Thomas Ricks reports on the plans for a permanent “post-occupation” force of 50,000 or so troops in Iraq. This is probably the best way to operationalize talk of “winning” the war. The goal, according to the war’s proponents, is to create the kind of situation where the country is sufficiently stable and under sufficiently docile leadership as to be willing to play host to a series of permanent bases.

But, of course, it’s precisely the widespread — and, crucially, accurate — Iraqi perception that US forces aren’t there just to help them out and aren’t planning on leaving that drives the appeal of both Sunni and Shiite nationalist groups that are opposing us.

UPDATE: Re-reading the piece it dawns on me that this plan is tragically consistent with the Democratic mantra of withdrawing “combat forces” from Iraq but leaving troops for training, force protection, and counterterrorism. Bill Richardson says let’s really withdraw.

A nice counterpoint to Dan Balz’s weird Broderish moaning that “the political culture of Washington” didn’t bring forth the immigration compromise he desired is provided by John Broder in The New York Times who points out that the institutions of American government are designed to make it hard to pass legislation on controversial topics.

All things considered, I think this is a bad thing, and think it’s generally better to operate under more parliamentary methods. But like it or not, you go to war with the institutions you have, and there’s no sense heaping personal scorn on individual legislators for institutional factors beyond their control.

Megan McArdle links to this propaganda classic of Stalin paying a visit to Berlin:

“Stalin, upon viewing it, is said to have remarked that it was so lovely, he wished he had actually gone,” she says. Mark Kleiman adds that “By the same token, no doubt George W. Bush wishes he’d actually accomplished the mission.”

As part of, I guess, the continuing campaign to get the United States to launch a war with Iran, there’s going to be an article forthcoming by a liberal hawk that quotes a good friend of mine in a misleading way as part of his effort to make the case that the damn dirty hippies of the blogosphere have become apologists for Iran’s ruling oligarchy (we know how this story goes). Meanwhile Jim Henley observes:

Gary Farber is onto important news about the actual effects of America’s “pro-democracy” program for Iran. It’s getting lots of people arrested, and various Iranian reform leaders abroad warned the State Department and others against stamping “Made in the USA” all over Iranian dissident groups within the Islamic Republic.

It’s almost as if all this chest-thumping isn’t really about putting serious thought into the best interests of the Iranian people.

Most Albanians may love Bush, but I bet these guys have some complaints:

The men, Muslims from western China’s Uighur ethnic minority, were freed from their confinement in Cuba after they were found to pose no threat to the United States. They have now lived for more than a year in a squalid government refugee center on the grubby outskirts of Tirana, guarded by armed policemen.

The men have been told that they will need to get work to move out of the center, they said, but that they must learn the Albanian language to get work permits. For now, they subsist on free meals heavy with macaroni and rice, and monthly stipends of about $67, which they spend mostly on brief telephone calls to their families. But some of the men have already lost hope of ever seeing their wives and children again.

That’s some good counterinsurgency stuff right there, I guess? The old arbitrary detention followed by endless exile in Albania approach to hearts and minds.

Truly odd Gallup poll result. The question: “Next, we’d like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think [see below] is definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false?” They rotated two different answers into the blank space. One was “Evolution — that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.” The other was “Creationism — that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.”

In the Evolution sample, 18 percent said evolution is definitely true, and an additional 35 percent said it’s probably true. In the Creationism sample, however, 39 percent said creationism is definitely true and 27 percent said creationism is probably true.

We’ve all heard of “framing effects” in polls, and that’s what you’re seeing here — people seem inclined to agree with the questioner — but the scale of the effect seems enormous here, especially since the question isn’t particularly obscure.