Politics

CBS has a live Baghdad webcam (original) running. I’m sure everyone else in the world but me knows this. So surreal. Stratfor pointed out recently that all this embedded exposure is a great way to pull attention from units without embedded reporting, which is utterly true. Right now, on CBS’ webcam, someone’s talking in Arabic from off-screen. I can see a tripod to the right of the picture, and that might be the talker just barely visible next to it. I hear the other Baghdad webcams are also set up on top of this building, whatever it is. ...

Condoleezza Rice says the coalition gets the leading role in rebuilding Iraq (original): “It would only be natural to expect that … having given life and blood to liberate Iraq, the coalition would have the leading role. I don’t think anybody is surprised by that,” President Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told reporters. Well, sure, if we were doing for the reward. I was under the impression we were doing it a) to protect the West from terrorism and b) to give the Iraqis a better government. Rice makes it sound like we should get to rebuild Iraq… as a reward. Shouldn’t we be selecting the rebuilders with an eye towards who will best help reach those two goals? ...

Women don’t belong among front-line troops? Yeah, right. My thoughts: I’m anti-this war, and I’m glad US soldiers are this brave. I think the article pretty much speaks for itself.

Bush approved use of tear gas in Iraq today. This pretty much validates the possession of chem warfare suits by the Iraqis. Turns out that when the Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention way back when, they added language permitting battlefield use of riot-control agents with presidental approval. The CWC defines toxic chemicals (original) as “Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.” So tear gas definitely qualifies. It also mentions (in the same article) that domestic riot control is not prohibited. Iraq’s hardly domestic, of course. ...

Admire the conviction and dedication to free, independent press displayed by Al-Jazeera. When Baghdad questioned and expelled two of their reporters, they decided that they couldn’t keep correspondents in Iraq any more. So they aren’t. Their offices in the country will remain open. Beats Reuters.

I was reminded tonight to post a link to Jerry Pournelle’s comments on Empire. He was against this war, for reasons quite different than most; he’s fond of the Republic, and he believes that the war puts us firmly on the path to Empire. Here’s a little more. I think it’s worth the time to read the thoughts of a military-minded man who has thought deeply about the politics of this matter. I don’t think Pournelle’s views on Republic and Empire are proof positive of anything; I just think they’re interesting. It’s good insight into the nature of aggressive wars such as the ones the neocons desire.

Heh. I was right last night; the troops are pushing towards Baghdad. It’s been a successful advance so far. Note the destruction of the dam in that last story; that was a definite coup, since there’s been some worry that Saddam would be able to flood the river valley and slow down advancing troops. This is another point at which Saddam is likely to use chemical weapons if he has ‘em. Up till now there’s been no new convincing evidence that he does, but one of the BBC embeds filed a report that his troops found instructions to an Iraqi Chemical Warfare Officer. (John Simpson, at 11:11 GMT.) Not hard evidence, just the most relevant thing we’ve found so far. I don’t count the chem warfare suits, no. We have a bunch of those too.

Josh Marshall discusses victory conditions (original) today. I have a simple victory condition; the day Bush announces we’ve won the war, I’m gonna call the State Department and ask about getting a visa to travel to Iraq. If they recommend against it, I don’t think we’ve won. This sets the war in the appropriate context, that of the War on Terrorism. As a standard, it willfully ignores the question of military victory, which will come far earlier — but since Bush has set the bar at a stable democracy in Iraq, I feel OK about waiting till it’s safe to travel there until I declare victory.

Edit: quick primer for the Den Beste readers, since Den Beste himself didn’t bother to read any of my other posts… I think Arnett deserved to be fired. I think it would be exceedingly difficult to try Arnett for treason; it’s not as easy as you think it is. Faulting someone for providing readily available information to Iraq is silly (that’d be this post). Back to your regularly scheduled post… Den Beste has his own commentary (original) on the Arnett issue, and completely misses, and I think it’s a bad enough miss to be worth some discussion. ...

Current Department of Defense thinking about post-war Iraq includes an extension of the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (original). The ILSA called for sanctions on any country which made 40 million dollars or more in new investments in Iran; this includes such countries as Britain, Italy, and Japan. The ILSA has never been invoked before, unsurprisingly. Remember, folks, Bush is a master of diplomacy. Actually, this would make sense if he’s planning on cutting Rumsfeld loose — focus the resentment of the world on the DoD, and let Powell and State ride in to save the day. I’ve been wondering this flurry of negative press about Rumsfeld is a way of preparing the ground for such a move, but Seymour Hersh (original) is kind of an unlikely agent of the Republicans. So it seems doubtful. ...