Staurt Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, delivered his quarterly report to Congress today. It’s 114 pages and it’s not pretty. Some of the lowlights –

Planning for post-hostilities reconstruction was woefully inadequate (pg. 80):

In Iraq, however, systematic planning for the post-hostilities period was insufficient in both scope and implementation. With respect to human capital, no comprehensive policy or regulatory guidelines were in place for staffing the management of post-war Iraq.

Security problems continue to hamper reconstruction efforts (pg. 1):

Nearly two years ago, the U.S. developed a reconstruction plan that specified a target number of projects that would be executed using the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. That target number was revised downward during last year’s reprogrammings. Now it appears that the actual number of projects completed will be even lower. The reasons for the shortfall are many, security being the most salient.

Contractor deaths are on the rise (pg. 16):

The number of insurance death-claims filed this quarter by contractors from all countries rose by 82 (70%) from the previous quarter, bringing the total number of non-Iraqi contractor deaths to 412 for the period March 11, 2003 through September 30, 2005.

Political milestones are great, but reconstruction is what really makes an impact in the day-to-day lives of Iraqis. That’s why successful reconstruction is essential to creating longterm stability.

Since the UN report implicating Syria in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the Bush administration claims to be seeking diplomatic solutions. From the 10/21 State Department briefing:

QUESTION: Are you discussing or will you discuss military action [with Syria]? This is a nervous capital. People think this Administration resorts to force as a way of solving problems.

MR. ERELI: I think the record of this Administration is clear and commendable, that we seek peaceful negotiated diplomatic solutions to problems. That is certainly the course that has been set forth on this issue and that’s where our focus is.

Actually, the administration is actively seeking to replace the Syrian president and is pursuing military options. The 10/9 Financial Times reported:

[T]he US is actively seeking an alternative who would take over from President Bashar al-Assad, according to sources close to the Bush administration. Washington has consulted its allies in an inter-agency search co-ordinated by Stephen Hadley, the president’s national security adviser. The US is also said to be considering military strikes on the Syrian border in response to its alleged support for Iraqi insurgents.

Hadley isn’t working alone. Condoleezza Rice has also put military options against Syria on the table.

Today, President Bush chose to talk about terrorism at an event commemorating the new Air Force One exhibit at the Reagan library. He praised Reagan for “never backing down in the face of evil”:

[Reagan] recognized that freedom was opposed by dangerous enemies. And he understood that America has always prevailed by standing firmly on principals – and never backing down in the face of evil.

This contrasts with a speech Bush made in August in which he questioned Reagan’s response to the 1983 Marine baracks bombing in Beirut. Bush said:

[Terrorists] believe that democracies are inherently weak and corrupt and can be brought to their knees. They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lack the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy. [V-J Day Speech, 8/30/05]

Looks like Bush was against Reagan’s response to terrorism before he was for it.

Yesterday, in her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Lincoln Chafee wanted to clarify a simple issue – did the Iraq war resolution passed by Congress restrict military action only to Iraq? Chafee asked, “So would you agree that if anything were to occur on Syrian or Iranian soil, you would have to return to Congress to get that authorization?” Rice responded:

RICE: Senator, I don’t want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers. And I think you’ll understand fully that the president retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in the war on Iraq. “¦

CHAFEE: So that’s a no.

RICE: Senator, I am not going to be in the position of circumscribing the president’s powers.

The first line of the Iraq war resolution signed by the President on October 16, 2002 clearly states its purpose: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Read more

Today, Secretary Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the United States would not rule out the use of military force with Syria. “I’m not going to get into what the president’s options might be,” Rice said. “I don’t think the president ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military force.”

But this weekend, the New York Times reported that U.S. forces are already engaged in a “shadow struggle” with Syria:

A series of clashes in the last year between American and Syrian troops, including a prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians, has raised the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war, according to current and former military and government officials. …

…other [Bush administration] officials, who say they got their information in the field or by talking to Special Operations commanders, say that as American efforts to cut off the flow of fighters have intensified, the operations have spilled over the [Iraq-Syria] border – sometimes by accident, sometimes by design.

Some current and former officials add that the United States military is considering plans to conduct special operations inside Syria, using small covert teams for cross-border intelligence gathering.
“¦
Increasingly, officials say, Syria is to the Iraq war what Cambodia was in the Vietnam War: a sanctuary for fighters, money and supplies to flow over the border and, ultimately, a place for a shadow struggle.

Looks like the military option isn’t so much of an “option” anymore.

In the wake of the federal government’s ineptly-administered response to Katrina, President Bush pledged, “This government will learn the lessons of Hurricane Katrina.”

One of the key lessons learned was that the Department of Homeland Security needed to better balance its spending between being better prepared for natural disasters and preventing potential future terrorist attacks. The San Francisco Chronicle reported:

[T]he country’s obsession with terrorism has left it vulnerable to other disasters“¦ many believe that unreasonable fears borne from the Sept. 11 attacks drove the country, and its leaders, to overreact to the terrorist threat and divert precious resources from the near-certain catastrophes of nature.

The criticism prompted Secretary Chertoff to respond: “I’ll tell you my philosophy, since I guess it’s my responsibility now. I think we have to plan for both, because I think they’re both mutually reinforcing.” [CNN, 9/3/05]

President Bush missed an opportunity yesterday to demonstrate a renewed commitment to both priorities. In remarks after signing the Homeland Security appropriations bill, Bush made not even a single mention of the administration’s commitment to being better prepared for a natural disaster (read his full statement here).

The White House fact sheet distributed along with the President’s remarks demonstrate clearly that the administration was most concerned with demonstrating its commitment to defending the homeland and trumpeting its efforts on immigration. (Recall, immigration was also Bush’s topic of conservation in his call to Chertoff while Katrina was making landfall).

It appears the government still hasn’t learned the lessons of Hurricane Katrina.

This morning on NBC’s Meet the Press, Condoleezza Rice explains why we invaded Iraq:

The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda”¦or we could take a bolder approach.

This may be news to the Secretary of State but the proximate cause of 9-11 was al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, the administration decided to invade Iraq instead of focusing our efforts on destroying al-Qaeda and capturing Bin Laden.

Today, bin Laden remains at large, international terrorism is on the rise and the invasion has become “a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.”

UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has the video.

Today, the Nobel Committee issued a strong rebuke to the Bush administration by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to IAEA head Mohamed El Baradei.

In response, the Secretary of State Rice said in a statement, “I congratulate the International Atomic Energy Agency and its Director General, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, on being awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.” Last year, the administration was less generous with their praise. In fact, it launched a smear campaign to prevent ElBaradei from returning for a third-term as head of the nuclear watchdog agency.

In its efforts to bring him down, the administration leaked false intelligence about Egypt:

Diplomats in Vienna suspect the story circulating in the press about a clandestine nuclear program in Egypt is part of an American-led campaign to oust the head of the international agency charged with preventing the proliferation of atomic weapons. [New York Sun, 1/5/05]

And tapped his phone:

The Bush administration has dozens of intercepts of Mohamed ElBaradei’s phone calls with Iranian diplomats and is scrutinizing them in search of ammunition to oust him as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to three U.S. government officials. [Washington Post, 12/12/04]

John Bolton, recess-appointed-ambassador to the UN, led the charge against ElBaradei and went “out of his way to bad-mouth” him during those months.

Why did the administration want him out so badly? It disagreed with ElBaradei about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD program. El Baradei, if you’ll recall, turned out to be right.

In the CBS poll that has Bush’s approval at 37%, another suprising figure sticks out. Asked to specify America’s most important problem, more respondents pointed to President Bush than to terrorism:

U.S. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM

War in Iraq
Now 18%
9/2005 13%

Economy and jobs
Now 16%
9/2005 14%

Gas/oil crisis
Now 5%
9/2005 9%

President Bush
Now 5%
9/2005 5%

Terrorism
Now 4%
9/2005 6%

Today, President Bush ducked responsibility for the mistakes he has made in the Iraq war, saying, “No act of ours invited the rage of the killers.” Bush needs only to look at today’s date — October 6th — over the past 3 years to see what acts of his have persuaded more and more Iraqis to join the ranks of the insurgency.

October 6, 2002: Bush Promises Liberation, Not Conquest, of Iraq

October 6, 2003: White House’s Cronyism Contracts Leave Iraqis Without Basic Services

October 6, 2004: Duelfer Report Eliminates Primary Justification For Iraq War; Bremer Says Bush Was Not Prepared For Post-War Iraq; Bush Delivers a “Major Speech on Terrorism”

October 6, 2005: Bush Delivers Another Major Speech on Terrorism; Takes No Accountability For Missteps

Details below: Read more

In the wake the worst recruiting slump in decades, the Army announced earlier this week that they are loosening recruitment standards to accept more high school dropouts:

Army Secretary Noel Harvey and vice chief of staff Gen. Richard Cody said Monday that the Army was using looser Defense Department rules that permitted it to sign up more high school dropouts and people who score lower on mental-qualification tests, but they denied that this meant it was lowering standards.
…
The Army has a recruiting shortfall of 6,000 to 8,000 soldiers over the past 12 months. It hasn’t fallen so short of its annual goal since 1979, several years after the Vietnam war.
…
The problem, Harvey said, is “a combination of three factors: a good economy, the war in Iraq and parents reluctant to see their sons and daughters enlist” because of the war.

The move comes on the heels of a free iTunes offer by the National Guard, debates about military recruitment in high schools, legislation to raise the age limit for active-duty recruits from 35 to 42, recruiters talking to Katrina evacuees, and the appearance of a Marines advertisement on CraigsList.

Rather than putting the focus on broadening the pool of new enlistees, the administration would be better off spending their time developing a clear and reasonable exit strategy. Such a plan might be the most effective recruitment tool of all.

Col. Stephen Davis, commander of Marine Regimental Combat Team 2, which is responsible for much of western Iraq, quoted in yesterday’s New York Times:

“We’re not going anywhere,” he told the murmuring crowd, adding that as long as there were attacks against Iraqi or American troops the house searches and roadblocks and bridge closings would continue.

“Some of you are concerned about the attack helicopters and mortar fire from the base,” he said. “I will tell you this: those are the sounds of peace.”