Xark!

"Civil war" in Iraq?

Monday morning on The Today Show, Matt Lauer announced a decision by NBC and MSNBC to reject administration pressure and begin referring to the situation in Iraq by the term "civil war." The decision put great pressure on other media -- including bloggers -- to either follow suit or be labeled as water-carrying shills for the White House.

In the ensuing days, we have resisted adopting the mainstream media's new description of the war. However, after careful consideration, Xark News has decided that a change in terminology is warranted -- that the situation in Iraq, with multiple armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas, and 2,000 civilians dead in the past month, and repeated policy blunders by U.S. political leaders, and neighboring countries acting out their geopolitical ambitions via insurgent proxies, and American troops caught daily in an endless crossfire in which their best efforts may be making things worse, and thousands of years of religious and cultural grievances that we have practically no hope of fully understanding -- can now be characterized as what it truly is: a massive cluster f**k (or, for the sake of brevity, MCF, as in "the MCF in Iraq" or "the Iraq MCF").

Calling the situation what it is represents an important step in helping Americans properly frame the decisions we face.  Sorry, NBC. "Civil war" doesn't even begin to describe the complexity of the issues that confront us.

White House: WWII a bad analogy

The August-September subtext from the neocons was obvious enough that even I could read it: The White House (though not so overtly the president) made a concerted effort to cast all discussions of the Global War Against Terrorism and its subset, Iraq, in terms of World War II. The choice, we were told, was a simple one between appeasement and manliness.

I thought this was bullshit, and said so at the time.

But with the Iraq war now officially longer than U.S. involvement in World War II, suddenly the rhetorical tables have turned. Suddenly comparisons to WWII are inappropriate, according to the vice president. Here's a clip from Colbert to sort it all out for you.

Week 13 NFL Picks

I got lucky for the second week in a row, going 13-2. That doesn't make me an expert though, or I would have noticed that I neglected to pick the Cincinnati v. Cleveland game. Because I'm a dork.

Can I stay lucky for the third straight week? Can I keep my season winning percentage at .714?

I wouldn't bet on it.

Week 13 NFL Power Rankings

Life is intruding on my blogging these days, which is why you're getting this week's rankings on Wednesday instead of right after the MNF game. There were no huge shakeups this week, but the post-season picture really started coming into focus...

Week 12 NFL picks

Last week was my best of the year (I went 14-2, missing on Seattle-San Francisco and the Titans-Eagles), which can only mean one thing: This week I'll go 2-14.  Plus it's a short week, so I've got to pick these things early...

Week 12 NFL Power Rankings

The San Diego Chargers have been quietly rising up the charts all season, but it's time to make some noise about them: They're the best team in professional football.

Week 11 NFL picks

There hasn't been time this week for me to post, much less pick, but here goes...

Week 11 NFL Power Rankings

Sometimes the best plan isn't a plan

The big story this news cycle is the White House's rejection of the Democrats' "plan" for a phased withdrawal from Iraq. To be clear, this is not really a plan, but the gist of comments from the Sunday morning news shows.

But even that may be too much of a plan for where we stand today.

Say, anybody out there have a plan for solving our Iraq problem? Anybody think that if we just do X, everything will simply fall into order and we'll march out to smiles and waves from our new Iraqi allies?

I don't have a plan and I don't believe in any magic X. My advice to Democrats is simple: Don't trust any simple solutions. This is why it never bothered me that Democrats didn't offer any detailed plans for fixing Iraq in either 2004 or 2006: Solving complex international problems by centralized political planning is seldom a good idea.

Original White House intentions aside, it is safe to say that we are in the mess we face today because America's political leadership didn't listen to the voices of wise counsel within its professional ranks. Jay Garner was replaced by the disastrous Paul Bremer. Dissent among senior officers was squelched to such an extent that otherwise loyal generals found themselves in revolt against the stubbornly wrongheaded edicts of Donald Rumsfeld. Democratic critiques from Capitol Hill were not heard at all.

Solving Iraq will take more than grand political plans and arbitrary deadlines. The best thing the Democrats can do right now is to make sure that the White House opens its ears to the voices it has long ignored. Bring in the mavericks and heretics from Spookworld, the State Department, the armed forces and both parties. Empower the smart people who have been ignored for the past four years. Try diplomacy and reach out to other nations as well. Remember that we have an executive branch for a reason.

A general direction change is fine, but I hope the Democratic plan for Iraq goes something like this: Rescue America's smart professionals from the political wilderness to which they have been consigned, and use what clout you have to make sure they get a chance to help us steer our way out of this tricky passage.

Week 10 NFL picks

After the jump: 16 games in order of confidence...