In a column in this morning’s LA Times, Commentary magazine essayist Gabriel Schoenfeld (who we last saw here, misunderstanding Al Qaeda’s use of media), attacks widely respected arms control expert Joe Cirincione for Cirincione’s skepticism of a Syrian nuclear weapons threat. Schoenfeld writes:

Interviewed by Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker after the [September 2007] Israeli raid, Cirincione was emphatic: “Syria does not have the technical, industrial or financial ability to support a nuclear weapons program. I’ve been following this issue for 15 years, and every once in awhile a suspicion arises and we investigate and there’s nothing. There was and is no nuclear weapons threat from Syria.” [...]

Cirincione has admitted that he got it wrong, explaining that the evidence “seems strong” that Syria was building a reactor and that no one can bat 1,000.

The way Schoenfeld writes it, you’d be forgiven for thinking that there actually was a nuclear weapons threat from Syria. And, of course, that’s the point. This is the sort of alarmism in which Schoenfeld regularly trafficks. But the thing is, Joe Cirincione is right: There was and is no nuclear weapons threat from Syria. In late April, the Bush administration revealed intelligence indicating that Syria was “within weeks or months” of completing a nuclear reactor. And a nuclear reactor is not a nuclear weapon. The Washington Post’s William Arkin pointed out that “Even if Syria managed to complete a plutonium production reactor, and then managed to operate it for the months would be needed to manufacture the materials it needed, and then managed to machine that plutonium, and then design and fabricate a nuclear weapon, many months if not years would go by. Such a program would be detected, proven and probably thwarted by the international community.”

A new report from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies was also “dismissive of Syria’s nuclear prospects, [and] said it made little sense for the country to secretly build nukes when it already had an arsenal of chemical weapons.”

This is not to downplay the threat of nuclear proliferation. But those interested in dealing seriously and productively with the problem (as opposed to, ahem, laying the groundwork for a war with Iran) should understand that the record of the Bush administration on proliferation has been, like the rest of Bush’s foreign policy, disastrous. As Joe Cirincione himself wrote in May 2006:

The [Bush] administration’s counter-proliferation strategy has made these [nuclear] dangers grow, not shrink. Proliferation problems over the past five years have gotten worse, not better. Most of the construction and development of Iran’s nuclear program has occurred since 2000. The same is true in North Korea. In the past three years, while we have been bogged down in Iraq, North Korea has pulled out of the agreement that had frozen its plutonium program, gone from enough material for perhaps two bombs to an estimated ten bombs worth, withdrawn from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and declared itself a nuclear-weapon state. U.S. policy has completely failed to stop either country’s efforts.

The unfortunate reality is that the sort of complicated diplomatic work involved in protecting America from loose nukes is generally irrelevant to conservatives’ conception of national security, which is more about identifying new enemies, and then bombing them, and later, attacking liberals for having been right about what a stupid plan that was.

While it’s gratifying to see some of our conservative friends develop, at long last, an interest in accuracy, if Gabe Schoenfeld is truly interested in sounding the alarm on experts who have been proven repeatedly and monumentally wrong, he could probably start with his fellow Commentarian Max Boot, who — after warning of Saddam Hussein’s “top-of-the-line weapons of mass destruction” — has been declaring victory in Iraq since December 2003. Then Schoenfeld can stop by Norman Podhoretz’s office and see if Norm’s figured out what a Kurd is. Then Schoenfeld can move on to the various experts employed by the network of conservative think tanks, magazines, and vanity publications — many of whom, like Boot, now work as advisers to John McCain’s presidential campaign — whose countless distortions and deceptions helped to get the United States into Iraq, and now endeavor to keep us there.

But that’s only if Schoenfeld is genuinely interested in accuracy, and not just talking trash.

Earlier this week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed blasting the Democratic party — the “party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy” — for no longer being “unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American.” He wrote that Democrats “should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own.”

Today, Sen. Joe Biden (D-RI) appeared on various morning talk shows and sharply criticized the notion that progressives are weak on national security. On MSNBC he responded to Lieberman, stating, “[C]an you imagine Franklin Roosevelt, can you imagine President Truman, can you imagine President Kennedy conducting the kind of policy this outfit has?” From the exchange:

This administration is the worst administration in American foreign policy in modern history, maybe ever. The idea that they are competent to continue to conduct our foreign policy, to make us more secure and make Israel secure, is preposterous.

Ever since they got in office the only thing on the march in the Middle East has not been freedom, it’s been Iran. Every single thing they’ve touched has been a near disaster.

Watch it:

Biden also responded to Lieberman in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, where he added that the right wing’s national security policies actually betray doubt about U.S. capabilities:

The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word “no” from our vocabulary?

It’s amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves – and in America.

In his interview on NBC’s Today Show, Biden acknowledged that some members of the Democratic party are strongly anti-war, but added, “20 percent of the Republican Party is probably ready to go to war on any circumstance.”

Yesterday, the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg welcomed President Bush as the guest speaker for the Division Review ceremony, marking the end of All American Week. Predictably, the most unpopular president in American history used his speech to the troops and their families as another opportunity to buttress his legacy and defend the disastrous decision to invade Iraq by — what else? — waving the bloody shirt of 9/11.

VetVoice’s Rock Richard, himself a member of the 82nd Airborne, attended the ceremony and found the president’s remarks extremely inappropriate. “Six and a half years after the September 11th attacks,” Richard writes, and “the President is still linking those attacks to Iraq and Iraq to Osama bin Laden…This is just too ridiculous“:

Given the opportunity to thank honorable men and women for their service to their country, the President, using a captive back drop of American Soldiers seized the opportunity to make political demands of the Senate, make ridiculous errant arguments for our entry to the Iraq war, and link Iraq to Osama bin Laden and the September 11th attacks. I must say, in my entire career, of all the military functions I’ve attended, not a single one has disgusted me as much as I was today when President Bush finally ended his remarks.

Among the various discredited claims which the president continued to indulge is the idea that, by invading Iraq, the United States has “taken the battle to the terrorists abroad — so we do not have to face them here at home.”

It is far past time that the president and his supporters abandoned this ridiculous and reprehensible talking point. First, and most obviously, because it’s been long established that “the terrorists” weren’t in Iraq in any real sense until after the U.S. invaded and created the chaos which “the terrorists” subsequently exploited. Secondly, and more profoundly, “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here” is simply another way of saying that America has chosen to turn the towns, streets and homes of Iraq into battlefields, to use the Iraqi people themselves as bait for “the terrorists” and as cannon fodder in an illusory “war on terror.”

Yesterday, the House passed the Defense Authorization bill, which prescribes spending amounts for the military activities.

The bill includes a section to raise the pay for the soldiers by 3.9 percent – an increase of 0.5 percent over the Bush administration’s request. In a “Statement of Administration Policy” released yesterday, the White House asserts that it “strongly opposes” the pay increase authorized by Congress:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the 0.5 percent increase in troop pay would mean spending just an extra $324 million in 2009:

At the same time it is strongly opposing a slight increase in pay for the troops, the Bush administration is asking for hundreds of billions more for war. To put it in all in context, the White House wants $165 billion to continue fighting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars this year, but refuses to spend 0.2 percent of that amount ($324 million) to provide the troops a slight pay raise.

Despite his opposition to a pay increase, President Bush continues to demagogue the issue of support for the troops, telling soldiers at Ft. Drum yesterday that Congress is to blame for not having passed “a responsible war funding bill.” Of course, he didn’t tell that troops that by “responsible,” he means he wants a bill that gives them less pay.

In a new interview with Wired, Chuck Fish, a full-time lawyer for Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign, says that the senator opposes immunity for telecoms that aided the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program — unless they first offer a heartfelt apology for their actions:

As president, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain would not support immunity for the telecoms that aided the Bush administration’s warrantless spying program, unless there were revealing Congressional hearings and heartfelt repentance from those telephone and internet companies, a campaign surrogate said Wednesday. [...]

“First, we need to be explicit we are not talking about granting indulgences,” Fish said, clarifying that he meant forgiveness must be matched with repentance.

Basically, McCain wants to give telecoms nothing more than a slap on the wrist. If they publicly say they’re very sorry for what they did, all can be forgiven.

The telecoms have not yet offered the American public any apologies, and it doesn’t seem like they’re doing any repenting. Yet McCain has already voted for immunity. In fact, in February he said it was “disgraceful” that Congress had not yet approved a bill expanding the Bush administration’s wiretapping powers and granting immunity to telecoms:

Isn’t it embarrassing — worse than embarrassing — when the Congress and the House of Representatives of the United States of America goes out on recess, when we have not addressed this incredible threat of the intelligence capabilities of this country to monitor the communications of bad people? It’s disgraceful. It’s disgraceful!

In the interview with Wired, Fish acknowledged McCain’s pro-immunity votes, saying that they were “complicated.” In reality, it’s not that complicated: McCain is willing to give telecoms immunity with or without any repentance and congressional hearings.

(HT: mcjoan)

The AP reports that Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has been issuing religious edicts, known as fatwas, “declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad”:

A senior aide to the prime minister, al-Maliki, said he was not aware of the fatwas, but added that the “rejection of the occupation is a legal and religious principle” and that top Shiite clerics were free to make their own decisions. The aide also spoke on condition of anonymity.

It’s difficult to overstate how essential Sistani’s support has been for the task of rebuilding Iraq, or how quickly the U.S. would lose what little legitimacy it still has there if Sistani were to indicate that U.S. forces were no longer welcome. If this report is accurate, it would indicate that he is leaning in that direction.

This could also represent the final nail in the coffin of the neoconservative fantasy of establishing an enduring military presence in Iraq, from which to project U.S. power throughout the region. The article notes that the shift in Sistani’s position “underlines possible opposition to any agreement by Baghdad to allow a long-term U.S. military foothold in Iraq — part of a deal that is currently under negotiation and could be signed as early as July”:

Al-Sistani’s distaste for the U.S. presence is no secret. In his public fatwas on his Web site, he blames Washington for many of Iraq’s woes.[...]

“(Al-Sistani) rejects the American presence,” [a Sistani representative] told the AP, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment to media. “He believes they (the Americans) will at the end pay a heavy price for the damage they inflicted on Iraq.”

I think it’s possible that Sistani is responding to pressure from Sadrists who condemned him for his silence during the U.S. and Iraqi army siege of Sadr City. It’s also striking (and perhaps suspicious) how closely the language of these edicts appears to accord with what Muqtada al-Sadr himself has advocated and prohibited in terms of resistance to foreign occupiers. Contrary to some reports, Sistani did not advocate the disbanding of the Mahdi Army, but rather simply did not rule on the question, effectively leaving the Mahdi Army intact. While Sistani may regard Sadr as an unruly upstart, Sistani also recognizes that Sadr represents a massive constituency that cannot be ignored.

Cernig has more.

UPDATE: IraqSlogger reports that sources close to Sistani have strongly disputed the AP report.

In today’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) asked Gen. Raymond Odierno what the “end point” of U.S. military involvement in Iraq would be. “In military terms, what do you see as the end point in our strategic direction here with respect to our involvement in Iraq?” Webb asked.

Odierno responded that the “end point” would be when Iraq has a “self-reliant government,” a “professionalized security” force, and major political reconciliation. Webb asked what the U.S. presence should be if those conditions are met:

WEBB: Well, what — what is the end point of the United States’ involvement in Iraq? Let’s say that Iraq meets the conditions you just talked about. Should there be a United States military presence in Iraq?

ODIERNO: I think that’s a discussion we would have along several levels. Not only from the MNF-I command or the Central Command level and obviously our civilian leadership to decide what their policy would be in the future toward Iraq.

WEBB: Do you believe that if those conditions are met, there would be a need for the United States military in Iraq?

ODIERNO: I do not. I believe what we would want, though, is to maintain obviously military contacts as we do with many countries over the world.

Watch it:

Odierno’s statement pours cold water on Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) infamous claim that the U.S. should “maintain a presence” in Iraq, for as much as 100 or 10,000 years. “Fine with me,” McCain says, “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

But as Odierno said today, in the case that those conditions are met (a “big if,” as Max Bergmann notes), the U.S. military does not “need” to keep troops in the country. “That’s a very important clarification,” Webb concluded.

Email correspondence from the Pentagon document dump reveals Gen. David Petraeus was “happy to” participate in its “puppet” TV military analyst program in 2005. The “talented” military officer was promoted by President Bush to lieutenant general in 2004, with the public mission of training Iraqi military forces. At the behest of Larry Di Rita, Rumsfeld’s “right-hand man” in the Pentagon, Petraeus took on another, secret mission that year, shaping the public perception of the Iraq War and the key question of whether American troops would be able to come home.

PETRAEUS’S PUBLIC RELATIONS MISSION

Larry Di Rita

The August 28, 2005 episode of Meet the Press — as Cindy Sheehan was asking to meet with the President in Crawford, Texas — was focused on Iraq, with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad and a panel of retired generals. The generals were Wesley Clark, Wayne Downing, Barry McCaffrey, and Montgomery Meigs. As the New York Times revealed in its exposé, Downing, McCaffrey, and Meigs all participated in the secret briefing program managed by the Pentagon Public Affairs Office.

Documents released by the Pentagon (pp. 22-30) reveal that Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita wanted to make sure the Meet the Press appearance went as well as possible. Friday afternoon, Di Rita thought of using Petraeus. Bryan Whitman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, agreed — “Not a bad idea. That is a tough group and as you know have not been very supportive before.” Whitman sent the “thought downrange” in a message to “Dave,” who immediately went into action, calling and emailing the retired generals from Iraq.

Di Rita complained to Petraeus that “some of these retired military analysts are trying to have it both ways” — supporting generals like Petraeus but criticizing the “secdef,” Donald Rumsfeld, and “his supposed bad plans”:

Petraeus told Di Rita that he was concerned his conversation with McCaffrey didn’t go terribly well:

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Petraeus’s calls on behalf of the Pentagon convinced the analysts on Meet the Press to paint a rosy picture of the training of Iraqi forces — which they believed meant American troops would soon start coming home. McCaffrey said:

Well, Tim, to be honest, I’m reasonably optimistic about this. I talked to General George Casey in country and Dave Petraeus, the guy who’s actually in charge of trying to build the Iraqi security forces.

Meigs told Russert:

And when I ask senior Army officials who are longtime friends who aren’t going to give me a BS answer how we’re doing, “Are we winning or losing?” they’re saying, “We’re winning.”

McCaffrey believed that by August 2006:

You’ll have a huge Iraqi security force out in the field. And you’ll see a drawdown of a third or so of U.S. military forces starting in about another year.

Gen. Downing was even more enthusiastic:

I do think that in another year or 15 months, we’re going to be able to start taking the U.S. forces down somewhat, because I think the Iraqi forces are going to be in strength of about 150,000 of both police and army. So I’m very, very positive. And I’m giving you this without any political motive.

Petraeus failed to train a “huge Iraqi security force” independent of US support, and American forces were not drawn down. Rather, in 2007, President Bush promoted Petraeus to a four-star general in command of the Iraq occupation, directing him to oversee the “surge” — raising troop numbers by more than 20,000. One of Petraeus’s first acts as commander was to meet with the Pentagon’s cadre of military analysts.