UPDATED: Breaking: US Preparing To Pull Out Of Iraq?

UPDATE: Good thing I put a question mark in there. The answer for now seems to be: Maybe not. As reported at TGP via Sky news (or vice versa) SecDef Esper says it was just a draft that shouldn't have been released. Hmmm. I was starting to really like the idea. Now that the letter's been released, maybe we should just go ahead?


Zerohedge has a longish account: US Army Tells Iraq It Is Preparing To "Move Out" Out Of "Respect For Sovereignty". The obvious question, based on the letter from Brigadier General Seekly to the Iraqi DoD, is: Is this a complete withdrawal or partial? Here's the letter:

sLTG Abdul Amir 

Deputy Director, Combined Joint Operations Baghdad Iraq - Ministry of Defense 

Your Excellency, 

Sir, in due deference to the sovereignty of the Republic of Iraq, and as requested by the Iraqi Parliament and the Prime Minister, CJTF-OIR will be repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement. 

In order to conduct this task, Coalition Forces are required to take certain measures to ensure that the movement out of Iraq is conducted in a safe and efficient manner. 

During this time, there will be an increase in helicopter travel in and around the International Zone (IZ) of Baghdad. This increased traffic will include CH47, VH-00, and AH-64 security escort helicopters. 

Coalition Forces will take appropriate measures to minimize and mitigate the disturbance to the public. In addition, we will conduct these operations during hours of darkness to help alleviate any perception that we may be bringing more Coalition Forces into the IZ. 

As we begin implementing this next phase of operations, I wish to reiterate the value of our friendship and partnership. We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure. 

Very Respectfully, 

WILLIAM H. SEEKLY III
Brigadier General, U.S. Marine Corps
Commanding General, TF-Iraq

It sure sounds to me like a complete withdrawal. We'll see how it develops.

Meanwhile, as Zerohedge puts it:

The decision to withdraw begs the question: Was Trump playing 5-D chess after all?

It also appears to answer Pat Lang's question that I quoted this morning:

Will Trump welcome the ejection of the US from Iraq? - He should.

Refreshing, and maybe another lesson in never misunderestimating Trump.

Cleveland: OIG Report Fingers Team Mueller

I've been saying for quite some time that everything the Barr/Durham investigation is doing leads inexorably to Team Mueller--and maybe into the Obama White House. Today at The Federalist Margot Cleveland has an excellent article that details the ways in which Michael Horowitz's FISA report points a finger at Team Mueller:

Inspector General Report Shows Special Counsel Replicated FBI Abuses

The report established that the special counsel’s office was complicit in the FISA abuse, the probe was a witch hunt, and its report was a cover-up for systematic government malfeasance.

Here I'll hit what I regard as the highlights.

First, of course, is the matter of the fourth FISA application--a renewal application. That happened on Mueller's watch. FISA renewal applications don't simply piggyback on the previous applications. The same duty of accuracy and full disclosure applies equally to each renewal, as does the obligation to demonstrate that the previous FISA orders are producing new intelligence of value. We now know, of course, that FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith actually falsified documents that were part of that fourth application. Will Clinesmith take a big hit for Team Mueller? We'll find out.

Beyond that, Horowitz documents that when Team Mueller demonstrably identified new information that invalidated the Steele evidence that was relied upon, this information was concealed from the FISA court for many months. The same applies to concealing the fact that, far from being a Russian agent, Carter Page was a US intelligence asset.

Second, the OIG report discovered something that, if it didn't exactly shock me, definitely caused me to sit up and take notice, to even involuntarily raise my eyebrows:

Steele's Reports About Putin's Presidential Administration

The following is a guest blog by commenter Mike Sylwester. We've all been very naturally focused on the OIG FISA report, impeachment theater, and so forth. Mike's blog returns us to what I believe are key points for the Barr/Durham investigation. Briefly, Mike argues that there appears to be clear evidence of "collusion" between the authors of the Steele "dossier" and the CIA. To say that that could prove huge if confirmed would be an understatement, given that we know that the "dossier" emerged from the Clinton campaign's oppo research shop at Fusion GPS. 

Jeff Carlson has published in his blog The Markets Work an article titled Russian Spy Revelation Raises Questions on CIA Information, Potential Links to Steele Dossier. There, Carlson points out that Christopher Steele's Dossier, Report 111, mentions Yuri Ushakov, who was the direct supervisor of Oleg Smolenkov, who was a spy for the CIA.

Ushakov was an official in the Russian Government's Presidential Administration (PA). In that position, Ushakov heard various statements of Vladimir Putin and of other PA officials. Ushakov supposedly repeated such statements to Smolenkov, who secretly reported them to the CIA. Ushakov himself was a PA member, but his assistant Smolenkov was not a member.

Smolenkov's reliability is subjected by Carlson to various doubts, which can be read in Carlson's article.

Here I focus on Carlson's suggestion that Steele's Report 111, dated September 14, 2016, seems to indicate that Steele was informed about Ushakov's activities in Putin's Presidential Administration. The Report's relevant text mentioning Ushakov includes the following two paragraphs:

More Pondering On The Current Crisis In The Middle East

Since the assassination of Gen'l Soleimani I've been of two minds. I was initially strongly opposed to this action, seeing in it a Deep State ploy to deepen US involvement in the region--up to and including open war on Iran. I said at the time, and still believe, that America has so many problems here at home that we'd be well advised to abjure foreign adventuring.

OTOH, the world isn't about to stand still while the US tries to get its house in order. Dubya and Obama made a hash of our foreign policy and put "the current crisis in the Middle East" on steroids. It's near impossible for Trump to undo that mess, which has strengthened the hands of regional powers with strong expansionist and anti Western tendencies: Turkey and Iran. Was it possible, I wondered, that Trump's extreme action--assassinating an official of foreign power A on the soil of foreign power B against the wishes of both A & B--could have clarified the current situation.

From that standpoint I can see the need to secure the flow of oil to allied nations from the Persian Gulf. However, I think history has pretty much proven conclusively that America as a nation--for a variety of reasons--is unable to confine itself to that circumscribed role. That's partly our own fault, but also the fault of others and beyond our control.

I won't pretend to have a solution--if there is one. Overall, I have for many years subscribed to Samuel Huntington's theory of the Clash of Civilizations. The complicating factor, of course, is that our own civilization is involved in its own civil war--its own "clash of civilizations," if you will. This intra civilizational civil war makes it virtually impossible to have a coherent policy vis a vis other world civilizations with which we sometimes cooperate and at other times come into conflict. Further, our own intra civilizational civil war has to a great extent led to the destabilization of other civilization with which we have come into close contact.

My concern is that the hope that Trump could lead America back to something resembling greatness in a civilizational sense could become a casualty of any expanded involvement in "the current crisis in the Middle East."

Two Recommended Reads On Iran

There appears to be a growing consensus that Iran finds itself in a difficult position in the wake of President Trump's assassination of Gen'l Soleimani. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline has an excellent post, dialoguing a bit with Thomas Friedman's Was Soleimani overrated? (Here's the link to Friedman.)

Friedman's idea is that Soleimani was the dumbest man in Iran, because he and Iran took Obama's deal and then--instead of simply accepting all the benefits for the good of their country--tried to push the regional expansionist envelope, "freak[ing] out U.S. allies in the Sunni Arab world and Israel." And that led to Soleimani's own assassination.

Mirengoff's response is that that doesn't prove that Soleimani was dumb, just that he's a hardcore ideologue. Which, of course, leads people to do dumb things.

I liked this quote from Friedman that Mirengoff includes (but there's more at the link):

Today’s Iran is the heir to a great civilization and the home of an enormously talented people and significant culture. Wherever Iranians go in the world today, they thrive as scientists, doctors, artists, writers and filmmakers — except in the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose most famous exports are suicide bombing, cyberterrorism and proxy militia leaders. The very fact that Suleimani was probably the most famous Iranian in the region speaks to the utter emptiness of this regime, and how it has wasted the lives of two generations of Iranians by looking for dignity in all the wrong places and in all the wrong ways.

Of course, the reality is that a regime reflects a culture and a society. This is true in Iran as much as it's true in America.

Good News On Impeachment Theater

Today Lindsey Graham indicated he's on board with changing Senate rules to allow the Senate to start an impeachment trial without waiting for Pelosi. Graham said he'll work with Mitch McConnell to change Senate rules if they don't receive the articles PDQ. From The Hill:

Graham told Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that he would work with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to change the chamber's rules if the articles are not sent this week.  

“What I would do if she continues to refuse to send the articles as required by the Constitution, I would work with Sen. McConnell to change the rules of the Senate to start the trial without her if necessary,” he said. 

The South Carolina senator accused Pelosi of a "political stunt" meant to “extort...a trial to her liking.”  

“If we don’t get the articles this week, then we need to take matters in our own hands and change the rules, deem them to be delivered to the Senate, so we can start the trial, invite the House over to participate if they would like. If they don’t come, dismiss the case and get on with governing the country,” Graham said. 

Graham added that he hopes the Senate trial will be over by the end of January, and if the American people want a different president, they can decide that in November.

I call this good news. Putting Impeachment Theater behind can only be good for Trump, IMO. Let the Dems try a restart if they want to. We'll see how well that goes down with the country. And if there's to be a rules change, Cocaine Mitch is just the guy to do it.

Why Does The US Police The Straits Of Hormuz?

That's the question posed by commenter Cassander:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-26/which-oil-buyers-have-most-at-stake-as-mideast-tensions-rise

Would somebody please explain to me (again) why we are undertaking to police the Straits of Hormuz?

My response was brief:

To insure that India, China, Japan, and S. Korea are supplied with oil.

But there's a longer answer--there has to be, since the topic is such a complicated one. That answer is provided in an article by Anand Toprani--an associate professor of strategy and policy at the U.S. Naval War College, a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the author of Oil and the Great Powers: Britain and Germany, 1914-1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).

The article, OIL AND THE FUTURE OF U.S. STRATEGY IN THE PERSIAN GULF, was written in May, 2019, and seems prescient. I remarked earlier today that too much of the commentary on "the current crisis in the Middle East" is simplistic, whereas the situation on the ground--and at sea--is immensely complicated. In saying this I'm not suggesting that Trump's assassination of Soleimani was a mistake--that remains to be seen. What I am suggesting is that US disengagement from the Persian Gulf would not be easy--it would, in fact, have far reaching effects, not all of which would serve US interests. In speaking of disengagement, of course, we need to distinguish between engagement in "policing the Straits of Hormuz," as opposed to policing the whole Middle East. Unfortunately, the Bush and Obama administrations pretty much threw the entire Middle East up for grabs, so Trump's idea of disengagement cannot be easily accomplished.

Toprani provides a pretty comprehensive history of US strategic thinking regarding the Persian Gulf and the oil that flows through it to the world--from 1945 to the present. For our purposes, however, consider the following paragraphs excerpted from the much longer article:

Scott Ritter's Take On The Soleimani Assassination

Scott Ritter has an interesting article today at The American Conservative in which he analyzes Trump's action in authorizing the assassination of the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. Unlike some of the virulently and repetitiously anti-Trump screeds at TAC, Ritter's analysis is in measured terms and worth considering. You can read the entire article hear: Iranian Revenge Will Be a Dish Best Served Cold.

For our purposes I want to focus on the last part of the article, in which Ritter speculates regarding the form that Iran's threatened retaliation might take. My own view regarding "the current crisis in the Middle East" is hardly novel--I think most commentators view the situation in overly simplistic terms. There are simply too many moving pieces involved for the types of solutions we so often see advanced to be viable. That, I think goes for Ritter's analysis as well. Nevertheless, his view is worth taking into account.

Ritter is correct in focusing on Iran's overall goal and in identifying that goal as the withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq. That is an achievable goal, but one which is most likely attainable by avoiding a direct war with the US. To the extent that the US assassination of Soleimani makes such an open military conflict more likely we see two things: 1) The likelihood that the assassination may have been staged in order to force such a conflict; the orchestrators in such a case would likely be non-Trumpist Deep State actors, headed by Mike Pompeo, whose goal is to maintain the US military presence in Iraq; 2) the assassination puts Iran in a difficult position because it pushes Iran toward action that would interfere with its long term goals. So, Ritter writes:

UPDATED: What's Trump's Middle East Strategy?

Obviously I don't have near enough information to have anything like certainty. However, here are some tentative considerations.

In August, 2017, President Trump delivered some remarks regarding his Afghan strategy. One overriding point was this: "We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists."

With that in mind, consider Trump's willingness to negotiate with just about anybody, if the negotiations serve US interests and are conducted in good faith. Trump has been attempting to force Iran to the negotiating table through sanctions, but Iran appears to have resisted negotiations in which US interests would be recognized. The Iranian goal is simply to force the US from the Middle East.

While that is attractive outcome for most Americans, for various reasons it seems unlikely to happen. Thus, Trump's assurances to Americans: We're no longer in the business of nation building. Instead, we'll do deals. But if terrorism is employed against the US, we'll respond as we see fit. Proportionality as traditionally conceived may not enter into our response. Preemption is a possibility, both proximately as well as for the extended future.

In this case it appears Trump had grown frustrated with Iranian refusals to negotiate on what Trump regarded as reasonable terms. Instead, Iran appeared to be resorting to a strategy of pin pricks that the US has generally disregarded in the past. Or which might provoke a disproportionate response in traditional terms--as nearly happened with drone downing.

Trump's message, therefore, seems to be one of unpredictability. Don't anyone think they know ahead of provoking the US what the response will be. Count on a response, but don't think you can predict its nature or extent. A strategy of pressure through calculated provocations could be a strategy of playing with fire. In the art of the deal predictability is a weakness.

There are dangers in this for the US, as well. Nothing will be simple. Syria and Libya remain in turmoil. Saudi Arabia has revealed its essential weakness through its Yemen adventure. Turkey is aggressively seeking to expand its influence not only along its land borders in Syria and Iraq--which will inevitably bring it into conflict with Iran--but also throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Russia, of course, has interests it wishes to maintain. Afghanistan, on the eastern side of Iran is a multidimensional mess.

Of course, the one non-Muslim country most worried by all this is almost certainly Russia. Perhaps if Barr/Durham can sufficiently bring the Dem inspired Russia Hoax to a conclusion by exposing it to daylight Trump will be able to do a deal with Russia with regard to the Middle East. Especially with regard to Iran and Turkey.

Trump never told us his presidency would be boring.

An emailer recently sent me a NYPost editorial re Trump's reelection chances--rating them as excellent, despite determined establishment hostility. I remarked, referencing "the current crisis in the Middle East"--or should that be "usual"?--Trump seems not inclined to play it safe leading into the election cycle. Then I added that playing it safe is so often a snare and a delusion, the oppositie of safe. That's something that Trump probably understands as well as any politician alive.

UPDATE: The other day I quoted Don Surber, a shrewd observer of many things, to the effect that invading a country under false pretenses (Iraq, WMD) tends to PO the natives. It's true, and it's something that Americans need to take much more seriously. Trump has repeatedly said he wants to bring the troops home, and I take him at his word. He says he wants to get out of the business of nation building, and I take him at his word on that, too. What could cause him problems going forward after the Soleimani assassination is that, three years into Trump's first term, we still find ourselves in a betwixt and between position, with not that much of Trump's foreign policy for the Middle East implemented.

Strattonato da fan agitata

I think you can guess the meaning, but it's like: Tugged by an excited fan. Matteo Salvini, of course, is the leader of the Lega Nord. Salvini ran on a quasi-Trumpian, Euro-populist, anti-immigration platform and was virulently opposed by the current pretender to the See of Rome--he woulda slapped Salvini if given half an opportunity. Salvini seems to have a puckish sense of humor:

Strattonato da fan agitata ❤️ pic.twitter.com/ZPuNBk4wFQ

— Matteo Salvini (@matteosalvinimi) January 1, 2020

Just Like Nazi Germany!

Right! Remember Basil Fawlty in The Germans? "That's just how Nazi Germany got started!"

And now it's happening right here. At least according to Linda Ronstadt. Trust me--she's got it all figured out.

Who Paid For The Russia Hoax?

We did! You and I--Joe taxpayers. We pay the salaries of the bureaucrats at DoJ, the FBI, the CIA, the DoS and the NSC--the bureaucrats who tried to stage a coup.

OK, that's hardly news, but there's another less direct way in which taxpayer funding helped pay for the Russian Hoax: through grants to Non Government Organizations (NGOs). Today at The American Thinker Leo Goldstein discusses one particular such NGO, and his discussion plays into a blog I did back in November: The American Empire And Its Enemies.

Goldstein's article is The Russia Hoax Was Aided by NGOs Peddling Junk Science, but rather than focusing on the junk science angle, I want to point out the political connections, the confluence of persons, organizations, and--of course--MONEY. With that in mind, here's how Goldstein begins:

Some of the most vicious anti-Trump voices have come from US government-funded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), affiliated with the State Department, Big Tech, and Soros afiliates. Many of these NGOs have existed since the Cold War, with a mandate to promote freedom and democracy abroad. They are forbidden to operate in the US, especially in partisan fashion. 

Note that well. These NGOs were set up to advance the cause of freedom and democracy, but they've been coopted by the international Left and the Democrat Party to advance their own cause--which happens to be what Obama termed the "fundamental transformation" of America. It's subordination to the new Globalist order.