Much ink has been spilled over the Small Group of Men who hijacked a history-honed Conservative (yes, capital C) philosophy of peace-by-overwhelming-strength and reluctant engagement (see: Foreign Policy Successes, Cold War) in favor of overly-optimistic open-ended intervention (see: LBJ, Nightmares of). And much blood has been spilled over this SGM's lack of planning for post-war Iraq--- a result of an assumption that the Iraqis would, more or less, like being occupied by our benevolent angels of democracy. It's been safe to assume, up to this point, that the President and his SGM had insulated themselves from contrary views, hence a strategy based a view of the world with as much depth as a one-page briefing summary, which we know is all this President reads. (Remember folks, he's not dumb, he's just intellectually lazy). But today, Douglas Jehl and David Sanger report in the NY Times that the National Intelligence Council (the same people who brought you the "things will stay the same or get worse" study first reported on last month) gave the President an analysis in January '03 that stated, as Jehl and Sanger's summarize: "... that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict...

Optimistic (D)s were temporarily enthusiastic about the three (R) Senators on the Sunday shows last weekend. The three Senators all had harsh criticisms of the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq, and a specific demand: they wanted Bush to attack the no-go zones as soon as possible, thinking that overwhelming military force would put down the insurgency. Kerry latched onto the criticism, and ignored the recommendation. Bush is following their advice. The folly of this strategy is almost comical. For other examples, see Vietnam, Palestine, and... Vietnam.

For the record, Iraq's best missile had a 650km range, and it scared the crap out of everyone. Iran just announced the Shahab-3, which goes twice as far. PS: They actually have a nuclear program.

NEW YORK (AP) President Bush defends his decision to invade Iraq in speech to the United Nations and urges delegates to turn attention to fighting war on terrorism, humanitarian concerns.

A17? Are you fucking kidding me?

In an effort to justify last week's orange alert, the United States apparently blew the cover of an Al-Qaida turncoat. Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan had been captured, but was still allowed to email with his contacts. This allowed the authorities a rare peek inside the organization. That all came to a grinding halt when the United States publicized Khan's arrest last Monday. With Khan's cover blown, Britain and Pakistan were forced to prematurely arrest a dozen terrorists before they could be fully exploited as intelligence sources. Britain and Pakistan are furious. We should be, too. The Administration blew Khan's cover to advance a short-sighted political goal: they were, after all, desperate to show real progress against Al-Qaida. We have a word for this, by the way: compromising state secrets for personal gain is called treason.

When Bruce Schneier speaks, everybody listens. In his latest Cryptogram he effectively describes just how complicated the Chalabi betrayal has become. We might have know, they might have known, they might have known that we knew, and we might have known that they knew... and so on. Most interesting is that the world's secrets are being kept by private companies, like Crypto AG, and we're relying on market forces to ensure that they produce an effective, secure product. If they're considered suspect or compromised, they're out of business. For all but the most powerful countries (the U.S.), this is what you rely on to ensure that your communications are secure.

I really like the fact that Taliban and Al Qaeda are no longer synonymous with Iraqi insurgents. Remember when they were the same thing?

AP - The confidential Justice Department memos criticized by Democrats as laying the legal foundation for Iraqi prisoner abuses were aimed mainly at showing that international treaties banning torture do not apply to al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners, Bush administration officials say.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040610/ap_on_go_pr_wh/prisoner_abuse

Roy Parviz Mottaehdeh's Keeping the Shi'ites Straight is a great primer on Shi'ite history. He provides some valuable context to the Western media's coverage of the Shi'ite uprising by describing the internal workings of the Shi'ite minority in Iraq.