Farsi, Anyone?

Farsi, Anyone?

A good thing to pack when going to Iraq.

Yesterday on Tim Russert\’s all boys\’ political version of \”The View,\”
NBC\’s war correspondent Richard Engel finally got some air time. CNN has not been so stingy with Michael
Ware. It was wonderful to hear that Engel will have a documentary coming out
in March about his 4 years in Iraq. It\’s likely to also include some personal notes, including that his commitment to Iraq cost him his commitment to marriage. The interview with Russert is worth noting,
because Engel laid out what we\’re facing in Iraq in terms that cannot be misunderstood.
Robert
Novak must have missed it. Senator Reid evidently did not.

MR. RUSSERT: The Americans are going to have a surge, more troops. We hear a lot of conflicting reports. They’re going to go after the Shiite militias, the Sunni militias, but that there’s the sense that some of these may go underground, play possum, and just wait for this operation to end, and hopefully for—in their minds—for the American troops to leave and then re-emerge and start all over again. What’s your… MR. ENGEL: That’s exactly what’s happening. The Shiite movement, in particular, has gone underground. There’ve been very specific orders by Sadr, who himself has gone into hiding. There’s conflicting reports about his own location. The U.S. military says he’s in Iran or apparently out of the country. His organization says that, “No, he’s still in Iraq, but is in hiding.” And there’s a very specific reason that he’s doing this. They’re—part of this new security plan, which is already under way, is to eliminate some of the rogue elements from Sadr’s militia. And he doesn’t want to be around while this is happening. So he’s trying to lay low while his allies in the Shiite government, with U.S. forces, take away some of the more extremist elements in Sadr’s own militia. That way, he doesn’t have to get blamed for a purging of his own organization. MR. RUSSERT: Based on your experience, and you’ve lived there for four years, a year from now, what will we see going on in Iraq? MR. ENGEL: A year from now? I think you’ll have the Shiites in control of Baghdad. There’s a major power struggle with Shiites coming across from the east, moving into the west. I think they will consolidate that control. And the U.S. forces will have declared victory, and will have been moved out to the Anbar province, and will end up fighting al-Qaeda in Anbar. So you’ll have a situation where there will be a more stable, but very Shiite partisan government in control of Baghdad, and the U.S. fighting al-Qaeda in, in western Iraq. So both sides get to declare victory. The government says there is more stability and a representative of a democratically elected government, and the U.S. administration gets to say, “We’re still fighting the war on terrorism; we’re still fighting al-Qaeda.” MR. RUSSERT: What happens to the Sunnis? MR. ENGEL: The Sunnis, I think, are in a very difficult situation. They are fundamentally—have a failed state on their hands. And I think, no matter how much success there is in Iraq in the south and in the north, if you have even a small failed state in the center of the country, it will be a serious, serious problem for decades, that will plague this entire region. MR. RUSSERT: How much influence does Iran have on Iraq, the Iraqi government? MR. ENGEL: Tremendous amount of influence. I mean, most of the senior Iraqi politicians spent time in Iran, have close relations with Iran. Look at al-Hakim, the most empowerful political figure in Iraq, aside from the prime minister. He has a very close relations with Iran and wants to form a Shiite southern state that would have an economic alliance with Iran. So right now it is—it is by far the most influential nation across Iraq, outside of the U.S., and really wants to replace the United States as the main power broker in Iraq. … .. MR. RUSSERT: You tell me that if you want to reserve a hotel room in a southern Iraq hotel… MR. ENGEL: Call in Farsi. Yeah. They will ask, when you make reservations in Najaf or Karbala, they’ll answer the phone in Farsi, they will quote you the price… MR. RUSSERT: The Iranian language? MR. ENGEL: The Iranian language. They’ll quote you the price in toman. They—it is very much an Iranian—part of the Iranian sphere of influence. .. .. \”Meet the Press\” transcript

But in the midst of the reality Engel paints, what we\’re being treated to again
is the second
generation John Murtha swiftboating. I chronicled how
it all began last year. Duncan Hunter began it on the House floor when Murtha
came out against the war for the first time. It
continues on a new level today after Murtha made it known that he will
not stop with non-binding war symbolism while our soldiers are dying ill equipped,
lacking armor and hung out to dry in the middle of an Iraq civil war, long after
their mission has been accomplished.

Republicans have come up with some catchy new phrases, because Murtha has them
scared to death he might actually use
the power of Congress to stop this massive never ending mistake in Iraq.
One phrase is \”reinforcements,\” which is the new word being used for
Mr. Bush\’s escalation. Tony Snow used it yesterday on Russert\’s political \”View.\” Reinforcements. Cute, huh?
But that\’s nothing when you get to their next little ditty.

\”Slow-bleed Democrats.\”

U.S.
News and World Report gives \”Politico\” the coining of the phrase,
though the dates on the postings don\’t quite jibe. Their headline blares: Democrats
Plan \”Slow-Bleed\” Strategy, then they give a long list of coverage
on the Murtha threat.

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration\’s options. – Politico

Dated today, William
Kristol couldn\’t resist picking up the slur, taking it from paragraph one
to the headline: The Democrats\’ \’Slow-Bleed\’ Strategy – A disgraceful moment
in Congress.

The
Corner simply offers a link to \”Politico.\”

It was John Boehner who took the Murtha swiftboating to where Republicans always
go, via the GOP
Times: Still, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican, labeled
Mr. Murtha\’s plan \”a plan to cut off funding for troops in harm\’s way.\”

Funny how no one really commented on John McCain and other Republicans being
AWOL on the vote this Saturday. Imagine if a Democrat skipped out. The outrage
from \”support the troops\” Republicans would be aired ad nauseam.

However, we all learned what \”supporting the troops\” means for Republicans yesterday, now didn\’t we.

But the bottom line in the Iraq debate is something all together different.
WE. ARE. GOING. TO. LEAVE. IRAQ. SOMEDAY. Whenever that day occurs all hell
will break out. It\’s inevitable, so no one of either political party should be blathering any other talking point, even if it is only to cover that person\’s butt until he or she can get out of office before it happens. The escalation Republicans are pushing is simply meant to postpone that inevitable reality as long as possible. Let someone else deal with it. Let someone else take the blame. Well, Democrats in Congress can deal with it now or in 2008 after we take back the White House. Either way, since Republicans don\’t know what they\’re doing in Iraq, there\’s no escaping that it\’s time for the Democrats to lead. Because come \’08 and we win the White House, we\’re going to get blamed for it anyway. At least if we take ownership now it\’s on Mr. Bush\’s watch, enabling us to tag Iraq what it is: Mr. Bush\’s war.