I was thinking last night that I have no idea how "Iraqis" are supposed to "stand up so we can stand down" or even what that would look like given our fueling of sectarianism, 1-2-many iraqs? ( or even if "we" actually believe this will lead to some miraculous - even temporary - reduction in sectarian violence or, more likely, attacks on American troops).

I've been amazed that ANYONE not safely tucked into bed at night in Green Zone will work with us, fearing being branded a collaborationist, fearing retribution against immediate and extended family ... but for years we have seen recruiting centers decimated and Iraqi army and police wannabes slaughtered ... sometimes by big bombs, more often individually or in handfuls, tucked into the daily violence reports.

We are told that the Iraqis don't show up for work ... but we are also told that, come payday (when it comes, which I think is monthly or even less often), these "public servants" have to return to their home districts to deliver their pay, I believe in cash, because there is no working banking system, and that many work far from their homes to protect their families and do not get to actually enjoy family life except on these visits (and the journey is dangerous, and they stay a week or two to also tend to family/domestic matters that have accrued in their absences).

And they remain inadequately provided in many respects ... arms, vehicles, apparently their own security. And they and their families likely share in the plummeting Iraqi standard of living.

Yes, three years of failing to create a cohesive dependable Iraqi army and police is frustrating as is the persistence of the militias, who are likely seen as both enemies and rivals ... with the government allied personnel strangely the "odd man out" with no place "home"...

I would welcome an examination of what Iraqi "standing up" and their alleged failure to do so. It strikes me it's like complaining about the quality of a finished product constructed hurriedly under conflicted management using questionable materials and a beleagured and often under-fire work force. That this is somehow an "iraqi" failure needs to be questioned ... not so much as to add another log to the fire of bush bashing... but to bring some more reality to task at hand and remove what I think is largely old fashioned scapegoating.

If we're the managers and the trainers, the bankers and provisioners, etc. isn't much of this responsibility ours? isn't blaming the Iraqis just a bit self-serving (particularly since for the most part reporters and other have no access to the "other side" of this story)?

Fraink, it smells deeply of plain old-fashioned racist first-world complaints about those lazy unmotivated "natives" who fail to share "our" values.

quite a number of others, like Ms. Clinton, believe that there will be a need to maintain some forces within Iraq to defend our bases, embassy and interests ....

expressly against the wishes of Maliki (and without apparently the blessing of any "legislative body)?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080302322_pf.html

It's a great way to promote democracy and the rule of law in Iraq .... IMHO, it's a "new low" ... and my suspicion is that "we" all about punishing and humiliating Maliki as payback for ... well, you know.

Bush forcing congress back in session had a certain irony.

Yes, he is the decider in chief ... just try to stop him....

and the Democratic party (particularly the DLC) needs to wake up and smell the proverbial party.

There is no way this particular "crack the whip" is not a humiliation to the Democractic Party and to all registered democrats ... over coffee in diners across America rethugs are metaphorically shoving liberal faces into breakfast plates.

(the particulars don't matter much, if at all...) Our collective outrage and moaning is just fuel to their "victory" ... Fasten those seatbelts ...

(I have wondered if Bush has explained to Maliki that "this is how it's done", yeah right, democracy in action.)

yes, there are "details" that are significant, important ...

imho, the democratic nominee should be someone who is willing to discuss complex issues and "compromises" such as this one ...

I also think we deserve to know a thumbnail sketch of what is in those "security briefings" since they are held up too often as an "if you knew what I know" rationales.

I find myself wondering if the Dems are still obsessed with "not alienating" rather than "courting" that (quite possibly apocryphal) silent majority. Anyone without some opinion about something is most likely not paying attention anyway ... or brain dead....

I was vaguely hoping we could avoid a significant third-party run ... now I'm wondering how many third-parties we'll see.

i.e. -- it's already the policy that we will pursue OBL into Pakistan if we get good intel? Maybe I misheard him ... but I think he was saying -- correctly -- that this was largely much ado about little.

but, regardless of its irrelevance, Obama has taken a blood-in-the-water hit ... as would have been predicts, likely regardless of what ever he said ...

and, yes, it feels like a DLC orchestration. Obama has kept a lot of attention off of every other candidate, except in those soft-focused every-candidate "profile" pieces.

I'm seeing "Ron Paul" signs in my very Greens/Kucinich town... please god let him not gather momentum among the aging-ex-hippy well-to-do libertarian I-got-mine crowd (which is rapidly gentrifying and changing my area -- not for the better).

Kucinich shone ....

this will permit Hillary to be brave and strong ... and -- except for the "sleaze factor", which is shared by several republicans -- I don't think it's going to add up to more than a media circus ... whether it "matters", probably depends on when it's unleashed... against Hillary frontrunner versus Hillary candidate ...

It's all theatre ... Obama's day will come next decade... he's served his purpose of providing the DLC with a "serious alternative to Hillary" (and plumped up his resume)... fait accompli almost in sight.