I am fighting with a lot of mixed feelings on the situation in Iraq.

The Iraqi government has just announced a reduction in curfew in Baghdad (curfew will start at 10pm instead of 8pm) due to an improved security situation there. The same reports (Baltimore Sun, for example) say violence is increasing elsewhere, which is evidence of whack-a-mole. And no one knows what is on Moqtada al Sadr's mind.

I am quite confident that if a reduction in violence and a turn towards the better is possible in Iraq, that Petraeus and company (formerly "Doctors Without Orders") would be the ones to do it. But here is where ability meets reality. Petraeus could possibly do it with Eric Shinseki's troop strength, and all the troops would have been trained in counterinsurgency, everybody with language training, a government that really backed his ideas, as un-macho as they are, etc.,etc. Also all the things Petraeus publicly called for, like diplomacy, a police force adequate to the task, etc.,etc.

What we have instead is a "surge" of 22,000 troops, to 150,000, a completely political figure, with, because of the strain on the military caused by no planning to have a war this long, no one up to date on training, bad equipment, and constant bullshit from the top, a la McCain and Pence.

Petraeus is being Colin Powelled. He represents credibility, so he is sent into Baghdad for the same political reasons as Colin Powell was sent to the U.N. The same thing is going to happen, he has demanded that he be in charge of the mission, he doesn't cleave to the party line (remember what happened with the Iranian weapons announcement), but in the end, he is standing on quicksand, and will take the fall like Powell did.

That being said, the only other strategy is to get out. But here, I have to take issue with those who do not have any thoughts whatsoever for what is left behind. I hesitate to bring this up again, in the company of lawyers, no less, which I am not. We went to the U.N. very early in this conflict and got ourselves declared official occupiers, so we could establish a "Coalition Provisional Authority" and manage the oil money.

Doesn't anybody remember that? Occupiers have responsibilities under International Humanitarian Law that we never had in either World War, or in Korea, or in Vietnam. (Yes, there was IHL during all those conflicts). We have those obligations just as surely as Common Article 3 forms the basis of the rights of the prisoners at Guantanamo. One of them is to leave security and a civil society behind for 1 year after the military operations officially end.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

Article 6, Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949

Among those provisions is the requirement to provide stability, protect unarmed civilians from unnecessary harm, etc., etc. I am willing to bet that the U.S. government believes that because they formally swore in the al Maliki government, they have no such obligations, but I would seriously doubt that any other nation believes we are no longer occupying Iraq.

It seems to me, that we not only "ought" to be trying diplomacy, but that we have no choice. We have to talk to Iran and Syria (not to mention Jordan, Kuwait, Turkey, and everybody else). We have to talk to Moqtada al Sadr, and to the Sunni insurgents. We have to start figuring out how that security and stability is going to be arranged, or we have to directly provide it. We have to figure out what to do with the 4 million refugees, they are also our responsibility. Getting out of Iraq also means dealing with all of these issues, out front and in good faith.

Glenn and others can correct me, but we signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions (along with 195 other countries), without reservations as far as I know. That makes them also the "law of the land". Doesn't it?

Such a hopeless mess.

Not in the NYTimes, not in WaPo, not in LATimes, nowhere. I found a more complete version in the Middle East Times,

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070402-090218-2489r

which also documents that twin bombs killed 60 people there on March 29.

I'm sure glad that our markets in California are safer than those in Indiana. I have a bunch of friends in South Bend, do you think I should offer our living room couch and floor to them until the peace and happiness ends there?

but wasn't SomeNYGuy's quip a paraphrase of Grover Norquist? I had trouble seeing it as anything else.

My screen name is now permanent. Check. Don't mind that.

All the fonts changed. My eyes feel like they aged 30 years in 30 seconds. Very hard for me to read.

AlltheparagraphprocessingisgonesomycommentsnowlooklikeWaPo. "Isn't" this great? BetterthanWaPoIstillhavepunctuationandmarkuplanguagetags.

Apparently, the paragraph processing just disappeared from the preview, not the final. God I hate sans serif, migraine city within a half an hour.

but what if they really got their wish? What if they really got a super-warrior who always resorted to cruise missiles and so forth whenever there was any sort of conflict of interest to be found?

Desert Son

Froomkin is reporting that The New York Sun is starting a draft Cheney in '08 movement.

Also, Blair said expressly he did NOT do that - so unless you think he's outright lying, and I don't, that is not what got these sailors released.

-- GlennGreenwald

Then what did?

--- shooter242

Dunno, probably a bible, and a cake. Oh, wait. Was Reagan a real man or did he pull out of Lebanon and negotiate with terrorists?

Newt them until they glow.