough cough), and, oddly, Schindler's List, which I saw more times in cinemas than I care to admit, since for a while whenever I'd head out to see a movie by myself, I'd end up asking: do I honestly want to see this more than I want to see Schindler's List? and answer: no.

Four places I've lived: Belmont MA, Jerusalem, Tucson, and a huge collection of identical houses stretching out in all directions outside Ankara, named, if memory serves, Batıkent. -- OMG: it had for some reason never crossed my mind to Google Batıkent, but here's a description, and here's the photo that looks most like where I lived. The thing is, though, that those houses stretched as far as the eye could see in all directions, and if one e.g. climbed to the top of nearby hills, there was a whole new mass of previously unseen identical houses stretching out to brand new horizons, apparently without end; whereas in this photo it seems limited at the bottom, right, and left. Also, I don't recall the towers, which might be after my time. The general effect was of an unimaginable number of entirely identical houses -- each, individually, perfectly nice, but a bit terrifying all together.

Four TV shows I love: I'm not sure there are four. But if I get to count Frontline and Nova and the NewsHour, then I only need to add The Wire to make four.

Four highly regarded and recommended TV shows I haven’t seen: Most of the rest. Um, I tried watching the Sopranos once and got bored. I never saw Friends, or Sex and (in?) the City. Firefly. Is 24 highly regarded?

4 places I’ve vacationed: Gotland; Doğubayazıt; Ravenna; Rockport ME (just to the right of this photo.)

4 of my favorite dishes: Currently: baked penne with lemon and asparagus; Greek salad (only with good feta and olive oil, and without heresies like lettuce, which spoils the whole thing -- outside of Caesar salads, I've never really seen the point of lettuce, and tend to regard it as so much filler between the interesting parts of the salad); lebaneh with olive oil and hot pita (special bonus: lebaneh can be made with nothing more than yogurt, a paper clip and an old (clean) T-shirt); bean and cheese burritos :)

4 sites I visit daily: Only four? How quaint. Washington Post, Josh Marshall, Firedoglake, Glenn Greenwald. If anyone else feels left out, please see first four words of answer.

4 bloggers I’m tagging: Here is where I have to confess that I have no idea who has already been asked. Oh well. It's tempting to ask Gary in order to start an infinite regression, but I'll resist. So: Charles Bird (here), publius, Fred Clark, Brad Plumer.

Cruisin' Scientology

by Charles

Rolling Stone has a lengthy and interesting piece on Scientology.  It took the writer, Janet Reitman, nine months to do her investigation and she appears fair-minded yet skeptical, covering some of the theology, the history, the practices, the facilities and the people.  If you challenge certain tenets, you may be viewed as "counterintentioned".  If you work against church goals, you are committing "suppressive acts".  If you become an apostate, then you are ex-communicated and all ties with family and friends are severed.  Doesn't sound very enlightened to me, but to each his own.

Critics include Kristi Wachter and Operation Clambake, and Scott Burgess put together a three-part series, starting here.  Creepy stuff.  University of Alberta professor Stephen Kent has a series of articles on Scientology.

Open Thread

by hilzoy

We are in need of an open thread. I'm too busy to write anything substantive now, but this I can manage.

Special bonus: what I was up to in the UK.

CNN Misleading

by Charles

CNN provides another perfect example of the mainstream media talking down the war in Iraq and trying transform to spin good news into negative news.  The scary title:

Pentagon: Iraqi troops downgraded
No Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support

Followed by the ominous first three paragraphs:

The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.

The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.

The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.

To be clear, CNN is talking about Level 1 troops only, and by focusing on Level 1 they are being factually accurate but misleading.  Also, dare I say, biased.  The real measure of Iraqi troop quality is Level 2 or better. Bill Roggio aptly summarized the levels last August:

• Level 1 is the highest rating, where units are fully independent in all aspects. This includes being able to plan and conduct operations without coalition support. It also means the units sustain themselves through their own systems, handle all maintenance and have every piece of equipment needed to perform any mission.
• Level 2 means units that are "in the lead" in the counterinsurgency effort. The units plan and execute their own operations, but they do require coalition support. This support is typically logistics, close-air support, indirect fire, medical evacuation and so on.
• Level 3 indicates units fighting alongside coalition units. An Iraqi company will be embedded with a coalition battalion. The company gets support from the coalition and operates with the battalion.
• Level 4 indicates units just forming.

As Murdoc stated:

At both Level 2 and Level 1 readiness, for instance, the Iraqi forces plan and conduct their own operations. The difference isn't who does the fighting, the difference is who provides logistics, artillery fire support, medical evac, and other non-direct combat support services.

The jump to Level 2 couldn't be more significant.  This is important because the numbers of American troops in Iraq is dependent on the number of Level 2 (or better) Iraqi troops.  The more homegrown troops at Level 2, the fewer American troops needed in-country.  This is why the number of American troops in Iraq are scheduled to be reduced to 92,000 in 2006 (although that number may not include all Marines).

The good news--and the most important news--is that the number of Level 2 battalions has nearly tripled since last May, from 18 to 53.  That means there are 40,000± Iraqi troops capable enough to competently fight and defeat terrorists and militant Sunni rejectionists, with the U.S. there to provide a little logistical support.  But apparently to CNN, important information such as this is not important to them.  Level 2 progress doesn't get mentioned until the 9th paragraph, fourth to last from the end.  And we wonder why so Americans believe not just that we're losing, but that we've already lost.

Update:  Or it could be a lot of logistical support.  The primary point is that, at Level 2, Iraqi troops are doing the heavy lifting in lieu of American troops doing so.  Adding 12,750± troops to Level 2 status in the last five months expressly demonstrates the competence and growing independence of the Iraqi military.  The levels were no secret to CNN.  Even a lowly conservative pundit on FoxNews knew about this months ago.

Did I Say Restraint? Oy

by Charles

Although Ayatollah Sistani called for calm in the wake of the terrorist attack on the al Askiriya shrine, it was too much of a political opportunity for al Sadr and his Mahdi militia.  As the New York Times noted, the area hit hardest with retaliatory attacks was Sadr City.

Voices inside Iraq are mixed.  Truth About Iraqis calls it Day Two of Iraq's civil war (although it's unclear if TAI is Iraqi or even in Iraq).  Zeyad is concerned, and trying to get more information (Part I and Part II).  Ali says it's not as bad as it looks.  Omar offers this comment:

The sense in the streets and the statements given by some Shia clerics suggest that retaliation attacks are organized and under control and are focusing on mosques frequented by Salafi and Wahabi groups and not those of ordinary Sunnis.

And he finishes with this:

The situation is still very tense but the good thing is that the Sunni have not returned the attacks and I hope the Shia have satisfied their vengeance by now because I don't want to even think of what can happen if this situation lasts longer than this.

A reporter in Baghdad tell us that we are all misinformed.  From Gateway Pundit, Iraqi religious leaders are uniting and conducting joint Sunni-Shiite prayers (but not without incident).  Publius Pundit tries to get a political read on the situation:

Who stands to benefit from this attack?

In case anyone doesn’t see where I’m going with this, the finger points directly at Zarqawi, who is using the attack as a last ditch effort to prevent the forming of a new government. He is looking to divide the country after to has come so close to being united.

I wouldn't put it past Iranian surrogates to bomb al Askiriya, but it doesn't make sense that a Shiite would bomb a Shiite shrine.  If proven to be done by Iranian Shiite proxies, the backlash would be immense against the mullahs.

Victor Davis Hanson broaches the subject of victory:

Who will win? The Americans I talked to this week in Iraq — in Baghdad, Balad, Kirkuk, and Taji — believe that a government will emerge that is seen as legitimate and will appear as authentic to the people. Soon, ten divisions of Iraqi soldiers, and over 100,000 police, should be able to crush the insurgency, with the help of a public tired of violence and assured that the future of Iraq is their own — not the Husseins’, the Americans’, or the terrorists’. The military has learned enough about the tactics of the enemy that it can lessen casualties, and nevertheless, through the use of Iraqi forces, secure more of the country with far less troops. Like it or not, the American presence in Iraq will not grow, and will probably lessen considerably in 2006, before reaching Korea-like levels and responsibilities in 2007.

Today's curfew is a welcome break.  We'll see how things go tomorrow. 

For those still bent on vengeance but find mosque targets too hardened, Martha Stewart offers some deceptively simple revenge ideas (it is Friday after all).

Three Iraq Slices, No Anchovies

by Charles

Michael Totten was in northern Iraq, putting his fascinating observations to laptop.  Totten starts with his alighting in Erbil (and follows up with a photo gallery and entries here and here), then presents a cool photo gallery of the northern Iraq countryside, then talks a little Kurdish politics, then he moved on to Dohok and Lalish.  Opinions may vary, but to me this is webloggery at its best.

In Baghdad and Samarra, tensions remain high in the wake of yesterday's terrorist attack on al Askariya mosque.  Bill Roggio is looking for signs of civil war, and notes that the next few days and weeks are critical moments.  Since the likely culprit was al Qaeda, and since most Iraqis know that al Qaeda wants civil war, the predominant response has been anger and--for the most part--restraint.  Not that there has been no backlash.  More from Roggio:

The Shiites currently control the levers of power in Iraq, including the military and police apparatuses, and could easily decimate Sunni mosques and cities if they so desired. The Sunnis have far more to lose by a sectarian war than the Shiites, and they know this. al-Qaeda may have scored a short term gain with yet another shocking display of violence, but this could be another miscalculation that further alienates them in the eyes of the Iraqi people. If the Shiites and Sunnis play their cards correctly.

James S. Robbins goes as far as saying that al Qaeda made a "fatal mistake" yesterday since al Askariya is also an important Sunni shrine.  Maybe, maybe not.  To me, it looks like its up to Iraqi leaders.  Allah be with 'em.

Finally, this article has been around for a few days, but it shows how the U.S. military has been successfully adapting its operations in Iraq.  For those who take the loser-defeatist position that U.S. troops have done all they can, well, they're dead wrong.  No matter how cutting and running is reframed, the policy still remains defeatist.

UN Dithering on Darfur, Kofi Cashing In

by Charles

Way back in August 2004 or thereabouts, US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that a genocide was occurring in Sudan.  So far, little has been done to stem the Arab-on-black, Muslim-on-Muslim murders of hundreds of thousands and displacement of millions by Khartoum's surrogates, the Janjaweeds.  There was a ceasefire in Darfur, but it has ceased and the killings are resuming.  So far, no other nation has stood with the United States and called Darfur what it is:  a genocide in progress.

Currently, there is a 7,000-strong African Union peacekeeping force in the Darfur region, but it's becoming clear that this isn't enough.  Action from the UN Security Council is hard to come by.  The reason?  O-I-L.  The Economist (possibly subscription-only):

The new powers of Asia, China and India, are in Sudan for the oil. China, with a 40% stake, is the biggest single shareholder in the consortium developing the industry, but the Malaysians with 30% and the Indians with 25% are not far behind. Almost all the oil produced goes to thirsty China: it is estimated that 4.5% of China's oil needs are now being met by Sudan. On top of this, Khartoum is more or less being rebuilt by the Chinese, who bring all their own labour with them.

The Russians also have oil interests.  The US has not been as aggressive on Darfur as it could be because Sudan is sharing intelligence with us in the War Against Militant Islamists, and because of our involvement in south Sudan and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

The African Union troops admit that they cannot keep the peace and that they need UN help.  On February 1st, Human Rights Watch and International Crisis Group issued a joint statement urging that the U.S. spearhead an international effort to put blue helmets in Sudan:

Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group said that a new UN mission should have a strong and clear mandate to protect civilians by force if necessary under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and to disarm and disband the government-sponsored Janjaweed forces that pose a threat to the civilian population. They also urged that the UN force be large and mobile enough to provide security throughout Darfur – some 20,000 strong, as recommended by Jan Pronk, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Sudan.

The communique also urged that, since the U.S. is chairing Security Council meetings this month, Darfur be prioritized.  Sure enough, the U.S. is doing just that.  At this stage, even China may not object, but it will be a long process (possible subscription wall):

A fact-finding mission must be dispatched to report on what kind of force Darfur needs. The Security Council would have to approve it, and peacekeepers would have to be found. They would probably not, at first, be numerous; the UN would aim to put blue helmets on the heads of those in the existing AU force.

It could still be tricky: few countries are keen to lend troops to the UN—and often do so only because their armies need the cash for boots and bullets, and get well reimbursed by the world body. There are currently 15 UN peacekeeping missions around the world. One in southern Sudan, where a much longer war recently ended with several million dead, is meant to have 10,000 troops, but so far has barely more than half that figure.

One idea would be for the UN Security Council to ask NATO to give temporary assistance to the AU, pending a full-blown UN mission's arrival. NATO has already airlifted eight battalions of AU soldiers and police into the zone; the European Union has airlifted one battalion. The United States, which is perennially sceptical about the UN's ability and wants NATO to do more peacekeeping, is keen on the idea. To cover this eventuality, a new mandate from the UN would be urgently needed.

The Americans are suggesting that NATO could provide the AU with more airlift and other logistical support, and could help with tactical planning and intelligence. Such help could probably be supplied, at a pinch, by the alliance's European members, but not attack-helicopters to enforce the no-fly zone over Darfur which is also patently needed.

Not surprisingly, the Sudanese government is resisting any peacekeeping mission that is not manned by the increasingly ineffectual African Union.  Meantime, John Bolton is trying light a fire in the Security Council to generate more action, to which Annan's office responded that "the planning process is moving full steam ahead".  Meantime, Kofi Annan is cashing in, setting up ethics rules for his staff yet exempting himself from gifting limits.  Meantime, more Darfurians are likely to get murdered or forced to flee because of a regime that gets away with what it can.

Update:  Gary Farber also weighed in on Darfur, adding an exhortation to bloggers to chime in because, after all, "it's only genocide".

Free Speech and Other Stuff

--by Sebastian Holsclaw

David Irving was recently sentenced to three years in prison for Holocaust denial.  The man is a moral idiot.  He is a Holocaust denier, racist and a modern Nazi sympathizer.  But he ought not be in jail.  I say that not because I respect his views in any way--they are intellectually and morally bankrupt.  I say that not out of any personal sympathy for him--he is loathsome.  I say that he ought not be in prison because speaking loathsome thoughts should not be a legal offense in a free society.  The government of a free society should not police the loathsome expressions of its citizenty.  Irving should be socially ostracized and intellectually ridiculed, but not subject to legal sanction. 

This provides an interesting counterpoint to the recent Muslim cartoon riots.  Saying offensive things is permitted in free societies, whether they be offensive to religion or offensive to historical fact.  You should argue with people who say such things, or perhaps ridicule them.  But you ought not ban them. 

This reminds me of an interesting discussion I read a few years ago--I regret that I can't remember exactly where.  The gist was that one of the practical reasons European countries have more restrictive speech laws than the US is that their political systems allow small group extremists to wield more electoral power.  Our system tends toward only allowing two successful parties at a time.  This is reinforced by first-past-the-post vote counting and by the fact that the administrative branch is elected apart from the legislative body.  The parliamentary system of many European democracies and the voting schemes tend to make small parties very powerful when coalition governments are required.  As a result, a party which is popular in only a very few areas can have enormous power from time to time.  The US system tends to filter out small extremist parties.  As a result we can tolerate a somewhat larger range of outrageous speech because the speaker can rarely gain the leverage needed for real power without appealing to a broad spectrum of people.  I don't know if there is something to that, but it struck me as an interesting conjecture.