Another Iraq milestone
This is a bit more scientific than Lieberman's comment in the Post that "In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops." From the December 29 Military Times Poll:

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

(Via Greg Sargent, "TPMCafe". Link to poll results added.) There were slightly more respondents for current or lower troop levels in Iraq when asked "How many troops do you think we should have there?" than for higher troop levels. Fully 13% answered "zero." (Margin of error: +/- 3 percentage points.)

The pollsters point out that the poll samples Military Times subscribers, and caution that results "should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population." On the other hand, "the poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military. It is the only independent poll done on an annual basis."

The armed forces shouldn't be run based on polls of their opinions, of course, but it would be nice if the civilians in charge didn't misrepresent those opinions to suit their political needs.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:50:00 AM -- |    

 
And all we got was this lousy noose
The BBC is reporting that Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging a few hours ago:

Iraqi TV said the execution took place just before 0600 local time (0300GMT).

The news was confirmed to the BBC by the Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister, Labeed Abawi.

I'm mainly struck by how strategically useless to the U.S. this seems now, compared to how important it seemed (to me, too) when Saddam was captured three years ago. Iraq is burning; the death of the strongman named Saddam makes less difference now that multiple replacements have emerged.

It appears just about everything about the trial was botched if justice or national reconciliation were the goals. Scott Horton ("Balkinization") commented earlier this week that the trial did not meet Nuremberg standards, let alone Yugoslavian or Rwandan trial standards, and that the execution would short-circuit trials for other crimes against humanity by Saddam. Meanwhile, even the timing of the execution may have been ill-chosen -- at least if, like Joe Lieberman, you're dreaming that there's some kind of "multiethnic, moderate coalition" to work with in Iraq. Writing for Salon, Juan Cole ("Informed Comment") observes:

The tribunal also had a unique sense of timing when choosing the day for Saddam's hanging. It was a slap in the face to Sunni Arabs. This weekend marks Eid al-Adha, the Holy Day of Sacrifice, on which Muslims commemorate the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son for God. Shiites celebrate it Sunday. Sunnis celebrate it Saturday –- and Iraqi law forbids executing the condemned on a major holiday. Hanging Saddam on Saturday was perceived by Sunni Arabs as the act of a Shiite government that had accepted the Shiite ritual calendar.

Great -- in your face, Anbar province Sunnis. Just what I understand they like to hear. On Friday, Iraqi blogger Riverbend ("Baghdad Burning") wrote:

...Saddam no longer represents himself or his regime. Through the constant insistence of American war propaganda, Saddam is now representative of all Sunni Arabs (never mind most of his government were Shia). The Americans, through their speeches and news articles and Iraqi Puppets, have made it very clear that they consider him to personify Sunni Arab resistance to the occupation. Basically, with this execution, what the Americans are saying is "Look- Sunni Arabs- this is your man, we all know this. We're hanging him- he symbolizes you."

(Via Cole.) If this is how many Iraqi Sunnis see things, it'll be even tougher than usual the next many weeks.

I don't doubt we'll hear some kind of tough talk about this in the upcoming State of the Union address. But while that may help Bush convince himself this was all worth thousands of lives -- worth the investment, in Condoleeza Rice's stirring phrase -- it's doubtful most Americans will join him when this is what little they're going to get for them.


=====
OTHER MUTED REACTIONS: Josh Marshall ("Convention dictates that we precede any discussion of this execution with the obligatory nod to Saddam's treachery, bloodthirsty rule and tyranny."); Jim Henley; Jonathan Schwarz ("Tiny Revolution"); Robert Farley ("Lawyers, Guns, and Money"); Tony Hendra; Marc Lynch ("Abu Aardvark") 1, 2. VERSUS: PajamasMedia roundup, via Glenn Reynolds ("Instapundit").

UPDATE, 1/1: The executioner and a government official chanted or shouted pro-Sadr (son- and father-in-law) slogans, although the prosecutor tried to maintain some decorum. Via Jonathan Schwarz ("A Tiny Revolution"), a cell phone video transcribed by Reyad ("Healing Iraq"; links added):

Saddam (as the noose is put around his neck): Ya Allah (Oh God).
Someone in the audience: Mercy be on those who pray for Mohammed and the household of Muhammed (Everyone repeats the prayer, including Saddam) -
Executioner and two people in the audience: ... And hasten his return (the Mahdi), curse his enemy and grant victory to his son, Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada! (This is a common Sadrist chant.)
Saddam (smirking): Muqtada? Is this your manhood? (unclear)
NSA Muwafaq Al-Rubai'i: To Hell!
Saddam: (laughing) ... and disgrace to you. (unintelligible)
Prosecutor Munqidh Al-Far'awn: Please, no.
Muwafaq Al-Rubai'i: Long live Mohammed Baqir Al-Sadr!
Someone in the audience: To Hell!
Prosecutor Munqidh Al-Far'awn: No. Please, no. I beg you. The man is in an execution.
Saddam (solemnly recites the Shahada prayer): I witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah. I witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Mohammed is the-- (trap door is opened).

UPDATE, 1/3: Iraqi blogger roundup by Zeyad at "IraqSlogger." Several comments on inappropriate date, sectarian atmosphere, several expressing satisfaction about Saddam's death. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:36:00 PM -- |    

 
Thinking ahead: the January 27th demonstration
Bush and Cheney are apparently planning to dig in their heels and escalate U.S. forces in Iraq -- despite (1) Democratic victories in November repudiating Bush's Iraq policies and (2) the theoretically more palatable James Baker-led ISG report recommending no further troop increases. In a recent Washington Post op-ed escalation advocates Fred Kagan and Jack Keane choose the misleading euphemism "surge" to describe increasing troop levels by "at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so" and insist any troop increase must be "large and lasting."

As Congressman Chris Van Hollen put it, "Any decision to escalate in Iraq would suggest that the president is either politically tone deaf or deliberately ignoring the will of the vast majority of the American people." As commander in chief, it's Bush's prerogative to do that (barring law to the contrary) -- but as the people of the United States, it's ours to vigorously oppose him. Americans said what they wanted in November, and it's time again to remind the president, Congress, and the media of that.

But how?

The January 27th demonstration is clearly one of the best opportunities for citizens to speak out against escalation and for ending the war. But one of the last major D.C. demonstrations, on September 24, 2005, was arguably ignored by major news media, let alone the political class. Afterwards, writers I respect like James Wolcott, Steve Gilliard, and Barbara O'Brien criticized that demonstration's agenda as overly broad and/or its tone as (to overly simplify) too raucous to be politically productive.

While I disagreed at the time -- feeling a political outsider point of view was entitled to celebrate itself, jack up its numbers with as many allies as possible, and broaden the scope of the political critique however it saw fit -- maybe the situation is different now. After the November 7 elections, maybe it's time to plan to act like a focused majority and not a counterculture -- more "so say we all" than "voice in the wilderness," more "bring the troops home" than "U.S. out of North America."

It's probably to the good that A.N.S.W.E.R. isn't involved this time. Even so, the organization of the demonstration is obviously out of most of our hands, and is unlikely to be affected by this post or any discussions it raises. Likewise, it's in the nature of things that a huge demonstration will attract hugely demonstrative people, with assorted costumes, puppets, political theater, rude messages and whatnot. I'm not against any of that (particularly costumes, of course) by a long shot. But again, the rest of us might want to send our own message, set our own tone, and prepare to be our own spokespersons:

• Regarding tone, I'm going to take a leaf from Barbara O'Brien's "Protesting 101" and the 60s civil rights marchers by being demonstratively serious: best clothes, tie, etcetera. Think of it as just another costume, perhaps.
• Regarding message, I'd like to have a decent quality sign saying something like "We are the majority: Bring the troops home", or "We are the majority: No escalation in Iraq," or "We are the majority: Impeach Bush." (Or just investigate him, if you prefer.) Just as Bush et al are trying to sell a euphemism for escalation, or frame things to at least allow continued U.S. presence in Iraq, so should we frame them to move the window of acceptable discussion where we'd like to see it: away from escalation and occupation, towards accountability.
  
• Regarding preparation, I'm planning to have (1) a short explanation of my views ready for any reporter who happens to ask me why I'm there; it's happened before, and I wasn't entirely happy with my off the cuff answer, and (2) a notepad, a ballpoint pen and a digital camera to record and report the day the way I saw it. (Also, a (3) video camera wouldn't be bad for YouTubers out there.)
  

This still doesn't mean "me and 300,000 other people agree on every element of a 13 point plan," my ironic take on what some critics seemed to demand in 2005. I'm just suggesting that maybe demonstrators can set their ambitions a little higher than just showing "how many of you there are, and how spirited you are about it." As always, suggestions, discussion, and disagreements are welcome in comments.

Like it or not, a large part of the success or failure of this demonstration will come from how it's portrayed by established media like the Washington Post or the major TV networks. We're more or less helpless about how or even whether they'll choose to cover the demonstration, but we should still be ready to influence that coverage any way we can. As O'Brien writes:

You want people looking on to be favorably impressed. You want them to think, wow, I like these people.

Honestly, that shouldn't be a problem; but also honestly, it can be.


=====
NOTES: "planning to dig in..." and Van Hollen quote link to "Bush and Security Advisers to Meet Today on Iraq Strategy", Washington Post, 12/28/06, Michael Abramowitz and Josh White; (ironic) "take" link to comment on an eRobin ('factesque") post about the 9/24/05 demonstration. O'Brien's "Protesting 101" post via a Gary Farber post I remembered about it. Chris Bowers wrote something similar just before that demonstration. Returning to immediate, practical considerations, visit the UFPJ site to see how to help; they'd like donations, of course, but also local coordinators for all 435 Congressional Districts. Maybe you can be one.

TIMING, 12/29: The demonstration will happen in the week off between the NFL conference championships and the February 4 Super Bowl (and is on a Saturday in any case). Judging by recent history, it's likely to precede the State of the Union address, which I'm guessing will be on Tuesday, January 30.

UPDATE, 12/31: eRobin and Barbara O'Brien had a good discussion of O'Brien's "Protesting 101" crosspost at "American Street." posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:15:00 PM -- |    

 
Tipping points of the last two years
Josh Marshall asks an interesting question at TPMCafe:

...far from having the political capital he boasted of in November 2004, President Bush is positively radioactive in much of the country. Certainly, he is more consistently unpopular than probably any president in modern American history. So here's the question. Was there a key galvanizing event? And if so, what was it? Katrina? The failed Social Security gambit? Abramoff? Or was it simply the long political fuse of Iraq finally catching up with the president? Certainly all these events and trends played a role. But what was the tipping point? Looking back, what mattered most?

"Tipping point" is an interesting concept; whole books have been written about it, and there are certainly any number of web sites and articles applying the idea to social change, climate change, and epidemics, to name a few. Think of a penny balanced on its edge; with just a small push at this tipping point, it falls heads or tails.

But usually tipping point also means that once the tipping's done, a new equilibrium rules: i.e., the penny lies flat, heads or tails. It seems to me that both the 2000 and 2004 elections showed that the whole country was roughly balanced at a tipping point -- but throughout Bush's first term. And without at least two photo finishes in Montana and Virginia, the 2006 election wouldn't have quite the same promise of being a watershed event (similar notion, I think) in its own right. So being at a "tipping point" has become a political way of life in this country.

Still, there's an undeniable change of momentum, and Marshall proposes a number of events that may have provided the impetus. I'd add at least a few other suggestions: Cindy Sheehan's vigil at Bush's Crawford ranch (August 2005) , the Scooter Libby indictment (October 2005), the Samarra mosque bombing (February 2006) the Foley scandal (September 2006), and the overwhelming 90-9 passage of the McCain amendment prohibiting torture by US personnel (October 2005).

You don't have to agree with Sheehan on every count to acknowledge that her vigil was supremely effective political theater. The symbolism and, yes, spectacle of a dead soldier's mother confronting a president off on yet another vacation resulted in a public relations shellacking for Rove and Bush that they never did figure out how to address. At least as important, she was an inspirational rallying point when others were ready to throw up their hands and just wonder what the matter was with Kansas, so to speak. Camp Casey may have been a "little tipping point" between giving up and not giving up for a lot of people.

That isn't to say the other events listed above didn't play important roles, too. The Social Security debate showed what even a humbled Democratic Party could do if it stuck together and stuck to its guns about an issue. The Schiavo travesty was an extremely sharp reminder of the Bush administration's identification with and service to its radical base. It's hard to classify a continuous debacle like Iraq as a "tipping point," but the Samarra mosque bombing in February 2006 was at least one of several waypoints towards irrevocable civil war and the attendant American public disillusionment. For all that Senator McCain wasso deeply disappointing later on in his support for the Military Commissions Act, the McCain amendment vote was a rare but important legislative defeat for the Bush administration, and showed there was the possibility of a broad coalition against human rights abuses by this country. And the Foley scandal might deserve to be the runnerup; it dominated news coverage, undercut GOP claims to the "moral values" vote, and it was far more easy to understand than the convoluted webs of corruption woven by the likes of Abramoff and DeLay.

But the big tipping point, I think, hit with hurricane force. It was the Katrina disaster that irrevocably lost Bush the respect of his electorate, and knocked a lot of the swagger out from under the "drown the government" crowd that supplies half of the Republican Party's ideology. As Boyd Blundell wrote in May, Katrina

...offered irrefutable images that [Bush] was not looking after the common good. It undermined the average American's self-image of being part of a country that actually worked. Without consciously changing their mind on a single policy, a good quarter of the country just stopped believing in the President.

It turned out Americans didn't like seeing their government fail at essential services; they were, in fact, profoundly ashamed. Even if that memory has receded more than it should have, Katrina tipped the scales from Bush the Bold to Bush the Bumbler, and crucially had nothing to do with terrorism or Iraq -- for which Bush deserved a failing grade as well, but which had been politicized seemingly beyond all hope of consensus.

Katrina, by contrast, was an undeniable, consensus disaster of biblical proportion -- with an equally undeniable, consensus verdict that knaves and fools were "leading" the country as the levees broke. While Bush's approval ratings were already declining by late August 2005, it never recovered from the additional hit Katrina delivered. I'd argue that Katrina provided the point of comparison and even, for many, the psychological permission to realize that Bush was likely a screwup in Iraq as well.

Katrina was and remains a breach of faith between a government and its people, and I think it's not "merely" right for Democrats to address it -- it's politically smart to do so. Democrats must establish themselves as the "can do" party, and whatever they can do in the Gulf coast will simultaneously remind voters of the "can't do" party. Whether or not that translates into winning a particular Louisiana or Missisissippi election down the road, it could be a "tipping point" too: reminding voters of what a government with and by adults can look like, and helping them decide that's the kind of government they want.


=====
NOTE: "never recovered" leads to a graph of presidential approval ratings by Charles Franklin ("Political Arithmetik"), a UW political science professor who puts Katrina more in the middle of the pack of "galvanizing moments":

Katrina was a substantial "hit" to approval after a decent summer in which the approval decline had flattened out a little bit (though not started back up) after a very poor winter and spring that included the failed social security reform.

However, "never recovered" seems a fair reading of the graph as well. DemFromCT ("The Next Hurrah") cites Gallup findings suggesting that it wasn't Bush's job approval ratings that changed so much -- just evaluations of his competency and leadership.

UPDATE, 12/28: Marshall links to several responses including ones by Mark Schmitt and Todd Gitlin. For his own part, Marshall agrees with a reader that the Social Security debate was key, pointing out that Bush's fortunes were declining before Katrina. Elsewhere, digby bends the rules and IDs the pre-2004 election Duelfer report officially concluding there were no Iraqi WMD ("it just took a while to sink in.")
posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:43:00 PM -- |