that I didn't expect to get much attention, but there it is. Must See Film: The Devil Came on Horseback . The film chronicles the efforts of a former U.S. Marine who found himself as witness to the genocide in Darfur, and has been bending over backwards to get the international community involved. Powerful stuff (the film, not my diary).

He's over in Iraq right now and he said some very pertinent things.

He said what US troops are doing over there matters. He said that what they are doing is making a difference. I know the conservatives here don't like to hear Democrats say such things, but it's true. We aren't the ones who are your problem. It's your chosen leaders who are your problem.

Senator Durbin also said that the troops he's talked to don't hate being in Iraq, but feel like they're wasting their time and lives because the people they're there for (the Iraqi's & the bush43 administration that has sent them there) don't care about them beyond the headlines they can make.

He said the troops (and the military commanders he spoke to so far) say that the Iraqi government is doing absolutely nothing about taking the stability and turf we're giving them and making that a functional national setting. He said the Iraqi's are still acting like it's a gang war turf battle between each other. He said the Iraqi government doesn't really exist outside the Green Zone and that the current government is nothing but a Shia (Sadr) puppet. One of the US commanders he spoke to said that at this point, it doesn't matter if we pull US troops out now, or ten years from now. The Commander told Senator Durbin the Iraqi's are only set to kill each other whenever the US pulls out.

I know the bush43 administration is hanging their hat on the hope that we leave Iraq a pseudo-western democracy that will sell us oil. I know that Darth Cheney really only cares about the oil distribution law that the Iraqi's have yet to pass. Who'se kidding who? As soon as we're gone, any oil contracts that've been signed will be torn up and a whole new round of bribery and corruption will occur.

I'm sorry that dubya pulled off such a boneheaded move as to leave Afghanistan and attack Iraq, but not admitting it was a complete mistake only gets more American GI's killed for no good reason.

We liberals support our troops. We care about them, what happens to them and their families. When are the Republicans in our midst going to start treating our troops as more than chess pieces and cannon fodder for their news headlines? When are the Republicans in our country going to stand up and do something about the troops we've all put in harms way? When?

Just too good not to share. The newly elected head of the Young Republican National Federation goes down.

(h/t Dan Savage)

- Fox reports breathlessly on the ("warning! contains graphic language") horror of firemen who were forced to attend a Gay Pride parade, and are now suing for sexual harassment:

I'm not clear from the article if the firefighters were ordered to march in the parade or if they were ordered to be on hand for safety purposes.

I don't think they should be compelled to march in a parade they don't agree with, but if they were there to do their actual jobs then they get to suck it up (no pun intended).

I assume if a fire broke out in a gay club these men would do their job regardless, even if it means be exposed to a sexual lifestyle they aren;t comfortable with. If not they should be fired.

General Wes Clark has a diary on dKos talking about exiting Iraq. Here are two snips, first from the diary:

But we have to get out the right way, because unlike Vietnam, when we leave Iraq, we'll still be left with significant interests in the region. We'll still have concerns about Iranian nuclear potential, the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, our friends in the Arab Gulf, and yes, the security of the world's principal supply of oil. These interests won't go away simply by pulling U.S. troops out.

And then from a comment that specifically addresses the logistics of withdrawal:

If everything else just stopped, and we did nothing but backhaul, then maybe you could get out in six-eight months, plus a few more months for the clean-up of the sites. But everything won't just stop....

You have to imagine the psychological and political impact as we leave...at first, there's a dimuntion of violence and casualties....in back rooms and garages, and underground bunkers, the factions are planning and preparing, working to exploit the security and power vacuum that we will leave...

snip

So as the drawdown progresses, the risks increase, until, by the end, we're left with a few thousand troops supported by airpower battling their way to Kuwait with their equipment, or clustered around the airport. Politically, what's left of the Iraqi government is unlikely to survive such an exit.

And so, this means that there will have to be polotical arrangements worked inside Iraq, and within the region, that can "cover" the withdrawal of the American forces. Maybe a series of understandings between neighboring states; maybe brokered agreements between factions, witnessed by neighboring states. Maybe there's a role for the Arab League, OIC, or UN.

But all of this has to be worked. And none of it has begun yet.

snip

And in the meantime, countries will be asking, "so, is this the end of America in the Mid East? Should we allow the Americans to continue to base their ships or land their aircraft here, or will that make us the next target? Must we make new security arrangements with other powers?

snip

So, all of this should give some pause to those who say, let's just pull out immediately, and demand that the troops come immediately.

Good stuff. We have to move into this level of thinking about this. It's gonna be hell any way we slice it. There's a place for the blame game, but we need to be talking strategy and taking a hard look at what we face in the future.

EDIT: Found one more Clark comment that's pertinent, I think. This is the entire comment

Bernie, Democrats [PF: all, I believe, not just elected] need to demand a more realistic and strategic appraisal on the Iraq issue, and then demand that their elected representatives follow through by raising the debate from the tactical to the strategic. Stop talking troops and start talking policy.

CRS report here

it's pretty interesting and covers they strengths and weaknesses. the following tidbits struck me as particularly interesting:

Observers believe a near-term focus of China’s military modernization is to field
a force that can succeed in a short-duration conflict with Taiwan and act as an antiaccess force to deter U.S. intervention or delay the arrival of U.S. forces, particularly naval and air forces, in such a conflict. Some analysts speculate that China may attain (or believe that it has attained) a capable maritime anti-access force, or elements of it, by about 2010. Other observers believe this will happen later. Potential broader or longer-term goals of China’s naval modernization include asserting China’s regional military leadership and protecting China’s maritime territorial, economic, and energy interests.

...

Theater-Range Ballistic Missiles (TBMs). One of the most prominent
elements of China’s military modernization has been the deployment of large
numbers of theater-range ballistic missiles (TBMs)15 capable of attacking targets in Taiwan or other regional locations. Among these are CSS-6 and CSS-7 short-range
ballistic missiles (SRBMs) deployed in locations across from Taiwan. DOD states
that China as of October 2006 had deployed 875 to 975 CSS-6 and CSS-7 TBMs, and
that this total is increasing at a rate of more than 100 missiles per year.16
Although ballistic missiles in the past have traditionally been used to attack
fixed targets on land, DOD and other observers believe China is developing TBMs
equipped with maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) capable of hitting moving
ships at sea. In January 2007, the Director of National Intelligence stated:
The Chinese are developing more capable long-range conventional strike systems
and short- and medium-range ballistic missiles with terminally guided
maneuverable warheads able to attack US carriers and airbases.17

Observers have expressed strong concern about this development, because such
missiles, in combination with broad-area maritime surveillance and targeting systems, would permit China to attack moving U.S. Navy ships in the Western
Pacific. The U.S. Navy has not previously faced a threat from highly accurate
ballistic missiles capable of hitting moving ships at sea. Due to their ability to
change course, MaRVs would be more difficult to intercept than non-maneuvering
ballistic missile reentry vehicles. DOD states that:

To prevent deployment of naval forces into western Pacific waters, PLA
planners are focused on targeting surface ships at long ranges. Analyses of
current and projected force structure improvements suggest that in the near term,
China is seeking the capacity to hold surface ships at risk through a layered
defense that reaches out to the “second island chain” (i.e., the islands extending
south and east from Japan, to and beyond Guam in the western Pacific Ocean).
One area of apparent investment emphasis involves a combination of mediumrange
ballistic missiles, C4ISR for geo-location of targets, and onboard guidance
systems for terminal homing to strike surface ships on the high seas or their
onshore support infrastructure. This capability would have particular
significance, owing to the preemptive and coercive options it would provide
China in a regional crisis.18

According to a 2005 press report, “navy officials project [that such missiles]
could be capable of targeting US warships from sometime around 2015.”19 A July
2007 press report states that another observer believes that a MARV-equipped
version of the CSS-6 may be close to initial operational status.20 The CSS-6 is also known as the DF-21, and the MARV-equipped version has been referred to as the
DF-21C.21

...

Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs). China is modernizing its extensive
inventory of anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), which can be launched from landbased strike fighters and bombers, surface combatants, submarines and possibly
shore-based launchers. Among the most capable of the new ASCMs that have been
or are being acquired by the PLA Navy are the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn
(carried by China’s four Russian-made Sovremenny-class destroyers) and the SS-N-
27 Sizzler (carried by eight of China’s Russian-made Kilo-class submarines). DOD
states that “The pace of [China’s] indigenous ASCM research, development and
production — and of foreign procurement — has accelerated over the past decade.”24

Surface-To-Air Missiles (SAMs). China is deploying modern surface-to-air
missile (SAM) systems across from Taiwan, including long-range and high-altitude
systems that have an advertised range sufficient to cover the entire Taiwan Strait, which is roughly 100 nautical miles (185 kilometers) wide. Advanced SAMs may have some effectiveness against stealthy aircraft. Longer- and shorter- range SAM systems deployed along China’s coast opposite Taiwan would in combination give
China a multilayer defense against enemy aircraft seeking to operate over the Strait or approach that portion of China’s coast.25

...

China’s submarine modernization effort is producing a substantially more
modern and capable submarine force. As shown in Table 1, observers expect China
to have a total of 28 Shang, Kilo, Yuan, and Song class submarines in commission
by the end of 2007.

Although China’s aging Ming- and Romeo-class submarines are based on old
technology and are much less capable than the PLA Navy’s newer-design
submarines, China may decide that these older boats have continued value as
minelayers or as bait or decoy submarines that can be used to draw out enemy
submarines (such as U.S. SSNs) that can then be attacked by more modern PLA
Navy submarines.32

...

Another observer, expressing a different view on the issue of the frequency of
Chinese submarine patrols, states that “Chinese submarines slip out into open seas
from underwater tunnels and are virtually undetectable.” Regarding an October 2006
incident involving a Song-class SS that surfaced near the U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk while it was operating near Okinawa, this observer states that after the submarine was detected on the surface, the submarine “submerged and disappeared,defeating all U.S. anti-submarine warfare (ASW) efforts to detect it.”

...

Houbei-Class Fast Attack Craft. In addition to its 190 older fast attack craft
(including 37 armed with ASCMs), China in 2004 introduced a new type of ASCMarmed
fast attack craft, called the Houbei class, that uses a stealthy, wave-piercing,
catamaran hull. Observers believe the hull design — one of the more advanced used
by any navy in the world today — is based on a design developed by a firm in
Australia, a country which is a world leader in high-speed catamaran designs. At
least four of these new fast attack craft are now in service. A large number additional units are expected as replacements for China’s older and less-advanced fast attack craft, although one observer states that production of the Houbei-class design has not been as fast as originally expected.”50

Want to see a pic of that new catamaran fast attack craft?

Does anyone still think we are winning in Iraq?