Dennis the Peasant

Oh.My.God.

I don't think. My orders are I'm not supposed to know where I'm taking this boat, so I don't. But one look at you and I know it's gonna be hot, wherever it is.

Chief Phillips, Apocalypse Now

Evidently Stanley McChrystal has scared the living shit right out of George Will. And why not? Given some of the details of General McChrystal's review/assessment of Afghanistan that are starting to emerge, he should scare the living shit right out of the rest of us, too:

The new commander of international troops in Afghanistan delivered a sweeping review of how the U.S. fights the war today, emphasizing a shift from fighting the Taliban to protecting the population, rooting out corruption, nearly doubling Afghan security forces and transforming how those Afghan forces are trained.

It gets worse:

Though not included in today's assessment, General Stanley McChrystal is soon expected to ask for more troops to fight a resurgent enemy.

And worse:

According to officials familiar with the report, it recommends increasing the target size of Afghan security forces, from a goal of 134,000 Afghan soldiers to 250,000, and increasing the target size of the Afghan police from 92,000 to 160,000.

It also recommends that U.S. and Afghan military command structures be more integrated, meaning U.S. forces would live, eat, and train together. It assesses that the Afghan Army could be in the lead within three years, though officials warn the Afghan police will take much longer.

On the one hand, we have McChrystal (and Holbrooke) telling us the government in Kabul is ineffective and corrupt, and now on the other he's telling us we should give Kabul billions to build a massive professional army and police force. If Afghanistan isn't even a functioning nation-state (no matter how you define the term) - and it isn't - how in the world can you really expect to successfully build and maintain a standing army? Or a police force?

Even more bizarre is the intention to de-emphasize the military's mission of fighting the Taliban. In fact, what McChrystal is now saying to the military is this: "Focus 95 percent of your time building relationships with them [the Afghan people] and, together with the Afghan government, meeting their needs." That leaves a whopping 5% of our military's resources dedicated to the defeat of the Taliban.

If there is one aspect of our mission in Afghanistan that does retain some public support, it is defeating the Taliban on the field of battle. Now, evidently, that is going by the wind. And what we're getting is something we've seen before:

It was called Vietnamization. 

Anyone recall how that worked out?

If Barack Obama doesn't fire Stanley McChrystal before the end of the year, you can bet your bottom dollar that by January 2011 we're going to have a war on our hands that will make you yearn for the good old days of George W. in Iraq. Guaranteed.

Lyndon Baines Obama...

Here's the latest take on Afghanistan that Democrats, liberals and progressives will no doubt ignore. It comes Anthony H. Cordesman in the Washington Post:

The United States cannot win the war in Afghanistan in the next three months -- any form of even limited victory will take years of further effort. It can, however, easily lose the war. I did not see any simple paths to victory while serving on the assessment group that advised the new U.S. commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, on strategy, but I did see all too clearly why the war is being lost.

The most critical reason has been resources. Between 2002 and 2008 the United States never provided the forces, money or leadership necessary to win, effectively wasting more than half a decade. Our country left a power vacuum in most of Afghanistan that the Taliban and other jihadist insurgents could exploit and occupy, and Washington did not respond when the U.S. Embassy team in Kabul requested more resources.

"Years of further effort." Years. 

Cordesman takes George W. to the woodshed, rightfully, for screwing things up:

The Bush administration gave priority to sending forces to Iraq, it blustered about the successes of civilian aid efforts in Afghanistan that were grossly undermanned and underresourced, and it did not react to the growing corruption of Hamid Karzai's government or the major problems created by national caveats and restrictions on the use of allied forces and aid. It treated Pakistan as an ally when it was clear to U.S. experts on the scene that the Pakistani military and intelligence service did (and do) tolerate al-Qaeda and Afghan sanctuaries and still try to manipulate Afghan Pashtuns to Pakistan's advantage.

Further, it never developed an integrated civil-military plan or operational effort even within the U.S. team in Afghanistan; left far too much of the aid effort focused on failed development programs; and denied the reality of insurgent successes in ways that gave insurgents the initiative well into 2009.

But then also notes that the Obama Administration doesn't seem to have learned anything from that screw-up:

McChrystal has not announced a need for more U.S. troops, but almost every expert on the scene has talked about figures equivalent to three to eight more brigade combat teams -- with nominal manning levels that could range from 2,300 to 5,000 personnel each -- although much of that manpower will go to developing Afghan forces that must nearly double in size, become full partners rather than tools, and slowly take over from U.S. and NATO forces. Similarly, a significant number of such U.S. reinforcements will have to assist in providing a mix of capabilities in security, governance, rule of law and aid. U.S. forces need to "hold" and keep the Afghan population secure, and "build" enough secure local governance and economic activity to give Afghans reason to trust their government and allied forces. They must build the provincial, district and local government capabilities that the Kabul government cannot and will not build for them. No outcome of the recent presidential election can make up for the critical flaws in a grossly overcentralized government that is corrupt, is often a tool of power brokers and narco-traffickers, and lacks basic capacity in virtually every ministry.

Unfortunately, strong elements in the White House, State Department and other agencies seem determined to ignore these realities. They are pressuring the president to direct Eikenberry and McChrystal to come to Washington to present a broad set of strategic concepts rather than specific requests for troops, more civilians, money and an integrated civil-military plan for action. They are pushing to prevent a fully integrated civil-military effort, and to avoid giving Eikenberry and McChrystal all the authority they need to try to force more unity of effort from allied forces and the U.N.-led aid effort.

It's interesting to not that Cordesman doesn't provide us with the following:

1. a definition of "victory" for the United States in Afghanistan,
2. an indication of what the United States should actually do to change the present " grossly overcentralized" and "corrupt" Afghan government,
3. how the United States would build provincial, district and local government capabilities in the face of resistence from the Kabul government and the Taliban,
4. how much time,
5. money, and
6. blood this is all going to cost.

So, all-in-all, what Cordesman seems to be suggesting is that the United States risks defeat in Afghanistan because it is choosing to fight a Vietnam-style war on the cheap. His solution? Fight a Vietnam-style war on the scale of, well, Vietnam.

Wonderful. How in the world could that fail?

What's troubling about this isn't that the Obama Administration is looking for "a broad set of strategic concepts" rather than massive increases in money and troops, it's that the Obama Administration isn't actively trying to find an exit strategy. An immediate exit strategy.

Note: Any bets on what sort of play this is going to get at Talking Points Memo, DailyKOS or firedoglake? Anyone think Sully's going to call Obama on this?

Some Day This War Is Gonna End...

You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now

It looks like Barak Obama has decided to take a page from the hugely successful foreign policy book of Lyndon Baines Johnson:

The commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan will ask for 20,000 more international troops as part of his new strategic plan for the alliance's war against a resurgent Taliban, The Independent has learned.

.....

As part of an initial troop surge overseen by General McChrystal, the US has already committed to boosting its forces from 31,000 to 68,000 this year. However Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan was told by commanders in Afghanistan last week that those numbers would not be enough for what is being viewed as defining months of fighting to come.

In his meeting with Afghan officials, General McChrystal is reported to have stated that the extra troops would be needed to enforce a new policy of maintaining a presence in the areas captured from insurgents. This will provide security for residents and allow reconstruction and development.

Now, anybody want to guess who's going to be supplying about 15,000 of those 20,000 troops? Any guess as to who's going to be supplying all of the combat troops?

Any bets on how much play this gets at Talking Points Memo, DailyKOS, or firedoglake?

And remember, just this week Andrew Sullivan called Afghanistan a "terribly failed, brutally expensive" war. Any bets on just how much outrage he fearlessly trots out?

If The Head Injury Was Severe Enough, Would I End Up Blogging For The Atlantic?

Given what we're getting out of Andrew Sullivan these days, it appears the answer is "Yes":

Now look: there are softball interviews; and then there are interviews like this. It cannot be described as journalism in any fashion. Even as propaganda, which is its point, it doesn't work - because it's far too cloying and supportive of Cheney to be convincing to anyone outside the true-believers. When it comes to Cheney, one of the most incompetent vice-presidents in the country's history, with a record of two grotesquely botched wars, war crimes and a crippling debt, Chris Wallace sounds like a teenage girl interviewing the Jonas Brothers. 

That's Andrew's response to Chris Wallace's interview with Dick Cheney that aired today.

Here's fearless Andrew Sullivan when it comes to torture and Barack Obama:

One political party in this country is now explicitly pro-torture, and wants to restore a torture regime if it regains power. Decent conservatives for the most part simply looked the other way. Unless these cultural forces in defense of violence and torture are defeated - not appeased or excused, but defeated - America will never return the way it once was. Electing a new president was the start and not the end of this. He is flawed, as every president is, but in my view, the scale of the mess he inherited demands some slack. Any new criminal investigation which scapegoats those at the bottom while protecting the guilty men and women who made it happen is a travesty of justice. If it is the end and not the beginning of accountability, it will be worse than nothing.

But Andrew, that's precisely what Eric Holder has given us - a travesty of justice - and Barack Obama still can't run away from it fast enough. None of that matters in Andrew's world, Obama deserves slack because, well, he just does... Everybody else caves, only Andrew Sullivan and Barack Obama walk tall.

It's enough to gag a maggot.

Given Andrew Sullivan's inability to hold Barack Obama accountable for anything - be it the pathetic Holder torture investigation, indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gay marriage or Gitmo - who is he to accuse anyone of rolling over?

Andrew Sullivan loves to portray himself as some sort of fearless champion, but the truth is he's just another big-talkin' pussy. He wants us to believe that it's everybody else who doesn't have the balls to stand up for truth and justice. Well, that's bullshit. Pure unadulterated bullshit.

He's the sort of badass who'd walk into a bar and very carefully make sure he picked a fight with the smallest guy in the place.

Update: Just how lame is Andrew Sullivan? This lame. He can't even be bothered to read the Washington Post article he's trying to trash... He's relying on commenters at Ann Althouse's site to do the reading for him. Makes you wonder just how much time he's put into reading the Inspector General's report, doesn't it?

I'm Objectively Cynical...

I just got an outraged email from an outraged reader that declared I am "objectively pro-terror" (by which was meant "objectively pro-torture").

Yeah, whatever.

I'm not so much objectively pro-terror/pro-torture as I am objectively cynical. Don't ask me why. I mean, Lord knows my moral superiors on the left are still out there in the streets protesting the imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, right? They're still raising Hell about indefinite detention and extraordinary rendition, right? They're holding Obama's feet to the fire on Gitmo, right?

Fuck no.

So why should I take all this hyperventilating about torturey stuff seriously? Does anyone really think that next week Barack Obama is going to criticize Eric Holder for wimping out on the torture investigation?

Fuck no.

He's already caved. Hell, Obama couldn't run away from Holder's investigation fast enough, wimpy as it is. Given that, and give the fact that outrage merchants like Andrew Sullivan can't bring themselves to even murmur a hint of dissatisfaction with The Spineless One for letting Bush and Cheney - the architects of this so-called torture - off the hook, why should I get all worked up the fact that KSM got his fat ass waterboarded?

I've seen enough of the selective outrage, kids. And it's made me cynical. You've convinced me of one thing thought: 99% of the outraged howlers, in their heart of hearts, they really don't give a shit about waterboarding. What they give a shit about is:

1. Getting Bush,
2. Getting Cheney, and
3. Covering for Obama.

And if that's what makes you happy, go for it. Everybody needs a hobby.

Just don't ask me to take you seriously while you're doing it.

This Week's Winner of the Leo Bloom "I'm Hysterical!" Award...

I'm hysterical.  I'm having hysterics.  I'm hysterical.  I can't stop.  When I get like this, I can't stop.  I'm hysterical.

Leo Bloom, The Producers

As you can probably imagine, Glenn Greenwald isn't thrilled with the Washington Post's article on the effectiveness of "harsh interrogation techniques". And as one might expect, rather than do the hard work of analyzing and attempting to debunk the article, Greenwald throws a hissy fit worthy of Andrew Sullivan.

Evidently, it's time to play shoot the messenger:

If anyone ever tells you that they don't understand what is meant by "stenography journalism" -- or ever insists that America is plagued by a Liberal Media -- you can show them this article from today's Washington Post and, by itself, it should clear up everything.  The article's headline is "How a Detainee Became An Asset -- Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding" -- though an equally appropriate headline would be:   "The Joys and Virtues of Torture -- how Dick Cheney Kept Us Safe."  I defy anyone to identify a single way the article would be different if The Post had let Dick Cheney write it himself.  The next time someone laments the economic collapse of the modern American newspaper, one might point out that an industry which pays three separate reporters (Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate) and numerous editors to churn out mindless, inane tripe like this has brought about its own demise.

My, aren't we put out...

What makes it even funnier is that Greenwald cites Politico as proof the Post has it all wrong. That's kind of like declaring the New York Times is the moral arbiter of the United States (which is what Andrew Sullivan claimed last week).

You don't want to say that sort of thing in front of anyone drinking liquids unless you're wearing drip-'n-dry clothing.

Not that there's anything wrong with Politico. It's just that the last time I checked, they were not considered journalism's leading authority on the IG's report or Bush-era torturey stuff. In any event, expect more selective outrage from the left over the Post's betrayal of The Cause. Let's hope it's all as funny as Greenwald's.

It's Weasel Time...

Oh boy, here we go...

The notoriously right-wing Washington Post details the turning of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Agent of change? Waterboarding. So much for the "it doesn't work" narrative:

After enduring the CIA's harshest interrogation methods and spending more than a year in the agency's secret prisons, Khalid Sheik Mohammed stood before U.S. intelligence officers in a makeshift lecture hall, leading what they called "terrorist tutorials."

.....

Speaking in English, Mohammed "seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group's plans, ideology and operatives," said one of two sources who described the sessions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much information about detainee confinement remains classified. "He'd even use a chalkboard at times."

These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.

"KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete," according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA's then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.

Any guess as to what the first word out of Eric Holder's mouth the next time he sees Barack Obama?

Try "Oops".

Actually, the real fun over the next week or so is going to watch Barack Obama equivocate, backtrack, walk-back and do the ol' dodge-'n-weave. Given the utter spinelessness of Obama's original press release regarding Holder's half-assed torture investigation:

The President has said repeatedly that he wants to look forward, not back, and the President agrees with the Attorney General that those who acted in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance should not be prosecuted.  Ultimately, determinations about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the Attorney General.

It seems difficult to imagine Barack Obama putting up a spirited defense of Holder or the investigation. And a spirited defense is probably exactly what will be needed, because this article is exactly the sort of club Dick Cheney, Peter King and much of the VRWC has been waiting for.

Expect the White House to be in full weasel mode by Monday.

In any event, this couldn't have come at a better time for President Obama. I'm sure he and Holder coordinated the announcement of the investigation with the thought of giving everyone some time to cool down while Obama was incommunicado. So much for that bit of super-genius thinking.

Good luck on selling heath care, er, insurance, er, whatever the fuck it is today reform next week, Mr. President.

No Confusion Here...

Yesterday Josh Marshall decides the reason folks don't understand the public option is because Democrats use big words. Today, Marshall's Talking Points Memo publishes this:

During a tele-townhall with constituents today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he supports a public option...but then he added an extremely important caveat. Reid said he doesn't think the public option ought to be a government run program like Medicare, but instead favors a "private entity that has direction from the federal government so people that don't fall within the parameters of being able to get insurance from their employers, they would have a place to go. "

Now just what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler tries to parse it:

That sounds suspiciously like Reid would prefer a so-called co-op system, which almost all reformers regard with suspicion, and many regard as a non-starter. Reid is ultimately more than just one vote, too. If the Senate passes a health care bill through the regular legislative process, he'll be the one marrying two different pieces of legislation: one which creates a public option, and one which creates co-ops. Likewise, if the Senate passes health care reforms on a partisan basis through the so-called reconciliation process, his office would take the lead in determining whether to try an include a public option in the reconciliation bill.

You tell me: What's there to be confused about?

I'll say it again: You guys just don't get it. You can't sell health care, er, insurance, er, whatever the fuck it is today reform until somebody in the White House or Congress actually makes up their mind as to what health care, er, insurance, er, whatever the fuck it is today reform is supposed to be.

Morons.

It's Like A Death In The Family...

Death, be not proud...

You know in times like these, with the death of Teddy Kennedy and the passing of a dynasty, it's hard not to think about Jerry Lewis. And for me, when I think of Jerry Lewis - the single most annoying, unfunny comic this side of Jerry Seinfeld - I think of Jerry's wonderful cut-rate impersonator, Sammy Petrillo.

Sadly, Sammy has left the building:

Sammy Petrillo, a nightclub comic who built his career mostly on his striking resemblance to Jerry Lewis and a spot-on impression of him — much to Mr. Lewis’s ire — died on Saturday in Bronxville, N.Y. He was 74 and lived in Tuckahoe, N.Y.

Let me tell you one thing about Sammy before grief overcomes me...

He made Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla, the finest Martin and Lewis comedy they never made. In fact, it is a better film than anything Jerry Lewis ever made... With or without Dino. 

Find a copy of this film. Watch it. Then you'll know why Sammy Petrillo should be lying in state.

Oh Great, Now He's Hallucinating...

Andrew Sullivan seems pretty damn sure the world rotates around Andrew Sullivan. Either that or he's hallucinating. Again. Here's the proof:

Charles Murray responds to my small riposte to him on the question of torture.

Follow the links and (1) Read Andrew's small riposte from yesterday and (2) read Murray's post from today.

Notice anything odd?

Like the fact that Charles Murray was in no way responding to anything Sullivan had written?

Sullivan really is a dink.