Impossible Scissors

Like a tired, old football coach, the Iranians are going back to the old playbook in their war against the West: taking hostages. It's been over a week since 15 Britons were captured, most likely on the Iraqi side of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway. Since then, we've seen them being paraded in propaganda videos and making coerced statements. It appears that Iranian radicals still haven't learned that taking hostages is generally not a good thing (as occurred in 1979-81, which motivated the US to support Iraq in an eight-year war that killed over three million Iraqis and Iranians.)

I'm always struck by our media's double standard on the treatment of Prisoners of War (in this case, the abduction of the prisoners constituted the act of war.) Whenever a Muslim accuses the Americans of torture, the media is on the story like flies on a carcass in the hot sun. When a Muslim nation blatantly violates the Geneva conventions with its western prisoners, there's no sense of outrage.

The inside thinking is that Iran's provocative behavior has been promoted by some combination of 1) recent UN sanctions, 2) capture of six Iranian Qods Force members in Iraq by the US, or 3) kidnapping/defection of several (perhaps as many as five) Iranian military officers in countries like Turkey. While Iran has already earned the world community's wrath for its nuclear activities, it may take yet another rebuke from the UN to resolve the current hostage crisis.

Iran needs to realize that any activity by members of its military is a casus belli, and any Iranian military or paramilitary personnel operating in Iraq will do so at their own peril. Taking hostages does not give them bargaining power; it merely shreds Iran's credibility on the international stage and deters anybody who harbors any notions of negotiating with the Iranians.

What lessons are we supposed to take from the House's 218-212 vote which sets a "date certain" for a US withdrawal from Iraq?

--If you're a member of the Iraqi government, you should know that America's leaders really don't care about your political progress, and they will not reward you if you move towards building a representative government and a civil society.

--If you're an American soldier, you should know that the US government thinks your sacrifice is futile, that the lives of your comrades were shed in vain, that your mission is meaningless, and that you will probably stay in Iraq for the next eighteen months performing that futile mission.

--If you're an American voter, you should know that even if you voted for a moderate Democrat who supported "government accountability," you'll get hardcore leftist Democrats at the highest echelons of power whose only idea of accontability is linking pork-barrel spending to important questions of foreign policy.

--If you're an insurgent or involved with an Iraqi death squad, you've just received your invitation to the orgy of genocide that will begin in September 2008.

--If you're an international terrorist plotting to kill Americans, you should know that America is a paper tiger with a weak will to fight back.

--If you're an Iraqi citizen, you'd better make plans to flee in the next eighteen months.

--If you're a true liberal who believes in values like separation of church and state, gender equality, religious tolerance, gay rights, and opposition to genocide, you will not find help from the so-called "liberals" of the Democratic party. At least, you will not find support for promoting those values in Iraq.

At the same time, Democrats fail to see the underlying logic of the ongoing Baghdad security operation. It's not about decisive victory, it's about withdrawal in a way that might be able to secure the promise that a Saddam-free Iraq once held. There's no way that the US can expand the surge to a level and duration that would actually pacify Iraq. The only guy who's hit the nail on the head is MSNBC's military analyst, Col. Jack Jacobs. The surge is about reducing the violence in Baghdad to a level that Iraq's embryonic army can handle. Hopefully it will be enough to buy Iraqi forces and the Iraqi government sufficient time to get their act together and figure out how they are going to put down the insurgency and unify the country.

America's strategy should work like this: 2007 should be spent reducing the violence to a level that Iraqi forces can deal with. 2008 will be about putting Iraqi units in the lead, while using a reduced US presence to support and train the Iraqis and preventing them from being overrun. The 2009 and beyond period should be dictated by how much progress the Iraqis make towards building a nation they can be proud of. It should not be dictated by arbitrary dates on a calendar. Otherwise, Iraq will be a bloody abortion of a country that will, at best, be paralyzed by years of sectarian war. America's leaders need the wisdom and intestinal fortitude to see this through, and not repeat the mistakes of post-Soviet Afghanistan.

Accountability is finally catching up to Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco. Unlike New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, Gov. Blanco will not be seeking re-election.

At least she's stepping aside to give somebody else a chance to fix the hurricane-devastated state. John Breaux could be a good choice to replace her, come this fall. Whoever takes over her position would be wise to embrace a free-market approach to rebuilding New Orleans.

Out of the major government officials involved in the Katrina debacle, we've seen Mike Brown resign in shame, President Bush taking a major hit in public approval (rendering him a lame duck,) and Governor Blanco stepping aside at the end of her term. Inexplicably, Ray Nagin actually sees his political prospects rise.

For the past two weeks, Frank Miller's 300 has been the big winner at the box office. I saw it this weekend and really enjoyed it. I heartily recommend it for an adult audience.

300 is a throwback to an earlier era when war movies were all about "good guys" versus "bad guys," and when moral ambiguity was noticeably absent. Frank Miller was inspired by 1962's The 300 Spartans, and the influence is clear. Audiences will cheer for the mighty and brave Leonidas; they'll revile the androgynous Xerxes and his inhuman hordes. It's not historical, but it was never intended to be. This is a work of art, spawned by a comic book. From its artificial backgrounds to its highly-sculpted warriors, 300 is pure eye-candy, combining modern comic artistry with classical Greek idealization of the human form.

The political overtones of 300 have been talked about, although it's important to remember that the movie is based off a 1998 graphic novel, based off a 1962 movie, based off a battle in 480 B.C. Should America associate itself with the brave band of Spartans who value their society's freedoms, take pride in a professional military, and battle against an unfathomable horde led by a God-King? Or should we see the Spartan reaction to Persia's threats of invasion as the way the Muslims react to the United States? Ultimately, I think that 300 is one of Frank Miller's least-political works (with Dark Knight Returns being a commentary on Ronald Reagan's presidency and a diatribe against moral equivalency.) People are free to look at 300 in any way they want, but I think that it's ultimately an hommage by a comics legend towards The 300 Spartans (which was also influenced with cold-war overtones.)

Moderate Democrats in the House want to pass a bill which would force the president to draft a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq, but only if the Iraqi government fails to meet certain benchmarks. While Congress has no constitutional authority to micro-manage the war in this way, I think the idea of enforcable benchmarks is a good one.

One of the Bush mantas from 2004 and 2005 was "If we continue to make progress on the political and military training fronts, we will win." The problem is that political progress is largely stalled. The only positive development as of late has been the long-awaited Oil Law, which will hopefully result in an equitable distribution of oil proceeds among the Iraqi populace.

I've long maintained that while America can choose to lose this war, only the Iraqis can choose to win it. Victory will not happen if the Iraqi government can't win the trust of the people, dampen violence, and create jobs. To date, the government of Iraq has made virtually no progress on key issues such as questions of regional autonomy, sectarian reconciliation, and amnesty for Baathists who renounce violence and pledge support for the elected government.

President Bush has said that the Iraqis will have to meet certain benchmarks, but he's never spelled out any consequences for the Iraqis if they fail. He has a duty to consult with the state and defense departments to come up with benchmarks and punishments; if he fails, Congress should set up benchmarks for funding certain aspects of the war effort. For the Iraqis' first offenses, we should cut off monetary aid. If they still don't learn their lesson, we should begin to withdraw from certain provinces where the threat of sectarian violence is acute.

Here's an even better idea for benchmarks: if the Iraqi government can't get their act together, American soldiers should execute Iraqi government members who are responsible for the stonewalling. American sacrifices brought the Iraqi government into existence; Americans should have final say on taking it out of existence as well.

The big point here is that Americans shouldn't be asked to indefinitely sacrifice themselves for a petty and dysfunctional government that has no chance of successfully stabilizing Iraq. We owe the Iraqis a certain amount of patience to get their act together, but American patience has worn thin after two years of Iraqi government impotence. If the Iraqis have no consequences for their poor performance, where's the incentive for them to get their house in order?

Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges today for his role in the Plame-Wilson affair. The reaction to the verdict was decidedly partisan: conservatives want him to walk while libs will throw him to the dogs (overtly wishing that they could have Karl Rove or Dick Cheney instead.)

In my view, this entire sordid affar has reeked of phoniness. Joe Wilson is a liar whose trip to Niger was more of a tourist's vacation than a real investigation of the Iraq-Niger uranium claims. Valerie Plame did not meet the legal definition of "covert agent," and there was nothing criminal about exposing her. Richard Armitage shirked his responsibilities by not going forward to say that he was the leaker when the Democrats started to claim a larger conspiracy involving Karl Rove and the vice president.

That being said, I don't think that Scooter Libby is a victim here. While I think the investigation was an unwarranted witch-hunt, lying to the FBI is just as serious an offense. Obstructing justice and lying under oath are serious crimes that should be punished (even if the lies are about sex, as far as Slick Willy is concerned.)

I'm not naive enough to think that Scooter Libby will see a day in prison. He'll bide his time with appeals until the twilight of the Bush Administration, and then he'll be pardoned. The moral of the story is that perjury prosecutions only apply to the common folk. For members of the government, lying is just another part of the job.

I have to say that I really enjoyed the premiere of "The Winner" last night on FOX. When I first saw the previews, I thought "This show is totally about me!" Then I thought long and hard about it, and realized that the show probably wouldn't have enough interesting material to last for a whole six episodes.

When I saw the first episode, I realized that my fears were unfounded. I think "The Winner" will thrive on the strength of the relationship between the hero, Glen Abbott, and the teenage son of the woman that Glen pines for. The two characters are nearly clones of each other, aside from the 18-year difference in their ages. (Come to think of it, that would make the love interest eighteen when she gave birth. Would a teenage mom be able to make it through medical school while also raising her kid? Unlikely, but this is television...)

"The Winner" has the potential to be a real gem, balancing really warped humor (eminating from the neuroses of Glen Abbott) with a healthy does of heart and redemption. Along the way, the show has an element of "How I Met Your Mother" (a frame story that promises resolution of the show's premise by the time the final episode airs) and "That 70's Show" (in this case, it draws on our memories of the mid-90's.)

It's often been asked how FOX plans on filling its Sunday lineup after "The Simpsons" departs. "King of the Hill" is ending, "Futurama" will be on Comedy Central, and "The War at Home" is just too mean-spirited to gain a wide following. "The Winner" will probably live up to its name, as far as ratings are concerned. It has every bit of heart and humanity that "The War at Home" lacks, plus the off-the-wall humor that Seth Green gives us in "Family Guy" and "American Dad."