Portgate, Civil War And Such...

I recently heard someone refer to the last week as a "slow news week." Obviously, I was shocked at that statement. This past week was full of fascinating stories (especially when compared to the previous weeks 'Cheney-shotgun-gate').

First of all, the UAE port controversy has given us yet another example of the Bush administration's second term fatigue. Consider, a) this deal was done in secret and Bush claims he had no idea that the deal was going through, b) the absurdity of the Bush administration's lack of political savvy, c) the news broke in a week when Bush needed to get back on message and talk about his domestic agenda. These factors, among others, have led to a National Security/PR nightmare for the administration. Fellow Republicans are running scared and, for once, have to be honest with themselves and their constituents: the Bush administration is WRONG. They were wrong to not keep Congress abreast of the situation (especially their allies) and they were wrong in their knee-jerk rebuttal to the criticism they received. This story has already spun out of control and the administration is on the wrong side of it. They cannot hope to reframe the debate on this one - they're going to have to retreat. Bush's threat to veto any legislation that would delay or put a stop to the deal was foolish and empty. He cannot spend what little remains of his political capital, in an election year, defending this ridiculous decision.

Also happening this week: Iraq may be spiraling into a disastrous sectarian civil war. The attack on a 1200 year old Shiite mosque may prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back in this fool's errand. Strikingly relevant is a piece in the latest Foreign Affairs: Written by Joel Rayburn (a former history instructor at West Point), "The Last Exit From Iraq" compares the British Mesopotamian Mandate (1920's-1930's) to the current U.S. occupation. Here's a taste:

...In fact, Washington's current position bears a strong resemblance to London's in the late 1920's, when the British were responsible for the tutelage of a fledgling Iraqi state suffering from immature institutions, active insurgencies, and the interference of hostile neighbors. Eventually, this tutelage was undermined by pressure from the British Parliament and the press to withdraw -- forces quite similar to those in the United States now calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. Building a better understanding of the United Kingdom's mistakes -- and of the consequences of that country's ultimate withdrawal from Iraq -- could thus help illuminate the present occupation and provide answers to when and how to end it. If the British record teaches anything, it is this: costly and frustrating as the fostering of Iraqi democracy may be, the costs of leaving the job undone would likely be far higher, for both the occupiers and the Iraqis. This is a lesson the British learned more than seven decades ago, when their premature pullout in 1932 led to more violence in Iraq, the rise of a dictatorship, and a catastrophic unraveling of everything the British had tried to build there.

Good stuff, if you ask me. Rayburn goes on from there to draw some fascinating comparisons. Needles to say, an Iraqi civil war would be disastrous. Some conservative pundits are trying to downplay the significance of the raging conflict in Iraq. Don't be fooled. Sectarian violence is possibly the worst kind. And the fact that over 100,000 U.S. troops are stuck in the middle of all of this is disturbing, to say the least. I'm reminded of Lebanon in the 1980's - we were there, trying not to take sides and suffered because of our perilous position. The violence in Iraq has the potential to make Lebanon look like a picnic.

Note: Joe Gandelman ("The Moderate Voice") is all over both of these stories. Go check out some of his stuff: http://themoderatevoice.com/