A bundle of good news...

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen (see post immediately below) isn't really spreading much cheer in his frank evaluations of how thin US military forces are spread around the world. First he gives secret Bush plans to go to war with Iran a big frowny face and now he has the temerity to suggest that things are going so badly in Afghanistan that we need to further increase troop strength there. What's that you say? Where will the troops come from? That is the 600 billion dollar question implicit in the Washington Post write up:

The nation's top military officer said today that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to help tamp down an increasingly violent insurgency but does not have sufficient forces to send because of the war in Iraq.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said insurgent Taliban and extremist forces in Afghanistan have become "a very complex problem" that is tied to the extensive drug trade, a faltering economy and the porous border region with Pakistan. Violence in Afghanistan has increased markedly over recent weeks, and June was the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began in 2001, with 28 combat fatalities.

"I am and have been deeply troubled by the increasing violence there," Mullen said, adding that he has made no secret of wanting to send more forces into the country. "The Taliban and their supporters have become more effective in recent weeks. ... We all need to be patient. As we have seen in Iraq, counterinsurgency warfare takes time and commitment."

Mullen said military commanders are looking at the prospects for sending additional troops to Afghanistan in 2009, but conditions in Iraq would have to continue to improve for that to happen. The war in Iraq has occupied as many as 20 military brigades during the troop buildup over the past year. The military is reducing that force to 15 brigades this year.

"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq," Mullen said. "Afghanistan remains an economy of force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there. We have the ability in almost every single case to win from the combat standpoint, but we don't have enough troops there to hold. That is key to the future of being able to succeed in Afghanistan."

Mullen also addressed the issue of a potential conflict with Iran, saying he clearly favors diplomacy over military action to deter Tehran from seeking nuclear weapons. Mullen visited Israeli officials last week but declined to provide details on his discussions with them.

Still laughing off Iran war talk?

Here's a guy who's not laughing off the Seymour Hersh reports of preparations by Israel, aided by elements of the US government, to go to war against Iran.

The BBC on comments by Admiral Michael Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

Tensions have risen amid reports Israel may be planning a possible strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Iran denies its nuclear programme is anything other than peaceful.

It has been clear for some time that Adm Mullen does not want to attack Iran, but his latest remarks suggest that he is fighting hard behind the scenes for both the US and Israel to think carefully about the consequences of an attack before considering mounting it.

He said opening up a third front, after Iraq and Afghanistan, would be "extremely stressful, very challenging, with consequences that would be difficult to predict".

In response to a question about an Israeli attack on Iran, rather than American action, Adm Mullen appeared to suggest that the US could not avoid becoming involved.

"My position with regard to the Iranian regime hasn't changed. They remain a destabilising factor in the region," he said.

"But I'm convinced that the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure."

He called for dialogue between the US and Tehran.

Are Republicans nuts?

First off, full disclosure:

Until the start of this year, I was a Republican, and had been for almost a decade.

Now -- don't get me wrong -- during most of that time I only voted for one GOP candidate for national office and that was in a primary, voting for John McCain against G.W. Bush, who I had earlier investigated and dismissed as probably dishonest (criminal insider trading that Bush "Sr" Justice Department lawyers had wanted to prosecute but a prosecution which incoming president Bill Clinton pulled the plug on apparently in the interests of political comity).

McCain was savaged and his family attacked in a series of truly vile rumor and innuendo attacks by Bush operatives and lost that primary race and I ended up voting Democratic in the general election (and again in 2004).

It soon became clear that my estimation of GW Bush had been far too kind.

He was not just incompetent and dishonest -- he was stupid, incompetent, and dishonest -- and he claimed to get his marching orders from no less than God. Which is blasphemy, where I come from, but that's for the religion blog, eh?


Anyway, that was then and this is now... the record of Bush and his neoconservative handlers is there for everyone to see. It's a painful, utterly disgraceful record of incompetence, lies, corruption, and an arrogance so extraordinary -- and so unwarranted -- as to all but defy credulity.

And now John McCain is the presumed GOP nominee and he has sloughed off his own supposed convictions and publicly adopted many of those of the very same GW Bush whose minions so vilely libeled McCain and his family.


Why?

It's a good question.

Recent polling reveals some answers.

Even though the overwhelming majority of US citizens seem to now share my exceedingly low estimation of the sitting president -- only 28% of Americans in recent polls approve of Bush's performance -- within the Republican Party, Bush is still largely seen favorably. A jaw-dropping 60 percent of Republicans still approve of GW Bush's performance as president.


One has to wonder just what their performance criteria are. What more could this president do to demonstrate his extraordinarily deep and wide ranging incompetence?

Well... there's one more thing, we suppose... and it would be the cherry at the top of the s--- sundae: an attack on Iran by Israel at the urging of Bush and with assisatnce from US forces and intelligence. Such an attack has been in the rumor and planning stages for some time. Originally, Bush's neocon handlers apparently thought it would provide the next "demonstration war" after quick victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, likely to be executed by US forces.

Now, with the US military run into the ground by incompetent leadership from the Secretary of Defense on down as it tries to shore up the woefully mismanaged Iraqi and Afghan occupations which have fostered popular revolt in both countries, there is little recourse but to attempt to get Israel to carry out the attack.

And the Republican base seems to think this is just ducky.


What world do these people live in?