End Game: The face of "Victory in Iraq"

Good News / Bad News. The good news is that we have entered the "End Game" of our military involvement in Iraq. The bad news is that the man making the smart moves on the chessboard is Moqtada al-Sadr, likely future leader of Iraq, and the face of "Victory in Iraq" as defined by United States policy. To be clear, this is a prediction and not a preference. I dearly hope to be wrong about this. Few in the U.S. would be happy about a Moqtada al-Sadr led Iraq. Nevertheless, it may be the best least bad outcome that we can expect and, believe it or not, is completely consistent with the administration's continually evolving definition of “Victory.” Make no mistake, al-Sadr is a consummate politician. Like Republicans railing against "defeatocrat" Democrats, like Democrats railing against "war-mongering" Republicans, al-Sadr will rail against the "The Great Satan" America to play to his base of support. And like Republicans and Democrats, he will work with his opponents to achieve his personal ambitions for power. I'll return to why I think an al-Sadr "End State" is a likely outcome later, but first we need to talk about some words. Specifically the words "victory" and "defeat", "win" and "lose", "success" and "failure" in the context of our military involvement in Iraq.

Victory in Iraq - The DWSUWF Rant
Harry Reid says "this war is lost", but is unable to clearly explain exactly what he means. In his State of the Union speech, George W. Bush lectured Congress that "nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America … to succeed in Iraq" continuing with the admonition "whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure." More recently, he said "Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure", but while he warns about the dire consequences of failure, he has been unable to clearly explain to the American people exactly what it means to achieve victory. Bloggers on the right and left, Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls, columnists and pundits weigh in on whether the war is won or lost, how to achieve victory, how to avoid defeat, who will take the credit, or who will be blamed.

Absent the context of a specific End State description, these statements are equally meaningless and completely asinine. Their purpose is to pander to a political base, or excite and maintain a partisan response, but not to communicate anything meaningful. These statements cannot have meaning unless they are tied to a specific and explicit Iraqi End State - an easily understood, objectively ascertainable description of Iraq after we leave. To use the words victory or defeat with meaning, one must describe an End State for context. Then, and only then is it possible to have meaningful discussions about whether that particular End State can be "won" or "lost", and whether a policy will lead to “victory” or “defeat.”

The problem is not that there is a dearth of Iraq End State descriptions. The problem is that there have been too many, and there is too much ambiguity about which specific End State is the explicit goal of US policy.

The fact that we will eventually leave Iraq is a given, only the timing is in question. The president himself said as much in 2003:

"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more." - President George W. Bush - February 26, 2003

Imprecise? Yes. But the goal of leaving is explicit. Perhaps I am grasping for straws. To the degree that Iraq is a viable country (To Be Determined), it is their country, not our country. Iraq enemies and friends alike, live there, we don't, and therefore they will outlast us in Iraq. How could it be otherwise? As President Bush said, the Iraqi’s will decide the form of their government. How long it is “necessary” for us to stay, and what Iraq will look like when we leave remains an open and legitimate question. And therein lies the honest debate: What is the end-state and how do we get there?

By contrast, the mindless sloganeering and abject nonsense about "winning" or "losing" presented in a vacuum, as illustrated by this exchange on Chris Matthews “Hardball” Friday 5/11/07 between Ron Christie and Eugene Robinson, is not an honest debate:

CHRISTIE: Let me push back and disagree with you, Chris. We‘re there now. One of the things that I find most distressing of what you hear in the media is our troops are over there. Our people are in harm‘s way. Let‘s talk about how we‘re going to win this thing, Chris.

MATTHEWS: But nothing that‘s happened over there was not predictable. Gene, what‘s the surprise? I keep waiting for somebody to tell me what‘s happening over there is surprising. It is consistent with the regional history.

ROBINSON: It is consistent with the history of, you know, this patch of Mesopatmaia that is called Iraq, but is not really a polity of a nation that holds together. What is—what—maybe this will cause people to ask the question that I‘ve been asking all along, which is, at this point, what is victory in Iraq?

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this: maybe this is race; maybe this ethnicity, but do you really think we would have dared go back into Yugoslavia after the end of the Cold War and insisted that all those countries that are now independent sovereign states rejoin each other and become Yugoslavia again. We wouldn‘t presume to do that to a European country. We would allow self-determination to be the natural order of things in Europe. So why are we doing it in the Middle East? Why are we presuming, as Westerners, that we can go into a country that doesn‘t feel like a country and dictate their political organization? Anyway, thank you Gene Robinson. Ron, you and I are getting Closer.

CHRISTIE: No, we‘re not getting closer. We've got to win this war.

I'll tell you when we are going to win it Ron - when this administration stops the mindless sloganeering and explains to the American people exactly what "Victory in Iraq" really means.

Victory in Iraq - The Objective
This post strives to analyze relevant original source material in an effort to gain a real understanding of what “victory”, “defeat” and “End State” in Iraq mean today - in mid-surge, May, 2007.

There are exactly two meaningful sources to define these terms and to explicitly understand the target End State. One source is the Commander in Chief that set the policy and specified the mission that committed our military to this action, and the other is the military commander responsible for executing that mission. In this quest, President George W. Bush and General David Petraeus are the only sources that matter.

Victory in Iraq – The Commander in Chief Definition
Part of the reason why the American people do not seem to clearly understand or agree on the meaning of those terms can be seen in a February 14, 2007 Press Conference by the President:

Q: Mr. President … you talk about victory, that you have to have victory in Iraq; it would be catastrophic if we didn't. You said again today that the enemy would come here, and yet you say it's not an open-ended commitment. How do you square those things?

THE PRESIDENT: "You know, victory in Iraq is not going to be like victory in World War II. It's one of the challenges I have to explain to the American people what Iraq will look like in a situation that will enable us to say we have accomplished our mission.

First, the -- Iraq will be a society in which there is relative peace. I say "relative peace" because if it's like zero car bombings, it never will happen that way. It's like -- the fundamental question is, can we help this government have the security force level necessary to make sure that the ethnic cleansing that was taking place in certain neighborhoods has stopped.

Look, there's criminality in Iraq, as well as the ethnic violence. And we've got to help the Iraqis have a police force that deals with criminals. There is an al Qaeda presence in Iraq, as you know. I believe some of the spectacular bombings have been caused by al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, Zarqawi -- the terrorist Zarqawi, who is not an Iraqi, made it very clear that he intended to use violence to spur sectarian -- car bombings and spectacular violence to spur sectarian violence. And he did a good job of it.

And so there -- and then there's this disaffected Sunnis, people who believe that they should still be in power in spite of the fact that the Shia are the majority of the country, and they're willing to use violence to try to create enough chaos so they get back in power.

The reason I described that is that no matter what you call it, it's a complex situation, and it needed to be dealt with inside of Iraq. We've got people who say civil war, we've got people on the ground who don't believe it's a civil war. But nevertheless, it is -- it was dangerous enough that I had to make a decision to try to stop it, so that a government that is bound by a constitution, where the country feels relatively secure as a result of a security force that is even-handed in its application of security; a place where the vast resources of the country -- this is a relatively wealthy country, in that they've got a lot of hydrocarbons -- is shared equally amongst people; that there is a federalism that evolves under the Constitution where the local provinces have got authority, as well; and where people who may have made a political decision in the past and yet weren't criminals can participate in the life of the country; and is an ally in the war on terror. In other words, that there is a bulwark for moderation, as opposed to a safe haven for extremism. And that's what I would view as successful.”

Ok. You got that? Me neither. Fortunately, the President was more articulate and succinct when he stuck to the prepared text in his November 30, 2005 address at the US Naval Academy entitled President Outlines Strategy for Victory in Iraq:

"Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation."

That, at least, is understandable. In the same address he references a document posted on the White House website the same month, that remains to this day the apparent official definition of “Victory", the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”

It begins with the President Bush "2003 definition" of "Victory in Iraq" quoted above, then continues with an updated, wordier, more expansive, less precise, and considerably less clear definition:

"VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED
As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

In the short term:

• An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.

In the medium term:

• An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.

In the longer term:

• An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
• An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
• An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region."

Problematical undefined terms in this definition include: “steady progress”, “key economic reforms”, “an inspiring example to reformers”, “defeated the terrorists”, and “proving the fruits of democratic governance” among others. In reality, everything beyond the first stage “short term” definition is flowery rhetoric, and while a noble statement of hope, completely useless as benchmarks to guide our military participation.

Victory in Iraq - The Military Commander Definition
For better clarity on hard objectives, we can look to another source. General David Petraeus, co-author of the Counterinsurgency Field Manual [BTW - Does anyone else think it odd that the current counterinsurgency playbook for our military, written by the very General leading the counterinsurgency effort in Iraq is available for anyone to download? You can get yours by clicking on the image below. You might as well read it, I can assure you that Moqtada al-Sadr has a dog-eared, well read, underlined, highlighted and annotated copy.] :

”Victory is achieved when the populace consents to the government’s legitimacy and stops actively and passively supporting the insurgency.” - Page 19

"In addition—and as in Iraq at present— different insurgent forces using different approaches may form loose coalitions when it serves their interests; however, these same movements may fight among themselves, even while engaging counterinsurgents. Within a single AO, there may be multiple competing entities, each seeking to maximize its survivability and influence—and this situation may be duplicated several times across a joint operations area. This reality further complicates both the mosaic that counterinsurgents must understand and the operations necessary for victory.” - Page 25

” It is easier to separate an insurgency from its resources and let it die than to kill every insurgent. Clearly, killing or capturing insurgents will be necessary, especially when an insurgency is based in religious or ideological extremism. However, killing every insurgent is normally impossible. Attempting to do so can also be counterproductive in some cases; it risks generating popular resentment, creating martyrs that motivate new recruits, and producing cycles of revenge… As the HN government increases its legitimacy, the populace begins to assist it more actively. Eventually, the people marginalize and stigmatize insurgents to the point that the insurgency’s claim to legitimacy is destroyed. However, victory is gained not when this isolation is achieved, but when the victory is permanently maintained by and with the people’s active support and when insurgent forces have been defeated… In the end, victory comes, in large measure, by convincing the populace that their life will be better under the HN government than under an insurgent regime. " - Pages 37 –38.

"The long-term goal is to leave a government able to stand by itself. In the end, the host nation has to win on its own. Achieving this requires development of viable local leaders and institutions. U.S. forces and agencies can help, but HN elements must accept responsibilities to achieve real victory. While it may be easier for U.S. military units to conduct operations themselves, it is better to work to strengthen local forces and institutions and then assist them. HN governments have the final responsibility to solve their own problems. Eventually all foreign armies are seen as interlopers or occupiers; the sooner the main effort can transition to HN institutions, without unacceptable degradation, the better." - Page 39

"While security is essential to setting the stage for overall progress, lasting victory comes from a vibrant economy, political participation, and restored hope." - Page 140

DESIRED END STATE
"Real success does not appear as a single decisive victory. To ensure long-term success, commanders clarify their desired end state for training programs early. This end state consists of a set of military characteristics common to all militaries. Those characteristics have nuances in different countries, but well-trained HN security forces should:

• Provide reasonable levels of security from external threats while not threatening regional ecurity.
• Provide reasonable levels of internal security without infringing upon the populace’s civil liberties or posing a coup threat.
• Be founded upon the rule of law.
• Be sustainable by the host nation after U.S. and multinational forces depart.

Whatever else is done, the focus must remain on gaining and maintaining the support of the population. With their support, victory is assured; without it, COIN efforts cannot succeed.” - Page 195

Victory in Iraq: End State Options
So where does this leave us? Extracting from these sources, these are all the possible end-states [In order of preference]:

1) SECULAR IDEALIZED DEMOCRATIC - FRIENDLY: An Iraq Jeffersonian Democracy possibly led by Ahmed Chalabi spontaneously springing into existence after the removal of Saddam Hussein. A free, prosperous and secular Iraq with a government by, for and of the Iraqi people who gratefully ally with the United States in the Global War on Terror after being liberated by coalition forces and serving as a “shining city on the hill” beacon of freedom and democracy for all of the Middle East. (The “Project for the New American Century” end-state.)

2) SECULAR STABLE DEMOCRATIC - FRIENDLY: A stable mostly secular democratic federalist state capable of providing security and protecting the rights of all Iraqis in a pluralistc and tolerant and unified Iraq that is strongly allied to the U.S. (The 2003-2005 Bush Administration End Etate)

3) SECULAR STRONGMAN – FRIENDLY: A secular strongman allied to/coopted by the US and capable of imposing security and creating stability in Iraq (A US supported Military Coup “keep the toothpaste in the tube” no sectarian violence/civil war end-state).

4) DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST LEADER – ACCOMODATIVE: A democratically elected sectarian Islamic fundamentalist leader capable of providing security and stability for Iraqis and an accommodative but arms-length relationship with the U.S. (The Moqtada al-Sadr end-state Option A).

5) SECULAR STRONGMAN - HOSTILE: A secular strongman indifferent/hostile to the US but capable of imposing security and creating stability in Iraq (The Saddam Hussein end-state. Been there. Done That ).

6) PARTITION: Iraq broken up into two or three nation-states, maybe federated, maybe not, which presumably would each independently evolve into one of these other end-states. Perhaps each winds up better, perhaps worse. This may or may not actually be a distinct option, as each partitioned state would default to one of the other choices. The only real benefit, is that at least the Kurdish Sate would make Option 1 or 2 available again for that state – if it is not over-run by Turkey.

7) HOSTILE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST STRONGMAN: A sectarian Islamic fundamentalist strongman capable of imposing security and creating stability in Iraq but allied with Iran in opposition to US interests (An alternative Moqtada al-Sadr end-state - lets call it his "Option B")

8) VIOLENT COLLAPSE: The collapse of Iraq society into warring sectarian factions, war-lords, and un-controlled violence, massacres, “ethnic cleansing”, and all out civil war a/la Somalia.

Those are all the possibilities for an end-state. Take your choice, then we can talk about “winning” or “losing” that particular state. If you choose 1, then Harry Reid is correct. We lost. Choose 8, then George Bush is absolutely right when he says we cannot afford to lose.

Here is my take. One and two are eliminated as realistic possibilities, because neither the Bush administration nor David Patreaus is talking like those are objectives any more. Number 3 has been, and probably still is discussed both here and in Iraq. It might be the actual infamous "Plan B” that nobody wants to talk about. Number 8 is regularly invoked as a bogeyman to justify the current course of action in Iraq. Clearly, we cannot allow number 8 to happen, but there is no reason to assume that it is an inevitable or even probable outcome, even if we were to leave precipitously, a course that no one is advocating. The Iraqi’s would find number 7 preferable to eight, so even in a power vacuum left by an unlikely precipitous US withdrawal, number 8 is still a highly unlikely End State.

The most likely End State scenario is an “accommodated” (or if you prefer “co-opted” or “bought-out”) Moqtada al-Sadr, or someone just like him. A popular theocrat, elected into leadership in Iraq, still railing at the “Great Satan” from his bully pulpit, but behind the scenes working with the US at the precise intersection of US interest in a stable Iraq, and his lofty personal ambition for power on a world stage. Strange bedfellows indeed.

This photo from the office of Rear Admiral Fox was taken by RedState blogger Jeff Emanuel, during his recent trip to Iraq. This is a nicely distilled fusion of both documents linked above. It shows that our military does talk about Iraq in terms of victory or defeat, but in terms of End State. Note that there in nothing in this End State Mission Statement that precludes a Moqtada al-Sadr led Iraq, as long as al-Sadr chooses to play along.

TO BE CONTINUED: In the next (and concluding) post of this series, which I hope to complete early next week (operative word being "hope"). We’ll explore why it is likely to be specifically Moqtada al-Sadr that ultimately takes the reins in Iraq (assuming we don't kill him first). Net net, this is a case where it is literally true that “What does not kill you, makes you stronger.” We missed opportunities to kill al-Sadr in ’03.’04, and ’05. Now the United States is likely to be both the agents of and reason for his emergence as the most powerful man in Iraq.

If you can’t wait for my analysis, you may want to check out Stormwarning’s Counterterrorism blog. While I don’t always share his perspective, he has been following, thinking, and writing about al-Sadr longer than most and my thinking was shaped by his work, examples in posts linked here, here, here and here.

If you enjoyed it, Vote for this post at Real Clear Politics.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, Harry Reid, Iraq, George Bush, Democrat, Republican, Muqtada al-Sadr, David Petraeus.

Live blogging the live bloggers (Republican Debate)

UPDATED: Friday, May 4, 2007
There are plenty of bloggers covering the Republican debate live tonight, but is anyone covering the live bloggers? DWSUWF rushes in where other, more sensible bloggers, may fear to tread. I will attempt to monitor live and report on other bloggers covering the debate. We'll start with Daily Kos, Heading Right, Wonkette, The Moderate Voice, and Politico.com.


No telling how this will turn out. Fortunately, I have not previously announced that I am doing this, so I can bail out at any time.

Here we go...

======

Wonkette: "Remarkable amount of bald heads and bald spots up there. None of those people will be president, ever."
Daily Kos: Trapper John: "HUCK: Would've fired Rummy before the midterms. Should listen to soldiers rather than "civilians in silk ties." I note that Huck has a nice red Perry Ellis on tonight."
Heading Right: Bright - "Simple Math I can’t see there being much substance, just on the basis of simple math: 90minutes, 10 candidates."
======
Wonkette: "McCain, on Iraq: “YOU MUST LIKE IRAQ WAR, THEN YOU WILL LIKE ME AND IRAQ WAR.”
Daily Kos: Trapper John: "RUDY: Only 28% of Americans support the Bush Admin? You gotta have hoooope! Optimism! That's the ticket! (And it does take a strange breed of optimism to say that American has "the greatest health-care system in the world.")"
Heading Right: Chin - "Paul…. Sounded good on isolationism. But he just looks like crud on TV.
=======
DWSUWF: Shit - Moderate Voice is not live blogging. And I can't navigate Politico. Ok forget it.
=======
Daily Kos: Trapper John: "MITT: What a weasel on abortion. If I were a Republican who genuinely was anti-abortion, I would never consider voting for the slimeball."
Heading Right: Ed - "Rudy Spins Abortion “It’d be OK.” Yeah, that’ll excite the base! Most others say that they’ll let the states decide about abortion after Roe gets overturned. Mitt gets challenged on changing his mind two years ago, and he explains that cloning changed his mind. Brownback could support a pro-choice candidate if the GOP nominated one, and he says that shows the GOP as a big-tent party.."
Wonkette: "They’ve sorta got to do this abortion stuff to win a GOP primary, but there is perhaps nothing more disgusting than a gang of rich old creepy men chanting their cult-like bullshit about ruling women’s uterus. Uteri? What the hell is the plural of that?”
=======
Daily Kos: Trapper John: "RON PAUL: I'm surprised he wears a suit. You figure that he'd be in a bear skin -- better prepared for return to the state of nature."
Heading Right: macranger: "RE: Paul - Ok, He’s a moonbat; “Excessive military agressiveness weakens our defense” Yeah, that John Kerry “Co-Dependent Foreign Policy” did wonders for us in the 90s.."
Wonkette: "Regarding Ron Paul’s point about eliminating the IRS: The funny thing is that we pay about 40% of our income in federal, state, local and sales tax, yet there’s very little in the way of “cradle to grave” European welfare state stuff, so we’ve got the worst of both worlds. Yayyyy, USA.”
=======
Daily Kos: Trapper John: "MITT: He makes me sick. I mean, I'm as pro-choice as they come, and I'm appalled by his flip-flopping on abortion. I can't imagine how a committed anti-choice activist could vote for him."
Heading Right: Edward: "Heat, Warmth, Cold - Here’s the rub right now. There are a few of these candidates who are obviously connecting to the live audience, and they’re not the frontrunners. Romney seems the most comfortable, not stumbling, laughing with the audience. Huckabee also seems to have made a personal connection, and perhaps Jim Gilmore. Of all the candidates, Hunter looks the most presidential. The first three have warmth, while McCain has tried to substitute heat instead of warmth, and the rest seem very cold and unengaging. This is not good news for Giuliani, who is one of the warmest and charismatic speakers I’ve seen."
Wonkette: "Come on, Tommy Thompson, are you or are you not going to protect American business from homos??”
=======
Daily Kos: McJoan: "MCCAIN: Wins the stem cell question, damn him."
Heading Right: Edward: "McCain Backs Federal hEsc Funding - McCain the conservative would use federal funds to support embryonic stem cell research. Yikes! That won’t bolster his creds with the base."
Wonkette: "Mitt Romney: “I have deep concern about curing disease.” / Mitt looks so young and healthy at age 60 because a) He’s a healthy-living Mormon, b) He uses every kind of stem cells as a kind of Fetus Botox™, or c) He’s actually George Hamilton.”
=======
DWSUWF: I have to pee. Why are there no commercials?
=======
Daily Kos: McJoan: "HUNTER: Seems determined to outflank Tancredo on immigration. Which is hilarious. It'd be like trying to out-stardust Kucinich."
Heading Right: dtodeen: "Debate Question - Ok it looks like they are all agreeing that running from the President is the best thing to do. This makes me sick. A bunch of cowards to speak honestly. Is this what we have to look forward too? Because I am not impressed! Even treated Rove as a nasty habit. We got nothing if this is the crop."
Wonkette: “Ron Paul Hearts Wonkette! - Or at least the Internets, in general. Dude actually believes in the First Amendment, because he is some kind of weird person who has read the Constitution..”
=======
Daily Kos: McJoan: "ROMNEY: Blech, just blech. MCCAIN: I'm Reagan! Not Bush! BROWNBACK: Actually pretty reasonable on Iraq, for a Republican. I guess that's why Biden is working with him. RUDY: Get that last 9/11 in there. PAUL: He actually respects habeas corpus. They'll have to kick him out of the party."
Heading Right: Edward: "Finish Line - From what I see, only a couple of people here look like Presidents, as Rick said, maybe three. Mitt Romney, Jim Gilmore, and I would give the third slot as a toss-up between Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. I think he improved after the abortion question. Hands down, Romney did himself the most good, and maybe we can see Huckabee and Gilmore break out from the second tier. McCain didn't do well at all. Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo were … entertaining. Duncan Hunter made a great case for the VP slot, or as Secretary of Defense. He did a good job here, but not much on an emotional connection."
Wonkette: “Walnuts [McCain]: “Deeply moved by watching Bill Frist watch video of woman in coma.” Mitt: “Hillary hates LIFE.” Gilmore or Huckabee: “What Hillary tried to do is what Mitt did in Massachusetts.” Duncan Hunter: “Bill Clinton lost the War On Terror.” Tommy Thompson: “I hate Bill Clinton, I hate American prosperity.” WALNUTS! “I like right-wing judges.” - SHUT UP ALL OF YOU SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP.”
=======
DWSUWF: Ok, Ok - what about the moderator?
=======
Daily Kos: McJoan: "And to think this is just the beginning. We already have a clear loser: Brian Williams.." Trapper John: "MATTHEWS: Say what you will about him generally, he's moderating the shit outta this thing. Keeps it moving -- and tough, but fair, questions."
Heading Right: fausta:"Finish Line - Bill Clinton living in the White House - Chris Matthews dreams on, doesn’t he?" Oh boy - Keith Oberman and Chris Matthews - something not to look forward to!
Wonkette: - "Hey, Chris Matthews is doing the MC duties. Shouldn’t they get a Republican or something." - Chris Matthews: “We will run this thing forever on MSNBC.”
=======

Allright. I am going to read this now and decide whether to delete it. [TIME PASSES]

It's got potential. A few things I'd do differently: prepare ahead of time; make sure the sites I select to live-blog are actually live blogging; organize the responses around specific Q/A topics; get a libertarian and moderate site in the mix; drink more; and I don't think I need to actually watch the debate - too distracting - I can just monitor the blogs. We've got plenty of time and debates to work the kinks out. This will be a standard format of the DWSUWF blog for future debates. It'll get better.

I'm going to sleep on the DWSUWF presidential candidate stack ranking. Not sure if the debate merited any changes in the Republican rankings, but will update this post tomorrow.

=====

UPDATE: Friday, May 4, 2007
In retrospect, the most interesting aspect of the debate was Romney's seeming ability to to get away with wholesale changes in core Republican positions. He is very comfortable in front of a camera, has a slick Clintonesque sincere-ish quality, even when explaining 180 degree flip-flops in core convictions. People want to believe him, even if his political platform is determined at the intersection of his ambition and the polls. It is clear that, like Bill Clinton, he will govern based on the polls and continuous compromise. Not a bad thing, since there will likely still be a Democratic majority in Congress in 2009. I am not opposed to a President that pays attention to the will of the American people. We will probably be in the range of 70% of America wanting us out of Iraq by the time the next President takes office. As president, Romney will get us out of Iraq quickly, no matter what he says now to get the nomination. He can be trusted to blow with wind. Out of this batch of Republican candidates, it's good enough for me. So after carefully reflecting on the polls, reading the journalistic coverage, considering the perspective of political pundits, columnists, bloggers, bloggers, and more bloggers, Mitt Romney leapfrogs ahead of Giuliani and McCain in the DWSUWF 2008 Presidential Stack Ranking.

Said changes are now reflected in the new and improved, updated and revised ...

=====
DWSUWF 2008 Presidential Candidate
Stack Ranking v. 2.5

1) Chuck Hagel (R)
2 ) Bill Richardson (D)
3) Ron Paul (R)
4) Joe Biden (D)
5) Mitt Romney (R)
6) Hillary Clinton (D)
7) Rudolf Giuliani (R)
8) Barack Obama (D)
9) John McCain (R)
10) Al Gore (D)

As a reminder, the DWSUWF stack ranking is a preference not a prediction. This list represents the top ten candidates DWSUWF would like to see as President, stack ranked in order of preference. Imposed on this list are two constraints: alternating political party affiliation, and a divided government outcome in 2008.

LINK UPDATE:
A couple of Jungian synchronistic "Sanity-centric" links to this post - Pete Abel commenting on and linking to debate coverage at Central Sanity, and Dr. Pat Santy posting at Dr. Sanity with a "de lunatico inquiriendo" at Carnival of the Insanities.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, libertarian, Chuck Hagel,2008 election, John McCain, debate, Republican,Rudy Giuliani,Mitt Romney,Ron Paul,Sam Brownback,Tom Tacredo,Tommy Thompson,Duncan Hunter,Mike Huckabee,Chris Matthews.

Robert Novak Mind Meld

This is disturbing. I appear to be channeling Robert Novak.
Some recent examples:


Robert Novak April 30, 2007 Washington Post column: "Hagel's Stand"

"Hagel faces a political paradox as he ponders a career decision -- whether to run for president, to seek reelection next year or to get out of elective politics. His harsh assessment resonates with many Republicans who believe Bush's war policy has led the party to disaster. Yet that message faces rejection from GOP primary voters, and he is under attack from the right... Hagel represents millions of Republicans who are repelled by the Democrats' personal assault on President Bush but are deeply unhappy about his course in Iraq. "

DWSUWF March 30, 2007 Blog Post: Can Chuck Hagel save the GOP from the "Loyal Bushies"

"Whether out of arrogance, hubris, delusion, or simple incompetence, this administration is apparently willing to destroy any electoral hope for the Republicans in 2008 as a consequence of it's intransigence on the war... The split is between the traditional Conservative Republican (which includes both evangelicals and libertarians) and Republicans who are best described as "Loyal Bushies"... I would like to think that the "Loyal Bushies" are wildly over-represented in the blogosphere, and there is a much larger plurality of traditional conservative Republicans (both libertarian and evangelical) in the electorate at large. I'd like to think that, but I am not sure. If the traditional conservative Republican base is alive and well, Chuck Hagel may yet lead the party back from the brink of disaster in 2008."

Evans - Novak April 25, 2007 Political Report (received in e-mail):

"Republican morale is at a low point that recalls Watergate days. The word from Iraq is that the surge has not proved an immediate cure-all. On the contrary, the U.S. military is overworked and tired. There now appears to be no hope of getting out of Iraq by year's end. Adding to the low morale is President George W. Bush's defensive posture behind the barricade, defying the Democratic majority in Congress.

The minuet over the supplemental appropriations bill for the Iraq war will be played out this week, with the bill finally passed and then vetoed by President Bush. Since Democrats cannot override the veto, both sides will be forced to sit down and try to negotiate a compromise. Probable outcome: no hard deadline for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq but some conditions that the President will not like."

DWSUWF April 16, 2007 blog post: And the winner is ... President vs. Congress

"The President blusters. Congress confers to finalize the war funding bill. The President invites discussion. Partisan postures are on public display. In the background a compromise war funding bill takes shape. Both parties are now politically invested in a veto. The veto is necessary to clear the partisan detrius from the political decks. After the veto, a compromise bill with less pork and softer language on the withdrawal timetable will be passed by the legislature and signed by the executive. Both parties will declare victory. The country will get a better, more rational, and less wasteful funding legislation."

I wonder if this explains my recent compulsion to expose the identities of CIA operatives.

Somebody help me ...

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, Robert Novak, libertarian, Chuck Hagel, 2008 election, Iraq,conservative, Democrat, Republican, Funding Resolution, George Bush.

2008 Presidential Candidate Stack Ranking Version 2.4 - Post Democratic Debate

I missed the debate (but was not the only one), choosing instead to play an afternoon round of golf at Presidio. I intended to watch the late rerun on MSNBC but fell asleep on the couch during the first question, possibly due to the beer consumed during and after the round, possibly due to the candidates replies. However, I will not let this unimportant detail inhibit me from expressing strongly held opinions on the debate that I did not see. After all, this was a "Yossarian" event. [Paraphrasing the Yossarian Principle from Joseph Heller's Catch 22 - "What if everyone was blogging about the First Debate of the 2008 presidential election?" I can only respond as did Yossarian: "Then I'd be a damn fool not to."].

Net net: Clinton was presidential. Obama and Edwards were not. Biden was funny and sharp. Gravel was entertaining. Kucinich was articulate and insane, but he has a hot wife. Richardson hurt himself, but it was just a flesh wound. I forgot the other guy's name.

Armed with these new insights, it is time to update the DWSUWF 2008 Presidential Stack Ranking. As a reminder, the DWSUWF stack ranking is a preference not a prediction. This list represents the top ten candidates DWSUWF would like to see as President, stack ranked in order of preference. Imposed on this list are two constraints: alternating political party affiliation, and a divided government outcome in 2008.

This week we only made changes to the Democrats on the list, next week (post GOP debate), we will review and update the Republicans.

Since I missed the debate, I had to find a different criteria for re-ranking the top tier Democratic hopefuls. Unity08 to the rescue. The Unity08 Dream Ticket "Would you wear this button?" test fits the bill. Now, I have expressed my skepticism about Unity08 before (here, here and here). I also thoroughly enjoy reading Ahab Jim at the Irregular Times regular harpooning of this endangered white whale. Still I signed up as a delegate on the off chance that Unity08 actually becomes something politically meaningful. I am on their list and received an e-mail invitation to create a "Dream Ticket" on their site. I must admit to having some fun with this, it is an inspired promotion.

There is a significant philosophical difference between Unity08 and DWSUWF. Unity08 believes the political cure to what ails us, is a "unity" administration, with a President and Vice President representing different parties. DWSUWF believes that our Federal government is more fiscally responsible, creates sounder legislation, governs better, and is more effective as a corruption watchdog if the Executive office and Legislative majorities are held by different parties and are at each others throats.

That said, I used the Unity08 dream ticket tool to take my favorite candidate (Chuck Hagel - R) and pair him up with all of the top Democrats as VP. Then I stared at the buttons and selected the one I would actually wear. The winner is:
Which is now reflected in the new and improved, updated and revised ...

=====
DWSUWF 2008 Presidential Candidate
Stack Ranking v. 2.4

1) Chuck Hagel (R)
2 ) Bill Richardson (D)
3) Ron Paul (R)
4) Joe Biden (D)
5) Rudolf Giuliani (R)
6) Hillary Clinton (D)
7) John McCain (R)
8) Barack Obama (D)
9) Mitt Romney (R)
10) Al Gore (D)

=====

Changes since the last update: Based on the Unity08 button test, Richardson is now my top Democratic contender, which drops Joe Biden one notch, although I still like Joe. I just cannot have both of my top two candidates reviled and disparaged by the rank and file of their own party. Since Hagel is my favorite, Biden has to drop down. Barack drops behind Hillary having failed the "Looks and sounds like a President" test in the debate. In the last Democratic party slot, Al Gore replaces Wes Clark. I don't think either is running, but Al is getting more publicity. And he won an oscar.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, Barack Obama, libertarian, Chuck Hagel, 2008 election, Hillary Clinton,John McCain, debate,Joe Biden, Democrat, Republican,Rudy Giuliani,Mitt Romney,Ron Paul, Bill Richardson, Al Gore.

Carnival of Divided Government DUODECIMUS - One Year Anniversary Edition

UPDATED: Wednesday, May 2, 2007

"You say it's your birthday
It's my birthday too--yeah
They say it's your birthday
We're gonna have a good time
I'm glad it's your birthday
Happy birthday to you. "
- John Lennon/Paul McCartney

Welcome to the April 23, 2007 edition of the Carnival of Divided Government - Special One year Anniversary Edition. Yes, our little bouncing bundle of blogging joy is one year old. The very first DWSUWF post was written one year ago today. In that first post we invited readers to ... um... go away. I was still getting the hang of this whole blogging thing. The next two posts were an improvement, and laid the foundation for a divided government thesis and voting strategy that we continue to build on today. By the way- I have no idea who these people are in the picture ... just found the pic somewhere out there in the ether.

Introduction

As explained in earlier editions, we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration in order to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this Carnival of Divided Government DUODECIMUS - Special Birthday Edition, as in all of the CODGOV series, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and mainstream media on the singular topic of government divided between the major parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees). Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in DWSUWF reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions. In fact, for this birthday edition, we received an extensive selection of fine submissions, of which NONE - as in ZERO, NADA, ZIPPO, SQUAT - are on topic and mention "divided government". Hey! It's our birthday people! And now we are going to have take all the blogging birthday submissions and return them to wherever they came from. Because on our blogging birthday we will only link to on-topic posts, so today we offer a 100% Draftee edition of the carnival:

Divided Government Birthday Posts

Our first birthday present arrives from Kiev, Ukraine where Gingeriana posts "ПРОЛИСТЫВАЙТЕ, ПРОЛИСТЫВАЙТЕ! (LOOK AT THIS, LOOK AT THIS!) in her blog "Чемпионат мира по метанию бисера" - translated by RusTrans as "The world championship on a throwing of beads" (I suspect something was lost in translation here - possibly because she is writing in Ukrainian and I am translating as if from Russian using a free internet tool). In any case she offers a unique perspective from afar, as she calls attention to a lecture by Andrew Busch at the "Alumni Resource Centre, American Counsils, Kyiv, Ukraine entitled "Looking Ahead to 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections” and apparently finds a parallel to Ukraine politics:

"Many Americans vote deliberately to make a divided government: - if the President is Republican, than the Congress should be Democratic (and vice-versa) So, there is a big chance that since the current Congress is mostly Democrats, the next president would be again Republican. Americans do not make a big deal of President and Congress being political opponents. They find such situation to be normal and desirable, and a good balance of powers too. (Compare to Ukraine)."

Gingeriana sums it up quite well. In fact, one might make the case that it has taken DWSUWF an entire year of blog posts to say what she has distilled into one succinct paragraph. The only correction I would make to her cogent observation, is that not enough Americans "vote deliberately to make a divided government". But that's my job for the next 18 months. I'll be using the translation tool to comment on Gingeriana's post over the next couple of days. It should be very entertaining. For her.

The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire finds a "A Silver Lining for Republicans" in an article that echoes Gingeriana's Ukrainian perspective of our divided government:

"So why are the Republicans in the minority in Congress? According to Rep. Tom Davis, voters don’t like either party to control both the White House and the Congress for too long. Speaking at the National Press Club today, the Virginia Republican said, “What we’ve got to remember is divided government has basically been the norm. If you go back the last 40 years, I think three-fourths of the time we’ve had divided government. One party controls the White House and the other party controls at least one house of Congress…(T)he norm is that if there’s somebody to blame — and you can blame it on one party — you end up taking a licking."

Our next birthday present is from a friend of the DWSUWF blog, Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice. Joe got his underwear in bunch over a Christian Science Monitor op-ed piece by Pat M. Holt in his post "Bush Asserts Powers While Congress Has Ceded Them?"

"... if we are living in an age of dysfunctional government, what is the solution? If a single party didn’t quite work, and divided government with both major parties don’t work…what’s next? And is there a “next”?"

Joe - Chill. Divided government is working. The pendulum is starting to move back. Congress is reasserting their authority. We see it in the Gonzales oversight hearings. We see it in a Iraq funding bill with a timetable for withdrawal that will be sitting on the President's desk this week. We see it in Republicans suddenly caring about pork and earmarks for the first time in six years. Six years of single party control pushed that pendulum pretty far out. It'll take a while and some wild swings before it gets back to the middle.

Here Joe, this'll help - read David Gaffen's post in the Wall Street Journal's MarketBeat - "Divided Government, Less Regulation — It’s All Good":

"It’s often stated that divided government is good for the markets. Bianco Research finds that this is indeed the case. But they take it a step further in a report today, showing that, more often than not, unified government results in more regulatory growth, which damps the prospects for markets — and that divided government, while good in general, can be bad if it increases regulation anyway."

The parties have to agree to increase regulation. So, no problem. The key takeaway from the post (as far as the markets are concerned) is this: in a divided government bipartisanship is bad and political polarization is good.

Tieran O Faolin is seriously confused at American Red Tory, asking the rhetorical question "DIVIDED GOVERNMENT"?

"There's a common rumor that American voters frequently prefer to split Congress and the White House between the two main parties. This is false. The only (virtual) national election we have is for President. Congress isn't a national election like for the Israeli Knesset. We have 435 House districts and 50 Senate ones (the States), and people usually vote for the incumbent - usually irrespective of attempts by Party types to "nationalize" Congressional elections - because usually there isn't a seriously credible challenger, because of partisan gerrymandering of House districts by State politicians to favor incumbents. Therefore any alleged correspondence between party positions within or between the two elected Branches of the Federal Government is coincidence, nothing more."

Actually not, Tieran. I mean, really... "Coincidence, nothing more"??? Where have you been for the last six years? With single party control, the U.S. Congress abrogated virtually all of their Constitutional responsibilities in order to further the "corresponding" party positions of the executive branch. While it it is usually true that "all politics is local" and incumbents certainly have a crushing advantage, it is certainly possible for congressional elections to be nationalized and an incumbent majority to lose as a result. We know this is true because that is exactly what happened in the last election. Although some will maintain that Americans subconsciously prefer divided government, I will grant your point that most Americans do not consciously vote for divided government. But that does not mean it will stay that way. Certainly, some of us vote that way. We'll see what we can do to increase those numbers.

Steven Teles at The Reality Based Community presents a thoughtful post on how the mechanism of divided government helps congress fulfill their constitutional duties, thoughtfully entitled "Hiring Kooks":

"This is, in part, an institutional problem--how do you ensure that the executive branch does not overweight its political strata with ideological hacks? This should be a primary function of the Senate, exercising its constitutionally orthodox power to confirm presidential nominees for political appointments. For most of the Bush years, Congress punted this function because it had been transformed into the functional equivalent of parliament, doing this bidding of their Prime Minister. But with the return of divided government, we have the ability to reassert something closer to constitutional orthodoxy. The first task of the Democratic Congress should be to engage in close scrutiny of all presidential appointees, making it clear that nominees whose primary qualification is ideological commitment will be given a good raking over the coals. This should make the administration more reticent to nominate such people in the first place, or a least to reduce their propensity to do so. Even though the purpose of this may be partisan (to embarass the administration) its effect would be wholesomely constitutional. "Ambition counteracting ambition," I think someone once called it..."

"Ambition counteracting Ambition". I like the sound of that. We'll have to figure out who said it.
UPDATE:
Ok I figured it out. This is embarrasing, I should have known the source. The actual complete quote is excerpted here:

"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State."

The author is James Madison. The source is Federalist #51 written in 1788. Madison is explaining the rationale behind constitutional checks, balances and the need for seperation of powers into co-equal branches of government. The identical rationale applies to not permitting one political party to control both the legislative and executive branches. It is the rationale for divided government. It good to be regularly reminded just how prescient and smart the founding fathers of our constitution really were.

Joseph Wiesenthal at The Stalwart is thinking about other constitutional issues, but still concludes that divided government will help in "Searching for Jihad":

"Also, let me make a point on gun control. It's probably too much to ask of people to not use a tragedy to advance their political viewpoints. Of course, both sides of the gun control debate see this incident as vindication of their beliefs. While I tend to come down on the libertarian side of things, I don't think that one exceedingly rare incident can prove one side or another. In other words, we shouldn't let one freak incident guide our policies. Unfortunately, it's usually the freak incidents that get politicians motivated to "do something", so it's inevitable that some sort of law will come out of this. I'm just glad that we have divided government, so that nothing can get done too quickly."

James Trumm at Framed finds similarities and differences between 2008 and 1968 in this post written exactly "277 Days..." before the New Hampshire primary:

"By the time the 2008 election comes around, we will have had two years of divided government, where the party that got us into a war and pushed through unpopular legislation is NOT the party in power in Congress... The voters in 1968 seemed to want someone who could check what were perceived as the excesses and abuses of the party in power on Capitol Hill; they voted for divided government. Unless the Democrats badly fumble their Congressional ascendancy, this situation won't repeat itself in 2008."

I hope he is wrong, but suspect that he is right. This is why I have said before and will say again, Chuck Hagel is the only electable Republican candidate for President. He is a rock solid conservative and has the credibility of opposing the administration on the war from the beginning. Yet we don't even know if he is going to run.

Ed Sistrunk at Grassroots Conservative Majority considers the candidates and a return to fiscal conservative principles in "Whitehouse '08":

"Republicans have historically claimed to be the party of spending discipline. Their performance while in control of both the executive and legislative branches has shredded that claim. Federal spending increased under Republican control at twice the rate it did under divided government, when Republicans controlled Congress and Bill Clinton was in the White House. Moreover, earmarks soared under Republican control. Earmarks are appropriations designated by a member of Congress for a local project within his political jurisdiction. Earmarks, commonly referred to as pork, are corrosive in two ways. First, they detract attention and resources from truly national concerns. Second, once a member has his local bridge or bus stop, he is expected to vote for the overall appropriations bill, regardless of how bloated it becomes. McCain shines on fiscal issues."

That may very well be true, but McCain is dead wrong on the war. Hagel also shines on fiscal issues, and he shines even brighter in his principled stance on the war. Ron Paul is a libertarian Republican running for president who was also right on the war, as Daniel Watson shows clearly in "Heroes & Villains: Cong. Ron Paul & Prof. Michael Ledeen" posted at Americans for Ron Paul Blog. I just don't think that Paul has a chance of winning. But he will be fun to watch in the debates.

We'll wrap this up with a dip in the mainstream media. Samuel L. Popkin and Henry A. Kim caution Democrats that history and voter preferences for divided government stand between them and the White House, in "Winning the White House? History's Against Them":

"Divided government can help presidents look moderate and the party controlling Congress look extreme. Because Democrats control the agenda, they will bring up bills they want, and bottle up bills favored by the Republican right. Bush and the GOP are now likely to be defined by which Democratic bills he signs and which he vetoes, instead of by the bills advanced from his right wing."

I'd like to believe this is true, but it sure looks to me like the Republican Party is drifting further and further from the mainstream American voter on Iraq, and as a consequence is on a hell bound train to losing all branches in 2008.

A single off-topic slice of birthday cake.

OK, it is our blogging birthday and we can be magnaminous. We will continue the longstanding tradition at The Carnival of Divided Government to include one "off-topic" submission as a grudging acknowledgement and symbolic proxy for the many off-topic submissions received. The winner for this edition is ...

Hell's Handmaiden presenting Blogs for Monsters Among Us posted at Hell's Handmaiden - just because I like the blog.

UPDATED: May 2, 2007
It is going to be a long stretch until the next Carnival of Divided Government on Memorial Day weekend. In the last week I found a few more great on-topic posts and well, I just couldn't wait to get them to you, so we''ll append them here.

Sean Aqui, posting at both Donklephant and Midtopia presents a nice overview of Senate Intelligence committee hearings into NSA wiretapping authority in "Senate Doubles Over Laughing at Wiretap Proposal":

"Well, okay, they didn't. But I wish they would. At least they were skeptical... Man, I love divided government. Rubber stamps suck."

True. A rubber stamp legislature sucks, subverts constitutional protections, and is dangerous. Divided government fixes that.

Patricia Lee Sharpe presents "The War Bill Process Proves that Divided Government is Better" at Whirled View:

"There were hearings, for a change. And before the bill with the Iraq pullout proviso was passed, there were debates, too. Now, if the President vetoes it, as he has pledged to do, he will have to justify his war policy publicly. Again. [...] In the case of federal legislation the Founders wrote a Constitution chock full of these time-consuming checks and balances, and they had it right: divided government is safer. It promotes debate. It promotes accountability. It promotes transparency. It encourages broadly acceptable action and prevents extreme legislation by ideologues. It brings the nation together. (Well, not always, and that's not necessarily bad either.)... Thank goodness for divided government!"

Well said. I left a challenge in the comments on her post, which is a preview of coming attractions here at DWSUWF.

Mark Thoma has a lot of graphs, charts and citations in his detailed review of the Economic Letter from Jason Saving of the Dallas Fed in his post "FRB Dallas: The U.S. Budget Deficit’s Uncertain Prospects" posted at the Economists View:

"...most observers are discounting the possibility of major tax cuts or spending increases in an era of divided government. So fiscal policy may look as if it’s restrained by a binding paygo arrangement over the next few years, even if the actual rule is somewhat less stringent."

Mr. Elbaum, a history teacher at Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Il., has an important lesson for his class in "Reid vs. Bush...Gotta love Divided Government!" posted at Patriot of 76:

"After a conference committee meeting (great vocabulary word!), House and Senate Democratic appropriators agreed Monday on a $124 billion bill that would fund the Iraq war but order troops to begin leaving by Oct. 1 with the goal of completing the pullout six months later... A showdown is set. A Democratic Congress vs. a Republican President. This is the beauty of divided government-it fosters debate and compromise."

Miscellany

With that we conclude this edition. Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for all of the submissions (on-topic or not). The next edition will be the Carnival of Divided Government TERTIUS DECIMUS - Special Memorial Day Weekend Edition, to be posted sometime during the Memorial Day Weekend May 26-28, 2007. This special edition will be posted on location from a lake in the Upper Peninnsula of Michigan, during DWSUWF's annual family fishing holiday. Actual date of posting will depend on weather and how the fish are biting. Blog articles may be submitted for the carnival of divided government using the carnival submission form. Past posts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Finally, if you enjoyed this carnival, you shoul also check out these other recent fine collections:

• Dana simultaneously gives birth to her fourth child and hosts the fourth Carnival of Principled Government at Principled Discovery. Really. No shit, she really did.
  
• Pat Santy presents the Carnival of the Insanities hosted at Dr. Sanity.
• Boring Made Dull presents Economic and Social Policy XXXIV hosted at The Boring Made Dull.
• DHGerstman presents Haveil Havalim #113 hosted at Soccer Dad.
  
• Paul presents Carnival of the Liberals - Ides of March Edition hosted at BrainShrub.
• Kehaar presents Carnival of the Vanities - Special Events hosted at Silflay Hraka.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, Chuck Hagel, ron Paul, 2008 election, blog carnival.

Quantifying Horror

How do we measure horror? Can it be quantified? Can it be ranked? Can the senseless horror of 32 students gunned down at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007 be compared to the hatred fueled horror of Sunni gunmen with automatic weapons slaughtering 48 Iraqi civilians in a marketplace on July 17, 2006? - or - compared to the inexplicable horror of 52 British commuters killed by British born and raised suicide bombers on July 7, 2005? - or - to the intricately calculated horror of 2,973 victims crushed and burned in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon? - or - to the random horror of 300,000 killed in the December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami?

We experience more second hand horror in greater detail and with more immediacy and visceral impact than any generation that has gone before. The experience of horror is unique and personal. Still, we seem compelled to keep score, to compare horrific events, ranking them on a scale of best to worst. The Virginia Tech massacre headline is "Deadliest Shooting in U.S. History". Charles Whitman, Dylan Klebold, and Eric Harris can step aside. We have a new domestic champion in academic shooting horror.

We carefully count the dead, but the body count is only one determinant of how we rank and react to horror. The impact we feel depends on geography. How close is it to me? Did it happen at a place I know or somewhere I have stood? It depends on familiarity. Did the horror directly touch me or someone I know? It depends on timing. For many Americans, thirty two dead students in Virginia on Monday may feel worse than two hundred thousand victims of genocide spread out over a decade in Darfur. How we feel about a horror (or if we even take notice) also depends on whether there is a camera present, and whether editors deem it worthy of our attention. Finally, how we feel about horror depends on whether the victims look and dress and talk like us. For an Iraqi, the horror of 42 dead Iraqis last Saturday from a car bombing in Karbala feels much worse that 32 dead students in Virginia on Monday. Conversely, for many Americans the continuous horror of sectarian violence in Iraq has faded to background noise, evoking no more emotional involvement than a shake of the head and a cluck of the tongue. We will soon learn the names and see the faces of the32 innocent students and teachers killed in Virginia on Monday. We will probably never hear the names of the 42 innocent Iraqi's killed in Karbala on Saturday. This is not an indictment or a criticism of how we feel. This is simply an aspect of being human and exposed via media to more remote horror than any person can emotionally or intellectually comprehend. That does not mean we cannot or should not attempt to understand the pain of those experiencing horrors that are out of our emotional reach.

Perhaps the only way to begin to understand another's experience of horror, is to employ an analog, a "unit of measure", a quantum of horror that we can intuitively grasp. Tell an American the price of a litre of gasoline, and you are likely to get a blank stare, but the price of a gallon of gasoline is immediately and intuitively understood. Perhaps we can only understand horror in units of measure with which we are familiar.

Quantifying horror requires a familiar unit of measure informing an intuitive level of understanding that can be transferred to events in other cultures and time. For Americans, the benchmark of horror is the 9/11/01 attack on the World Trade Center. We all remember where we were and what we were doing when we learned of it. In its wake, we stopped travelling, we stopped trading, we just plain stopped to consider our lives and try to find meaning in the horror and heroism of those that died in the towers. Many Americans were connected to 9/11 by a deep and personal loss of a loved one. For many more, there was a connection to the place it occured. I fortunately did not lose anyone close to me on 9/11. I have, however, lived, worked and played in Manhattan. I attended business meetings in the World Trade Center, dined at the Windows on the World restaurant, and rode the subway below ground zero. My experience of a place, now gone, where so many died so horribly, made the tragedy more personal for me and amplified my sense of loss. Less so than those who lost friends and loved ones. Less so than those who were there in Manhattan on that day.

Still, I intuitively understand what it means to witness a horror, even at a distance, measured in units on the scale of the 9/11 WTC attack.

This week, I intuitively understand the sadness, the disquiet, the feeling of helplessness that is what it means to witness a horror, even at a distance, measured in units on a scale of the Virginia Tech massacre.

The Presidentof the United States said this in Blacksburg:

"It's impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering. Those whose lives were taken did nothing to deserve their fate. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now they're gone, and they leave behind grieving families and grieving classmates and a grieving nation. "

His words were heartfelt, simple, eloquent and true. He was talking about the horror visited on Virginia Tech on Monday. His words were equally appropriate and true when applied to the horror visited on Baghdad on Sunday.

The newspaper said this about Baghdad:

"The gravest of the attacks in Baghdad occurred Sunday morning, when twin car bombs exploded in a bustling marketplace in the Shurta Raba neighborhood, killing 18 people. A few hours later, six people were killed when a suicide bomber detonated a belt of explosives inside a minibus, and another car bomb killed five. Later, two car bombs several hours apart ripped through the normally calm neighborhood of Karrada in southern Baghdad, killing 13, police said."

To read the newspaper report does not help us to understand how a Baghdad resident experienced that horror. To say that Iraq experienced a "Virginia Tech horror" on Sunday, may permit us to empathize with the Iraqi's who lived through it and experienced it on that day.

Does it diminish our sorrow, or dilute our sympathy for what was lost in Blacksburg on Monday if we compare it to what was lost in Baghdad on Sunday? I think not. Perhaps it will permit us to gain a better appreciation of what is really happening to the people of Iraq.

The point is this: The Iraqi people experience a Virginia Tech quantum of horror every day. Some days two. Some days three or more. Every single day. Every day, yet another Virginia Tech sized pebble of horror dropped into the water of Iraqi society sends expanding rings of sorrow and loss and anger through the population. Every single day.

The U.N. estimated that an average of 100 Iraqi civilian war related deaths occured every day in 2006. That equates to a WTC equivalent horror unit in Iraq every month. Every single month. Try to imagine what that is like. A 9/11 every month. In a country of twenty five million people. I cannot. If the Iraqi people lose confidence in the ability of their leadership, and the United States stewardship to protect them from the violence, they will reach for a leader who will promise restore peace. Any leader. Moqtada al-Sadr waits in the wings:

"Motivated by the prospect of an eventual U.S. withdrawal, Sadr has uneasily cooperated with the current security plan, allowing U.S. troops to enter his Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City and ordering his Mahdi Army militiamen to stand down. But in the past two months, bombings have risen in Shiite areas while U.S. and Iraqi troops have killed or arrested hundreds of his fighters "The Sadrist base is becoming angry. This is mostly to preserve his base," said Joost Hiltermann, a Jordan-based analyst with the International Crisis Group, referring to the pullout. "They were under a lot of pressure because the security plan which they tacitly accepted is not working. The Americans are failing. They can't stop the bombings."

As I researched links for this post, I ran across this ScrippsNews editorial, written by Paul Cantos, a professor of law atht he University of Colorado. He explores a similar theme, more eloquently than I, and I will not find words that improve on his concluding thoughts:

"To say this isn't in any way to minimize the horror and tragedy of Blacksburg, or to claim that we put too much value on the lives of those who are close to us. Rather, it's to say that we put too little value on the lives of those who are far from us - including the lives of our soldiers, who are killed and maimed every day as they try to carry out an apparently impossible mission in the midst of a human catastrophe of unimaginable proportions."

Update April 20, 2007

"They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time." - George Bush

Thursday, April 12 - One(1) Virginia Tech Horror Equivalent (VTHE) unit of measure reported in Baghdad:

8 killed, 20 wounded in Baghdad when suicide bomber detonates inside green zone in Iraq parliament cafeteria. 12 killed 30 wounded when truck bomb destroys bridge over Tigris River.

Friday, April 13 - One Half (.5) VTHE unit of measure reported in Baghdad

Around 10 deaths and 20 wounded in a variety of mortar, IED, and gun attacks on civilians in Baghdad and Mosul.

Saturday, April 14 - Two(2) VTHE units reported in Karbala, one(1) VTHE in Baghdad:

40-60 killed, hundreds wounded including 16 children when car bomb explodes near market and bus station in Karbala. 10 killed 15 wounded in second bridge car bomb attack in Baghdad.

Sunday April 15 - 1.5 VTEH in Baghdad:

42 killed, dozens wounded in series of car bombing in Baghdad

Monday, April 16 - 1 VTEH unit in Blacksburg, Virginia:

32 students and faculty killed by psychotic gunman in Blacksburg, Va.

Wednesday April 18 - 6 VTEH units in Baghdad. 2 VTEH units across Iraq:

183+ killed, hundreds wounded in Baghdad in coordinated car bomb attack on market in Shiite neighborhoods, and 58 bullet ridden bodies found across Iraq.

Thursday April 19 - .5 VTEH units in Baghdad;

12 killed by a suicide bomber in Baghdad.

Totals - 13 Virgina Tech Equivalent Horror Units in Iraq over the last week. 1 in the U.S.

The primary role of government is to "insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense." There is no reason to believe that Iraqi's will be any more tolerant of leadership that fails to provide this basic service than Americans. Washington Post reports:

"In Sadriya, angry residents cursed the Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for failing to protect them. Smoke still billowed from the debris and sandals and glass littered the ground in Sadriya. "The government is talking about the security plan but dozens of people are dying every day. No one is protecting us," Sabah Haider, 42, told Reuters as he stood beside a dozen incinerated minibuses. Rahim Ali, also in Sadriya, said: "The Americans say they are here to protect the Iraqi people but they are doing nothing."

Technorati tags: divided government, Massacre, Iraq, Virginia Tech, George Bush, Horror, Muqtada al-Sadr.