THE BACK-AND-FORTH CONTINUES

[nodular]

The idea of the Iraqi government needing to "get its act together" is a big part of the current fight between Bush and Congress . In fact, the chances of the Iraqi government utlimately doing this are infinitesimal, as everyone knows. But both Democrats and Republicans feel the need to pretend this can happen. The Democrats pretend that if we just post a deadline, the Iraqi government may very well get its act together before the deadline. The Republicans are confident the Iraqi government will get its act together "soon"---but a deadline (or timeline of any sort whatsoever) will fluster them in the midst of this delicate procedure.

It seems to me that talk of this issue, the Iraqi government Easter, one might say, or rising from the aparent dead, will be the center of the negotiations. After all, I presume the point of the negotiations will be to get an apppropriations bill both can sign. Bush's reference to the need to transfer funds from other parts of Defense is designed to build pressure---see?, the Democrats are weakening the National Defense.

So, I stongly suspect the final bill will contain some precious language vis a vie the Iraqi gov't getting its act together. The keys will be: how is this wondrous state to be defined and what exactly will the US commit to do when this state is achieved? Also important will be who gets to decide if the goal (Iraqi gov't functionality) is achieved.

I am presuming some language will be found to allow both sides to claim a victory. If the Democrats push too hard, they can end up looking "weak" on defense. If they don't push hard enough, they risk a virulent backlash within the progressive wing of their own party. They have to balance things and their position requires finesse.

The Republicans are in a much grimmer spot. They want to hold on in Iraq till 11/08 (which will automatically turn into 1/09) in any case. If they pull out before then, the entire post-pullout disaster tends to devolve onto the Republican Party---it would be a Republican operation (under the control of a Republican President) from start to finish. They will blame the Democrats for forcing the pullout, of course, but I believe the amount of blame-shifting they could achieve would be small.

Ideally, Bush wants to stretch out the "surge" till near 11/08, declare the surge a success, and then come up with some other hare-brained scheme to try right after he's gone. Hopefully from the Repub point of view, this can be parlayed into a Repub Pres. being elected in 11/08. Then Bush can declare victory, retire to Crawford, and probably indulge in the biggest bender of his life.

The possibility of achieving this is small but still not zero. It might hinge on achieving some sort of major victory over al Quaeda---or what passes for al Quaeda---in Iraq. al Quaeda, it seems is no longer really an organization run by bin Laden but a bunch of nearly independent franchises with his "approval". At any rate, the Iraqi organization with this name seems to be the main actor in Iraq at the moment---maintaining the death toll with a small number of massive suicide truck bombings---often now including chlorine gas.

Assuming some sort of effective blow against al Quaeda might be achieved (probably in the form of killing some top level leaders to achieve a temporary slowdown), al-Sadr would also need to somehow be placated. I would call his current signals ambiguous, so we'll just have to see. I'm betting he himself is going to "see which way the wind blows" before commiting clearly to resistance or quiesence during the "surge." All of this could happen but it would be a lot of rolls of the dice going the Republicans' way.


First Read: THE DAY IN POLITICS

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/10/120440.aspx




"The back-and-forth between Democrats and President Bush over the Iraq emergency funding bill continues today with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid taking the first shot on the Senate floor. Per his prepared remarks, Reid called on Bush to "move beyond the political theater and take a seat at the table" to work out a compromise with Democrats.

"'Let me be very clear: Democrats are committed to giving troops the funds they need,' Reid said, according to the advanced remarks. 'The supplemental appropriations bill we send to President Bush will provide every dollar our commanders have requested… American troops are putting their lives at risk every single day, but Iraqi leaders are not willing to take the political risk of getting their own country together. That must change. That's what Congress is demanding.'

"More from Reid: 'Over the next two weeks, the President has an opportunity to work with Congress to let his views be heard on how to improve this bill. Speaker Pelosi and I invited him last month to sit down and work with us to develop a strategy together. We remain ready to do just that. But that will take a commitment by the President to move beyond the political theater and take a seat at the table.'

"Meanwhile, Bush's own speech on the Iraq supplemental -- which begins shortly -- will have some new information in, senior White House officials say. For starters, Bush will explain that the Defense Department will 'in the coming days" notify Congress that the DoD will "be forced to transfer $1.6 billion dollars from other military accounts to cover the shortfall.' Also, Bush will also announce that he is inviting members of Congress to the White House next week to discuss how they can reach agreement over the supplemental. Advisors say the meetings will "not be a negotiation" and stress that the White House believes members of Congress 'know they can't override the president's veto.'"

[bemildred]

1. Heavy street fighting in the capital city (Baghdad)

doesn't seem like a good sign to me. This all has the look of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Our government is corrupt, decadent, and ineffectual. There is little reason for serious people to pay attention to this sort of internal squabbling from our "leaders" when they cannot or will not address the course of real-world events in any useful way.

[nodular]

2. I can't disagree with your view except that I don't see what

alternative we have in terms of something to focus on. This is our government.

[bemildred]

3. Honest elections come to mind.

Although I do not mean to criticize you, or anyone, for taking an interest in this. I suppose it annoys me, and that comes out when I write. My apologies if you felt criticized. I am sorry.