Cut Up

When is a defense spending cut not a cut? When it's not. Be that as it may, you have to admire Obama (I do, anyway) for giving a shot at rationalizing Pentagon money, particularly now, when the right wing screamers are literally calling for "a stake in his heart," and claiming he's a Nazi who plans concentration camps and "reeducation camps." The reaction to his proposal to raise military spending by four percent, by that measure, is hardly unexpected.

Defense spending has always been politicized, with knees (and other body parts) jerking all over the country. Even thoughtful discussion -- were such a thing still possible -- would raise difficult issues. Republicans love to cry "soft on defense;" but when Senator Inhofe calls it "disarming America" and "ravaging the military," one can only believe we'll never hear the issues addressed rationally.

Take one example. As successes have only come when all the launch data were known in advance, the missile defense shield seems to me much over-hyped and under-needed; especially when nukes are said to fit in suitcases. I stand ready to be convinced of its purpose and effectiveness; but it's no stretch for me to believe it's something without which we can do.

How about considering a couple dozen overseas bases, while we're at it?

Robert Gates seems a thoughtful man, and hardly a peacenik. You'd think that Republicans, who have magically -- and quite suddenly -- regained their professed love of budgetary balance, would be willing to join their fellow party-member in an honest discussion of what we need and what we don't, militarily. Like so many other imperatives, it has been ignored and put off for too long. I can't judge the merits of Gates' plan so far; if anything it appears he hasn't yet gone nearly far enough. But in scrutinizing specific programs, he's taken a step in the right direction, and it's clear his fellow Republicans won't let a little fact-free hyperbole get in the way of their opposition. It's one thing to disagree, to make an argument based on information, to present alternatives and to defend them. It's quite another -- and it's become GOP SOP at this point -- simply to make stuff up.

So I continue to think that in the long run, we're screwed. Politicians like Inhofe keep getting elected, while Beck and Hannity and Bachmann and Limbaugh and Coulter and Savage and Ingraham and O'Reilly keep peddling predatory prevarications to their paranoid and panicky patrons. If such obvious emptiness hasn't been rejected by now, I doubt it ever will. Rationally to discuss making actual cuts in military spending? Unthinkable.
.

Not Good

In several posts I've made my views known about torture; how it's damaged our country, and how it's been shown to have produced no useful information (there are many more posts than those links). As more information comes out -- most specifically, the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross is now available in full -- my opinion has only solidified.

So I share concerns of many liberals regarding the reluctance of the Obama administration to release the relevant documents, nor to consider prosecution of those who dreamed it all up. This article is a good summary. It includes this paragraph:

"...Sen. Dick Durbin was forced to tearfully apologize on the Senate floor for accurately comparing our treatment of detainees at Guantanamo to the techniques used in Soviet gulags and by Gestapo interrogation squads, but those who perpetrated these war crimes have apologized for nothing, remain welcome in decent company, and are still shielded by our Government from all accountability."

It's ironic, isn't it, that as our politicians have become so polarized, they are, in effect, protecting themselves. Basting in hyper-partisanship and hyperbole, our elected officials are actually playing softball with themselves. Ever since the impeachment of Bill Clinton over oral sex, any action taken by Congress actually to investigate serious and damaging crimes by our government becomes nearly impossible, because it will be seen as payback. So we can become international war criminals, and no one has the guts to act. (Speaking of guts, there's now some attention being paid to my fellow physicians, those who aided and abetted the torture.)

I wish I knew the reasons behind Obama's reluctance. My guess it has to do with the urgency of those things on the front burner: he doesn't want to risk cooperation from the rare Republican when he might need it. Likewise, as he's trying to rebuild connections with our allies, and to make a new path toward our enemies, it might be that he considers this the wrong time to open the sores. And yet, in the long run, I'd say that fully debriding the wound is the only way to convince the world how seriously we take it. Assuming we do.


How strange that -- Obama aside -- practically the only politicians and citizens calling for airing this out are Democrats. Why should it be such a partisan matter? By all definitions and by conclusion of the international body specifically and legally designated to identify and investigate torture, the US has committed war crimes. Isn't there a single Republican leader who finds that problematic? And, were it a Democratic administration that had done it, would they still be silent? For a microsecond? In fact, there are some who see the Republicans as so frightened over the release of the torture memos and related material that they are threatening the President over it. One can only wonder what they're so worried about.
.

Beautiful

One of the "National Geographic Best" photos. No point in the post other than to provide the link.
.

Caps Off

I'm among those persuaded that adding billions of tons of carbon emissions to our atmosphere is a bad thing. Even without the science, it seems sort of obvious. But I admit I haven't tried to understand the concept of "cap and trade," which seems to be Obama's preferred way of dealing with it, in any detail. Sounds like a pretty complex solution, and open to shenanigans. On the other hand, I heard something the other night that blew my mind, to the extent that it's still possible to allow myself to be blown by a Republican.

David Frum, who by some is considered a (oxymoron alert) thoughtful Republican (well, even I linked to him in a positive way recently), the inventor of the phrase "Axis of Evil," said, on Bill Maher's show, that the best solution is a carbon tax. He might well be right: it does seem a much straighter line between policy and product. But what he added was that it's what Republicans want, and at that point I felt areas of my brain melting. I may not recover.

Now I'm not saying there aren't Republicans who might support the idea of a carbon tax. Just none that would vote for it. I mean, honestly, is there any other thing they have to offer but cutting taxes on anything and everything? Anything?

We've seen it repeated time and again: gas prices go up, Americans cut back. Prices go down, conservation melts like an icecap. It happened during the Carter era, when cars were lined up for blocks waiting to get a restricted fill-up. He put directives in place to lower our oil dependency, and when prices fell Reagan came in and poofed them like his orange hair. And now that gas prices have settled back from their recent highs, fuel-efficent cars are piling up unsold. So the idea, proposed by many, that there be a federal tax on gasoline to keep the price above three bucks (Tom Friedman says four) makes a lot of sense to me, other than the fact that it's sort of unfair to the poorest. On the other hand I think there are ways to deal with it (tax breaks on fuel efficient cars, for example), and there's no doubt in my mind that reducing oil consumption is a necessity and a benefit to us all. For security, if not for climate. Direct taxes on carbon use of all sorts seem sensible. Which is why I'm only aware of Democrats who like it -- but who believe it's not politically possible. Wonder why?

The thing about David Frum is that even though he seems fitfully capable of being thoughtful (he actually said he believes in anthropogenic climate change!), he evidently can't keep it going long enough to make sense. If the idea of a carbon tax is one that Republicans are promoting and which would get support of their Congressional leaders, it's on a planet that he visits which isn't available to the rest of us.

But I admit I'm intrigued by the idea.
.

Prediction

Ready, set, outrage. I haven't checked everywhere yet, but I'm sure it's all over the right side of the internet, and Fox.

Obama goes to Turkey and says "We're not at war with Islam."

Side bet: number of times you'll hear or read "weak on terror," "selling out," "giving away the store," "apology," and, of course, "see, we told you he's a Muslim."

Of Islam, as is the case with many things about which I'm only too happy to opine, I'm no scholar. It does seem to have a dim view of women, and Sharia law is damn harsh. As religious extremism goes, radical Islam is as bad as it gets, and then some. But I'm willing to accept that not all Muslims support flying planes into buildings or the wearing of suicide belts or the beating of women. Likewise, I'm aware not all Christians believe that I will burn in hell for all eternity (or if they do, some feel sort of bad about it), nor want to replace our government with a theocracy and turn our classrooms into Sunday school. Many. Not all. I know Christians who are content with their personal relationship with their beliefs and don't feel the need to impose them on anyone else. Likewise, I'm certain many Muslims are the same; maybe even most. Just as some Christians seem able to refrain from stoning their disobedient children to death as called for in the Bible, so, I assume, are many Muslims able to contextualize and ignore certain parts of the Koran.

Indeed the US is not at war with Islam, and I think it's good to point it out. God knows there are plenty of Christians in this country who see the desire for maintaining separation of church and state as some sort of attack on their faith, and we know where that leads. So reminding the world that it's not Islam, per se, but its most radical and dangerous elements with whom we have a problem is a potentially fruitful endeavor in my view. After all, if it's true -- and it is -- that our best hope of fighting terrorists is in gaining cooperation from those who might point them out before they pull the trigger, then dispelling the myth is worth doing.

So. Good for Barack Obama for saying what he said, knowing the vitriol it will engender in some of his countrymen. If it sinks in around the world, we'll be the better for it, even as he takes the predictable and wholly loony crap about it back home.
.

Source Material

For those among my commenters who've only heard the Hannity-shortened version of Obama's remarks in Strasbourg, in which he supposedly dissed America, apologized too much, or indicated he'd "give away the store," the full remarks are here. I find them strong, respectful of all parties, and perfectly appropriate. Fair, and balanced, even.

.

Beyond Dangerous

I suppose it was predictable. Given the slavish promotion of everything Bush, and the vitriolic and fact-free attacks on Barack Obama during the election, it's entirely unsurprising that the right-wing attack machine would be in permanent scream mode after he was elected. But I admit to being taken aback by the level it's reached of late, and the sense of danger it's creating. Even some of the wrongest of the right are worried.

See, the thing these horrible hacks don't seem to understand, while they weep at how they love their country, is that their country is a democracy. With a constitution. People vote. Things change. When they thought they were in charge, and that their opposition was not only meaningless but undeserving of respect, they were just fine with the idea of democracy. Just fine with the voice of the people as long as the voice was theirs, and theirs alone.

What exactly does Glenn Beck love about this country? Its trees? Obviously, not its laws. Or more than half its people.

If you disagree with what's going on in your democracy, what you do is organize (every hear of "community organizers?"), you get better candidates, you get better ideas, you get out the vote. And then you let the chips fall where they may. Like what happened in November. That's what's to love about America. But not for those guys. Bullies don't work that way. Bullies don't work with ideas, they work with intimidation, because they really don't have ideas. They don't love anything but their sense of entitlement. And their deep-seated insecurities.

Sore losers are not unprecedented, but I think maybe their influence, nowadays, is. These guys could never imagine losing; they can't handle being in the minority, and they're beyond embittered. They're enraged to the point of disbelief, of lying, of seeing evil wherever they look, rationalizing violence against those that beat them in the battle of ideas. It's unfathomable to them. It's deeply personal; their fragile egos are fractured. And they have an audience. Once empowered, now distraught, their devoted listeners are the same. It's religion. The pagans are at the gate; truth and righteousness are threatened. They reject my world view, my emotional support system, therefore they must be destroyed, for the sake of my self-deception. Literally.

I'm not exaggerating. In the deeply disturbed, this sort of rage is deeply rooted. Reactionary beliefs carefully constructed to keep away self-doubt, like religion, must be defended to the death, because without them, their fears become real; their sense of inferiority and persecution are revealed. Really: you can't watch Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck without seeing seriously damaged people (or, at best, complete charlatans). But there's a wide audience for guys like them, and for Hannity and Limbaugh and Malkin and Coulter and Ingraham and Savage and Bachmann. They're embittered, feeling put-down, disenfranchised, and to such people a complex world, not amenable to easy answers, is very menacing. Their wall of no discomfort has been removed, with nothing to replace it but anger and hatred and a powerful sense of aggrievement. If the world has rejected them, well, at least Glenn hasn't. He weeps for them. Rush speaks for them. And they're ready to rise up at his call. Like wounded animals, they're dangerous.

So we see sh*t like this. And this. This. Combined with this. And this. And they lie, like this. Now Billo is claiming Obama wants a one-world government. I'd be laughing, except with the crazies out there, whipped into paranoid panic, egged on by these nutjobs, what you get is this. Or THIS. And the cop-killer in Pittsburgh evidently believed the constant right-wing crazy myth that Obama was coming for his guns. Crazy, hearing voices? Yeah. On the radio and on Fox. There simply is no equivalent on the left, not lunacy and paranoia to this degree.

A commenter recently told me I give these guys too much ink (pixels, I guess), too much credence. I don't think so: they need more scrutiny and thought. I think they are irresponsible and extremely dangerous. Democracy necessarily includes folks like these; but in this environment, I'm not sure it can survive them. Not, most certainly, if they have anything to say about it.

[Update: I think many are seeing the same thing, and trying to explain it. The right wing crazies are having a really hard time dealing with reality, and it's coming out in all sorts of ways.]

.

Pissy, Kissy

Since Michelle's Queen thing got shot down, some right wing crazies, led by Michelle Malkin (who, sadly got her start around here. Geez, so did Glenn Beck), think Barack Obama humiliated us all by what is interpreted as a bow to the Saudi King.

I guess they prefer this approach:

I &hearts The Heartland

Iowa, home of tall corn and sturdy Americans, no-nonsense kind of place, where I once drove a tractor as a kid, stopping at the family farm of my dad's law partner, trailering our way across the country in the summer of '56. Sensible place, not taken much to crazy ideas. Not much in the way of elitists there. Patriots, all of them; churches with white wooden steeples hold down the edges of fields. Iowans are solid and steady; it's a place for combines, not conflagrations.

Their Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, that outlawing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Along with them, and those celebrating it, I raise my voice in a throaty and happy cry to say the obvious: DUH.

If we are a country of laws -- and we are; if we hold as ideal belief in equal justice under the law -- and we do; if we believe in separation of church and state... well, there was a time, anyway... then there's simply no other conclusion to draw. Depriving certain law-abiding citizens of a right given to everyone else, based only on a religious belief that they are evil, or on wholly unsupportable and unproven claims that giving them that same right threatens that of others, is by my reckoning immoral. And, most certainly, illegal under our laws.

I understand homosexuality makes some people uncomfortable (the more uncomfortable, the more likely -- so it seems -- to join a church and practice it under the cloth, one might conclude); I accept that to some the Bible calls it a sin (even though there's much else in the Bible that those people conveniently ignore). To the extent that they choose to live their lives with those prejudices, I say, go for it. It's when they take it outside their homes or churches and into the public square that I -- and those judges, and everyone with a couple of honest brain cells to rub together -- must draw the line. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't do it.

Well, people say, this isn't for the courts to decide. It's judicial activism (my favorite legal term, which means "judges ruling against you.") No. It's not. We have appeals courts because our founders knew people can be mean, nasty, and ruled by mobs. The ability of judges to rule unconstitutional laws which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL has been a basic principle of our legal system since Marbury v. Madison.

To people able to see facts -- a universe less densely populated in the US than in most other Western countries -- it's pretty clear that homosexuality is not a choice. They're as intelligently designed as the rest of us, one might say. And from that it follows that you can't catch it, or get recruited into it. It just is. And when you take stock of the openly gay among us, we're a much better society for the gifts they give.

As much as we hear, over and over, like tax cuts increasing revenue and other modern-day right-wing shibboleths, that same-sex marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage, I've yet to hear any actual argument that shows why that is so. Nor any evidence from places where it's allowed, that "traditional" marriage has been diminished. I rejoice in the idea of it, and so does my wife of thirty-eight years.

.

Juxtaposition

In near-perfect contrast of cluelessness and canniness are two stories simultaneously in the recent news. First, Eric Cantor, the newest new face of old ideas, claims the Democrats are overreacting to the economic crisis. Second, the Chinese are planning to lead the world in electric cars. It'll create jobs, they say, reduce pollution, and lessen their dependency on foreign oil. Huh.

Meanwhile, in the US the latest unemployment figures are released, the worst in decades, and major leaders around the world met in London to address what they see as a crisis demanding drastic global solutions. Among other moves, they pledged to pump over a trillion dollars into the IMF, and to toughen international banking rules (goodbye, off-shore tax havens). Clear-eyed, the UN Secretary General sees grave economic danger. These are not, one might be excused for thinking, facts that tend to confer on Cantor the mantle of wisdom.

For decades Congressional Republicans have thwarted efforts to raise mileage standards for US cars. Jimmy Carter, a favorite whipping boy of right-wingers, put into place a number of regulations aimed at reducing oil imports, all of which were reversed by Ronald Reagan. Hyped by our automakers, Americans bought SUVs by the millions, considering it a birthright. The GM guy just fired was the brains behind that scrotum on wheels, the Hummer. And now, way too late, our industry is trying to save itself. Asking us to save it. From decades of political denial.

Denial has been decenter of Republican policy for decades. Cantor suggests things aren't all that bad, while the rest of the world takes action; while millions have lost jobs here, with many more sure to go, he reaches into an empty bag of tricks. While the Chinese are positioning themselves to grab the future and run away with it, the Republican party insists we were doing great till Obama showed up. It seems a perfect primer on where we've been and why we're in danger of being left behind. Ignorance vs action. Head in sand vs eyes on the prize. Ideological non-thinking vs practical vision.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and their psychically wounded followers are weeping and gnashing teeth and seeing demons. Fascism. Or is it socialism? Communism? Change is hard. And for them, it's foundationally frightening. Stay with what we've been doing, they cry. Other than destroying us, it's been fine. These aren't blinders, they insist: they're magic vision enhancer thingies.

Fortunately, people like Cantor are no longer in power, although they have been for most of the last half-century -- more than enough to have done possibly irreparable damage. For now, at this terrible time, realists are now in charge. But the destruction is very great, and to admit it is to admit failure. So Cantor -- with the rest of his party leaders standing weakly behind him -- just denies, carrying the torch passed to him through decades of damaging delusion.

I guess GM and Ford and Chrysler can hope the Chinese cars will be found to be poisoning us like their toys and dog food. Maybe Eric Cantor and his party can send their poison where it'll do some good.
.

Said With Straight Face

Faith healing good; Reiki bad.

Glad they cleared it up.
.

Single-sayer

I rise yet again to speak of health care reform. In part, it's because I've begun to hear from Obama tiny echoes of parts of what I've been saying; and, in part, because I still believe I'm right (and I'm not sure he does): the solution will require a single-payer system.*

Among physicians, I'm part of a small minority who share this view. So let's address the objections of doctors: dressed in one kind of finery or another, they really boil down to one thing. If there's a single payer, they worry, we'll lose all control. Well, the thing is, we already have. And in having dozens of insurers, it just makes the screwing more of a cluster-f*ck.

Here's my point: Medicare is the US version of a single-payer system, and overall it works pretty well. Its administrative costs are low, it handles millions of patients fairly efficiently. And, if it needs pointing out again, it's NOT the same as the Canadian or English system: single-payer does NOT imply a nationalized system, with only public hospitals and public employees. But here is my point: in the US we have, in addition to Medicare, countless private insurers; yet Medicare is still the ruling force. When it changes fee schedules, so do private insurers. When it establishes certain performance criteria, so do the others. As an interesting example, when the outpatient surgery center at which I worked was seeking certification that would allow it to receive payment from private insurers, it had to get Medicare certification first, even though it did not, nor intended to, have Medicare patients. No private insurer would accept it until it had Medicare approval. We already have, in other words, a single entity that calls the shots. Except it's worse than that, because there's all these other sub-entities with more rules and layers adding cost and hassle to the operation (while expropriating money out of it). Loss of control to a single payer? We're already there. So why not simplify the system?

I have no idea how many billions of health care dollars are sucked away from the bedside by the morass of private insurers, but it has to be a ton. A ton of billions (!?) From the salaries and bonuses of insurance executives, many/most of whom make WAY more than doctors, to the profits of investors (how does it make ANY sense that people can invest in health insurers and make money from it, pocketing patients' dollars that were spent with the understanding they'd be spend on their health care?), to the tens of thousands of workers in cubicles of hospitals and businesses and carriers all across the country, doing nothing but data-entry and/or permission-getting and receiving in the convolutions of countless plans and regulations; while money intended for the provision of care is going to anything but. In elimination of redundancies, in ending the siphoning off of profits to people who have nothing to do with providing health care, with a single set of rules a single-payer system will save billions.

Properly constituted, the control issue can be addressed, and it must be. As I've written elsewhere, my concept includes a sort of board of directors composed of "providers" (great bureaucratic word, that) as well as consumers. Ideally, there'd be meaningful regulations allowing effective input on reimbursement and rules, and avenues for reevaluation and recourse. But here's the thing: I'm feeling a little less sympathetic to docs and their money worries than I once was, and it's not just because I'm retired. They have it pretty damn good now, way more than I ever did, and the trends are that it'll get even better. I refer to lifestyle. Hours worked. Stresses. If I'd had it then like they have it now, I'd never have burned out. I'd still be working.

Okay, I realize it's not yet universal, and that many docs still work like I did, and that they're burning out in the same ways, flaming in sputters as they spin into despair. But the ground is shifting. As I've described, in more and more hospitals there are round-the-clock hospital teams caring for all inpatients and covering emergency room consultations. Working predictable hours, well-paid for their efforts, they have a damn fine lifestyle: no calls at home, an orderly and planned life. And for the office-based docs in those communities, it's the same. Since someone else is admitting their patients and making the hospital rounds, seeing all comers in the ER, their lives, too, are orderly and predictable. No more going to the emergency room in the middle of the night. No more hospital care at all. Pretty sweet. Practically bankers' hours. (Of course primary care docs, given their much greater numbers compared to specialists, never had to do that very often anyway, assuming they were in a call-sharing situation.)

My former surgical partners, in addition to making more money than I ever did, no longer have to worry about interrupting their office schedule with a run to the emergency room, nor to break out of their operating list to take stairs two at a time (I could do a whole set of stairs in one motion, leaning onto the rails way down and swinging to the bottom in what was, for a lummox like me, a pretty acrobatic move. I have long arms and legs) in a rush to the ER to find god-knows-what. Not even, if they so choose, to worry about an emergency take-back on one of their own operative cases. It ain't a bad life. Ain't a bad life at all. If a single-payer system would be in some ways onerous to them, well, it's not as if they're suffering that much any more, in the ways that matter.

I've heard it said that Barack Obama, politics aside, prefers a single-payer system but feels it's not politically doable. Don't know if that's the case or no, and it'd take a hell of an effort and lots of political capital, as they say. But the idea to which I referred at the beginning of this post, and to which I heard him allude recently, is the other reform requirement I've also advocated: the need to identify those docs who provide the best care, to figure out why it is, and to spread the word. Not as a way to reward them and not the others (although that, I think ought to be part of it), but simply as a way to find out what's working and what isn't and to educate those who need it. For that, I'd be happy to sign up. Because, naturally, what I did was coster effective and resulter producing than most of my colleagues. So I aver.
____________________

*On cue, the House Republicans -- in addition to skewing the tax burden even further away from the wealthy than Bush did -- propose in their latest late budget to privatize Medicare! So they'd take the one deliverer of medical care that does so efficiently and lard it with private insurance, which, most clearly, would increase the costs!! It's as if they want to be seen as irrelevant and incapable.


.

Steaming Joe

I've always admired Joe Stiglitz, and not just because we shared the same college campus for a couple of years. He's always been able to make clear and understandable a subject about which I don't know a hell of a lot, but wish I did; namely, economics. His Nobel Prize didn't hurt, either.

So this disturbs me:

"(The) Obama administration’s $500 billion or more proposal to deal with America’s ailing banks has been described by some in the financial markets as a win-win-win proposal. Actually, it is a win-win-lose proposal: the banks win, investors win — and taxpayers lose...

...Consider an asset that has a 50-50 chance of being worth either zero or $200 in a year’s time. The average “value” of the asset is $100. Ignoring interest, this is what the asset would sell for in a competitive market. It is what the asset is “worth.” Under the plan by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the government would provide about 92 percent of the money to buy the asset but would stand to receive only 50 percent of any gains, and would absorb almost all of the losses. Some partnership!

Assume that one of the public-private partnerships the Treasury has promised to create is willing to pay $150 for the asset. That’s 50 percent more than its true value, and the bank is more than happy to sell. So the private partner puts up $12, and the government supplies the rest — $12 in “equity” plus $126 in the form of a guaranteed loan.

If, in a year’s time, it turns out that the true value of the asset is zero, the private partner loses the $12, and the government loses $138. If the true value is $200, the government and the private partner split the $74 that’s left over after paying back the $126 loan. In that rosy scenario, the private partner more than triples his $12 investment. But the taxpayer, having risked $138, gains a mere $37.

Even in an imperfect market, one shouldn’t confuse the value of an asset with the value of the upside option on that asset."

From what little I understand, it's been my impression that the Geithner plan is predicated on success; i.e., he must think it's so likely to work that the downside isn't something to worry about. If it does work, everyone comes out ahead, even us taxpayers. But, as ol' Joe points out in the full article, the plan is not unlike the excesses that got us here in the first place, in its reliance on over-leveraging; in this case, risking government money.

I'd sure like to hear a specific response to this from the administration.

.

The Surge Is Working

On the list of outrageous statements we heard during the recent presidential campaign, the claim that "the surge is working" was pretty near the top for me. To the extent that violence was down, I believed -- along with many other more adept observers than I -- it was NOT due to the addition of a few thousand troops, but was, rather, a result of the so-called "Sunni Awakening" and the concomitant deals-with-the-devil made by our military leaders there. Ultimate success, it seemed obvious, would depend on the extent to which Iraqis might rise above eons of religious hatred between the Sunnis and Shia. And, given the history of such hatreds around the world (and most especially in Iraq), there was really not a lot to hope for. Far be it from me to claim that religious prejudice is the root of most evil; but anyone with more than two pyramidal neurons would rightly conclude that it's no more likely that those embittered Muslim factions would reconcile than it is that Texas will stop electing creationists to its legislature and that the creationists will stop trying to banish science from schools.

The fact is that in invading Iraq we unleashed a fury. Expecting a sustainable government to be formed which includes Shia and Sunni working together is like expecting Rush Limbaugh to start praising Barack Obama. They are oil and water. Bug and windshield. Pediatrician and surgeon.

And so it is that this article is unsurprising, if deeply worrisome. Its author, Thomas Ricks, has been mostly right about mostly everything over there. In the milder parts of the article, he says:

"...the Maliki government is putting the screws to the Awakening movement (for those who just arrived, that's a mainly Sunni group of about 100,000 people, many of them former insurgents, who in late 2006 and 2007 arrived at ceasefires with the U.S. military presence in Iraq). The American plan was to integrate about 20,000 members of Awakening groups into Iraqi security forces, and help the rest find other work...

Maliki's guys are:

• Arresting some leaders of the "Sons of Iraq" (the American term for Awakening forces)
• Attacking others
• Bringing only 5,000 of the ex-insurgents into the Iraqi security forces
• And stiffing others on pay, with some complaining they haven't been paid in weeks or even months

I think Maliki's gambit is to crack down on the Sunnis while American forces are still available in sufficient numbers to back him up. This is a turning into a test of strength, Sunni vs. Shiite..."

[Ricks has a follow-up article today. Same message, or worse.]

For no good reason, and with no thought aforethought, George Bush lit a fuse that we can't extinguish. At some point we'll have to admit the horror of it and let it play out as it will. If after all these years and lives and efforts and trillions we haven't been able to make the impossible happen, what other actions can be tried that will?

By "horror," I mean "HORROR." We have caused people to die for no good reason, and we will cause countless more to do the same. Facing reality, we'll have to walk away at some point, knowing full well that in doing so we'll be removing the tourniquets and letting the blood flow. Even if we decided to stay indefinitely -- a political and economic impossibility -- the end result can't be avoided, only deferred. The same deaths will happen, more slowly delivered, over a longer time, leading, sooner or later, to the resumption of civil war, with or without our troops in the middle.

It's an unavoidable catastrophe, and it will inevitably fall upon Barack Obama to let it unfold. It's only a matter of whether he can make it understood. Not acceptable; just understood. The analogy that haunts me is this:

Hiking in the wilderness, you come upon a horrible scene: a man is lying on his belly at the edge of a cliff, holding the hand of a young woman who is dangling and thrashing, fear in her eyes. The man yells for help, he's losing his grip. "It's my fault," he cries. "I told her it would be okay. I made her come with me..." Laying next to the man, grabbing onto some weeds for stability, you manage to catch the woman's other hand, just as the man lets go. I'll go for help, he says, and disappears. And now you are holding on, one hand in one hand, looking straight into the woman's face, she dangling, you grasping at more weeds trying not to get pulled over yourself. Time passes, the hands are sweating, your muscles are burning, you don't have the strength to pull her to safety, and your purchase on the ground is loosening. At some point, even as she looks you in the eye, pleading, you realize you'll have to let go, and watch her drop to her death. And then you do.

There was no choice. But how do you live with that?
.

...py New Year*

_________________________________
(*)

.