The Via Media

WaPo - Democrats Push Toward Middle On Iraq Policy

Democratic leaders in Congress have decided to shift course and pursue modest bipartisan measures to alter U.S. military strategy in Iraq, hoping to use incremental changes instead of aggressive legislation to break the grip Republicans have held over the direction of war policy.

As an Episcopalian, I have to admit that I'm fond of "the middle way." And really, if one is thinking logically, it was apparent that this day would eventually come. One can only do the same thing for so long without success before realizing that a different path is the only viable option. This is a democratic society after all, one designed to protect the rights of the minority as well as the majority. And this is true in Congress as well as society as a whole. It only makes sense that the Democrats in Congress would eventual come around to the notion that compromise is the best answer here, if not the only answer.

This, however, I find quite irritating:

MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group that has spent months pressuring Republicans to turn against the war, is now threatening to turn on Democrats who temper their positions.

I don't understand why MoveOn.org would prefer continually banging their heads against the wall to some incremental change. Isn't incremental change still "moving on"?

The Surge - "Short of Goals" so far

Via the NYT - Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal

Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

[. . .]

The assessment offers the first comprehensive look at the progress of the effort to stabilize Baghdad with the heavy influx of additional troops. The last remaining American units in the troop increase are just now arriving.

It is no secret that I was never in favor of The Surge and it is no real surprise that it is not working out exactly as planned. It is important to remember that the military can only do so much, and is only designed to do so much. Once the military "secures" an area, it is the responsibility of the local police to maintain order. If they cannot, or will not, the military is all but wasting its time.

There in seems to lie the problem.

In an interview, he [Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks] said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly.

That is forcing American commanders to conduct operations to remove insurgents from some areas multiple times. The heavily Shiite security forces have also repeatedly failed to intervene in some areas when fighters, who fled or laid low when the American troops arrived, resumed sectarian killings.

“Until you have the ability to have a presence on the street by people who are seen as honest and who are not letting things come back in,” said General Brooks, referring to the Iraqi police units, “you can’t shift into another area and expect that place to stay the way it was.”

The problem is, the administration should have known that this would be the case. Yes, it is true that to a very large degree we caused the current problems in Iraq by invading the country and disrupting the existing power structure. Because of that, we retain a great deal of responsibility in returning the area to some modicum of order before we leave it. But it is difficult to force order on an area that is not willing to do what it takes to maintain it. It is not even clear that those in charge desire the type of order that we want to instill.

At some point one has to reach the realization that it is simply wasteful to continue to throw good money after bad.

Bush not so conservative after all

Via the NYT - Carter Criticizes Bush and Blair on War in Iraq

Former President Jimmy Carter criticized George W. Bush’s presidency in interviews released Saturday as “the worst in history” in international relations and faulted Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain for his loyal relationship with Mr. Bush.

[. . .]

“The overt reversal of America’s basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me,” Mr. Carter told the newspaper.

[. . .]

In the newspaper interview, Mr. Carter said Mr. Bush has taken a “radical departure from all previous administration policies” with the Iraq war.

“We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered,” he said.

[. . .]

In the newspaper interview, Mr. Carter, who brokered the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel, also criticized Mr. Bush’s Middle East policies. “For the first time since Israel was founded, we’ve had zero peace talks to try to bring a resolution of differences in the Middle East,” he said. “That’s a radical departure from the past.”

I have long wondered why conservatives have supported Geo. W. Bush in the way that they have. Conservative, in the since of conserving the way of life and the way of doing things that came before us, is just not the way that Dubya works. He is a wild card. He may espouse some of the same beliefs as those who label themselves as conservatives, but Carter is right that Bush is conserving very little in terms of traditional American values and procedures in international relations. At least that is my opinion.

An interesting development

Via WaPo - Bush Taps Skeptic of Buildup as 'War Czar'

President Bush tapped Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute yesterday to serve as a new White House "war czar" overseeing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, choosing a low-key soldier who privately expressed skepticism about sending more troops to Iraq during last winter's strategy review.

I'm a bit surprised by this decision from the administration. It seem somewhat out of character. I wonder what the strategy is, or maybe it's just a case of no one else being willing to take the job. It will be interesting to see if this actually affects the way the administration conducts the war from this point forward. I have my doubts.

The rest of the world reacts

WaPo - Va. Killings Widely Seen as Reflecting a Violent Society

Officials, newspaper columnists and citizens around the world Tuesday described the Virginia Tech massacre as the tragic reflection of an America that fosters violence at home and abroad, even as it attempts to dictate behavior to the rest of the world.

From European countries with strict gun-control laws to war-ravaged Iraq, where dozens of people are killed in shootings and bombings each day, foreigners and their news media used the university attack to condemn what they depicted as U.S. policies to arm friends, attack enemies and rely on violence rather than dialogue to settle disputes.

It is difficult to know how to react to such reactions. On the one hand, it gives some insight into how the citizens of other countries feel about the U.S., that their condolences are tempered with a dose of "but it was your own fault." But to some degree I have to agree. Our culture is awfully violent and some of the blogospheric reaction to Monday's events shows that our view of reality has become skewed by exposure to movie violence (Poliblog has some good commentary on the subject with links to examples). And I personally am in favor of stricter gun laws.

However, on the other hand, the article quotes an Iraqi who makes a good point, but not the point that I think he intended to make:

"We did not have this violence in the Saddam era because the law was so tough on guns."

No, they didn't have that violence, they had a ruthless dictator. And although I do not believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution should be interpreted as broadly as it currently is, I think it was designed to defend against situations exactly like what existed in Iraq under Saddam.

McCain on the decline

WaPo - McCain Calls War 'Necessary and Just'

Sinking in polls and struggling to reinvigorate his foundering presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) delivered a robust defense of the war in Iraq on Wednesday, declaring that President Bush and the conflict's supporters are on the right side of history in the struggle against terrorism and extremism.

Dismissing public opinion polls as offering nothing but "temporary favor" to the war's opponents, McCain directly confronted the biggest obstacle to his White House ambitions: his unyielding support of a war that more than two-thirds of the country has turned against.

I actually used to like McCain back when he ran against Bush in 2000, but now he is just beginning to seem pathetic. I don't, however, fault him for not totally conforming to public opinion. I feel like elected officials should respect public opinion much more so than this current administration has ever done, but in all honesty a leader does not lead by following. In fact, I greatly respect Sen. Obama's courage to speak out against the war back in the beginning when the war was still quite popular in public opinion.

On the other hand, McCain's continued support for (and sometimes outrageous statements about) the war seem to indicate that he has lost touch with reality as much as he has lost touch with the public opinion. It seems to me that if a leader holds a different view than what is popular opinion at the time, he or she must show the public that these ideas are better than those held by the public and have something to back it up. Eventually, if they have accomplished this, public opinion will begin to turn in their favor. In contrast, the current administration and Republican front-runners seem more like ostriches with heads buried in the sand than leader with a real plan.

Terrorism more likely

BBC News - Iraq policy 'spawned new terror'

The countries had tried to "keep the lid on" problems by military force and had failed to address the root causes, the Oxford Research Group warned.

[. . .]

Its latest report said these issues were still the greatest threats, but added that the ongoing war on terror and the war in Iraq were increasing the risk of future terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11.

So much for the idea that by fighting them there we are making ourselves safer at home - an argument I've never bought into personally.

From an Iranian perspective

The BBC has some brief comments from some Iranians on the street about the capture and release of the British sailors. These comments seem to generally confirm the ideas I already had about the whole situation. For example:

SINA, TEHRAN, IRAN
"It's very interesting! Passing through VIP lounge with suits and gifts!

On the other side of the Atlantic they dress them in orange clothes, blindfolded and shackled while being threatened by dogs.

By releasing the sailors the way they did, I felt like they were trying to hold themselves up as an example of civility and humane treatment of prisoners, in contrast to the view the world has of US-held prisoners at Guantanamo.

And there is also the issue of British/Iranian history at work here:

ALI ALIAKBARI, BUSINESSMAN, TEHRAN
There is a long way to go in the relationship between Britain and Iran. This crisis has been resolved but there is a lot of fence-mending to do.

I think we need an urgent review of British policy in Iran.

There is a long history of animosity between the British and the Iranians and I am sure that played into this whole affair.

Is a withdrawal date a good idea?

There was heated debate in the Senate yesterday over the necessity/folly of setting a withdrawal date in Iraq. Here are some of the arguments presented by the opposing sides via the NYT - Senate Supports a Pullout Date in Iraq War Bill:
Pro deadline arguments-

“There will not be a military solution to Iraq,” Mr. Hagel declared. “Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. It doesn’t belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost.”

I agree with this statement whole-heartedly. The administration keeps repeating that our troops need more time so that we can win, but I don't see how a real victory is possible in Iraq. In many ways, we were defeated before we ever started. We never should have gone into Iraq, and I've held that position from the beginning.

“Rather than continuing to defy the will of the American people and Congress by threatening to veto this legislation,” Mr. Kennedy said, “President Bush should put the Iraqis on notice.”

I also agree that the Iraqis need to be put on notice. If democracy is not something they are willing to fight for, then it is not something they are going to have for very long even if we hand it to them on a silver platter. Ideally democracy is a bottom-up process. It's like winning in sports - you have to want it bad enough to get it.

And the Anti-withdrawal date arguments-

“This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act,” said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. “A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it’s a recipe for defeat.”

[. . .]

“We cannot give up,” Mr. McCain said, “just as we are starting to turn things around in Iraq.”

I've never been a cadet at West Point, so I don't know what they know, but it sounds reasonable. The only problem is, as pointed out above, I agree with Senator Hagel that there is no military victory on the horizon in Iraq. Starting the war in the first place was the recipe for defeat. Continuing to pour money and troops into a bad situation is the epitome of the old adage of throwing good money after bad.

“It would be the bugle of retreat,” Mr. Warner said. “It would be echoed and repeated from every minaret through Iraq: the coalition forces have decided to take the first step backward. We cannot send that message. Not at this time.”

He's right. I will be "echoed and repeated from every minaret through Iraq," but there is little we can do to stop it. The problem is that the terrorist win either way. If we continue to stay and fight, we look like an occupying force and we are an easy target those who want to accuse the US of neo-Imperialism. Terrorist organizations can use our mere presence as a recruiting tool.

On the other hand, if we leave, they appear to have defeated us. I have heard it argued on many occasions that Osama bin Laden was emboldened by the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, giving him the belief that a relatively small band of rebels could defeat a superpower. And it was this belief that gave him the will to attack the US on Sept. 11th.

The ultimate problem is that this administration has already placed us in a no win situation. If we had only gone into Afghanistan, which we had wide international support to do, and stayed the course until the mission was truly completed, we wouldn't be in this mess right now. Bush was hell bent on attacking Iraq for a reason that is not fully evident at this point, but I doubt it had much to do with the phony intelligence we were given at the time (I suspect it had something to do with proving something to his Daddy, but I could be wrong). I fear this is a mistake that we will be paying for for years to come.

Ill-Prepared

WaPo - Military Is Ill-Prepared For Other Conflicts

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the high and growing demand for U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be vital to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge.

[. . .]

The risk to the nation is serious and deepening, senior officers warn, because the U.S. military now lacks a large strategic reserve of ground troops ready to respond quickly and decisively to potential foreign crises, whether the internal collapse of Pakistan, a conflict with Iran or an outbreak of war on the Korean Peninsula. Air and naval power can only go so far in compensating for infantry, artillery and other land forces, they said. An immediate concern is that critical Army overseas equipment stocks for use in another conflict have been depleted by the recent troop increases in Iraq, they said.

Hopefully, we will not find ourselves caught up in any of the conflicts listed above anytime soon. However, this does underscore the folly of starting a war that was not necessary for National Security and illustrates how it has, at least to some degree, weakened our National Security instead of strengthening it.

In addition, if other countries are aware that our military strength has been diminished by the Iraq conflict, or that we are too tied up in Iraq to be able to effectively combat threats elsewhere, this could embolden groups into action that might have otherwise been deterred by a fear of U.S. intervention.

Necessary but not sufficient

CNN.com - No military solution to Iraq - U.S. chief

U.S. and Iraqi security forces cannot solve the problem of violence in Iraq without political action and reconciliation with some militant groups, the U.S. commander in Iraq said on Thursday.

General David Petraeus, in his first news conference in Baghdad since he took command last month, also said he saw no immediate need to request more U.S. troops, but reinforcements already requested would likely stay "well beyond the summer."

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus said.

"Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient."

He said political progress would require talking to and reconciling with "some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them."

It sounds to me like the General is right on the money with that one. The military, by itself, is not going to solve the problem. Unless the current Iraqi government is just going to kill every group that disagrees with them (which we certainly would not advocate), they are going to have to find a way to bring them into the political process or the problem is never going to go away. Unless the insurgent groups can be convinced that they have a chance to gain some influence through legal, political channels, the violence is going to continue.

Disturbing and yet not surprising

NYT - Basra Raid Finds Dozens Detained by Iraq Spy Unit

Iraqi special forces and British troops stormed the offices of an Iraqi government intelligence agency in the southern city of Basra on Sunday, and British officials said they discovered about 30 prisoners, some showing signs of torture.

The raid appeared to catch Iraq’s central government by surprise and raised new questions about the rule of law in the Shiite-dominated south, where less than two weeks ago Britain announced plans for a significant reduction in its forces because of improved stability.

[. . .]

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a conservative Shiite, condemned the raid in Basra. He publicly said nothing about the evidence of torture.

It is, without a doubt, disturbing to find out that a government intelligence agency in Iraq is detaining and torturing people. I'm not sure how anyone can be surprised to hear the news, however. If one thinks about it, our own Central Intelligence Agency has been caught doing the exact same thing. This does not in any way justify the actions of the Iraqis, but it certainly reduces our ability to be indignant about the whole matter.

What I find interesting about the article is that it invokes the word torture, but gives no actual examples of what was done to those who were detained. Obviously one man's "torture" is another man's "'tough' but 'lawful and necessary'." Let us speak in terms that we all understand, instead of using politically charged terms that are designed to evoke particular emotions.

I am not for one minute trying to justify what the Iraqis are doing. I would never try to justify the use of torture. (I think it is morally wrong, but I also think it is unreliable just in practical terms as well.) What I am trying to suggest is that we should get the log out our own eye before we spend too much time trying to get the speck out of someone else's (to use a Biblical reference). We cannot take the moral high ground, while we are playing around with semantics trying to justify our own behavior.

Who can you trust?

NYT - U.S. Concedes Uncertainty on North Korean Uranium Effort

For nearly five years, though, the Bush administration, based on intelligence estimates, has accused North Korea of also pursuing a secret, parallel path to a bomb, using enriched uranium. That accusation, first leveled in the fall of 2002, resulted in the rupture of an already tense relationship: The United States cut off oil supplies, and the North Koreans responded by throwing out international inspectors, building up their plutonium arsenal and, ultimately, producing that first plutonium bomb.

But now, American intelligence officials are publicly softening their position, admitting to doubts about how much progress the uranium enrichment program has actually made. The result has been new questions about the Bush administration’s decision to confront North Korea in 2002.

This just further illustrates why we should not take the government at it word. And really not just this administration, but any administration. When anyone says anything, it is always necessary to determine whether that person might have some ulterior motive for saying it. Often times they do.

It doesn't seem to matter whether it is the CIA overstepping the bounds of logical reasoning (as many argue was the case here) or if it is someone like James Cameron making a documentary full of speculation and faulty logic, or whether it is Al Gore making an Academy Award-winning documentary on global warming, one has to be willing to ask one's self if the source might have some reason to lie or distort the truth. The answer is often yes they do. It is true that we can never have all the information necessary to make the absolute right decision all the time, but we should avoid blind faith in any particular authority. We should always be willing to question. I'm reminded of something I read at Snopes.com one time, it's good advice:

This section [the Lost Legends section] graphically demonstrates the pitfalls of falling into the lazy habit of taking as gospel any one information outlet's unsupported word. We could have put up a page saying "Don't believe everything you read, no matter how trustworthy the source," but that wouldn't have conveyed the message half as well as showing through direct example just how easy it is to fall into the "I got it from so-and-so, therefore it must be true" mindset. That's the same mindset that powers urban legends, the same basic mistake that impels countless well-meaning folks to confidently assert "True story; my aunt (husband, best friend, co-worker, boss, teacher, minister) told me so."

No single truth purveyor, no matter how reliable, should be considered an infallible font of accurate information. Folks make mistakes. Or they get duped. Or they have a bad day at the fact-checking bureau. Or some days they're just being silly. To not allow for any of this is to risk stepping into a pothole the size of Lake Superior.

With Iraq, we stepped into a pothole the size of Lake Superior, there is little doubt at this point. The article above indicates that we probably made the situation in N. Korea worse by making our accusations in 2002. It is not always best to assume the worst case scenario and it is important to realize when you are dealing with a source that likes to deal in worst case scenario, i.e. the CIA.

That leads me back to my title question, who can you trust? I don't really have an answer to that, unfortunately. In each situation you have to judge for yourself. There are, however, two question you should probably ask yourself before you decide:
1. Does this person/group have something to gain from making me believe this?
2. Do I have some ulterior motive for wanting it to be true or false?
Answer these questions honestly and you are probably off to a good start.

Okay, I'll stop ranting now.

Revising the 2002 Authorization for War?

WaPo - Senators aim to revise Iraq mission, reduce troops

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Key U.S. Senate Democrats are preparing a proposal to start bringing U.S. combat troops home from Iraq by rewriting Congress' 2002 authorization for the war, which many now view as a mistake, aides said on Thursday.

Undeterred by Senate Republicans who halted a non-binding resolution opposing President George W. Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, the Democrats are determined to challenge Bush anew by replacing the 2002 authorization of force in Iraq with a narrower mission statement for U.S. troops, the aides said.

The newly defined U.S. mission would involve denying terrorists a safe haven in Iraq, training Iraqi troops and helping Iraqis protect their own borders, said one Democratic aide. The proposal would be binding and a draft calls for U.S. troops not involved in the narrower mission to come home by early 2008, he said.

The argument is that the original authorization was to find and destroy the WMDs, which ultimately didn't exist, and to depose Saddam Hussein, who is now dead. The argument makes sense logically, but we are dealing with partisan politics, not logic.

The article also notes:

If passed by the Senate, the revised authorization would also have to be approved by the House. Bush would then either have to sign it or Congress would have to override his veto for it to go into effect -- and it is far from clear such a measure could attract enough support to survive a veto.

So really it is probably a moot point unless they find a way to attach it to another bill that Bush will have to sign. And I have to wonder, what does Joe Lieberman think of all this?

Update on Prince Harry

Earlier speculations have now been confirmed, Prince Harry will be headed to Iraq later this year. Via CNN - Iraq tank command for Prince Harry

Britain's Prince Harry will be sent to Iraq to command a tank unit, the Defense Ministry confirmed Thursday.

Harry -- third in line to the throne -- is expected to be deployed with his Royals and Blues regiment near the southern city of Basra.

[. . .]

Clarence House, which speaks on behalf of the prince, and the Ministry of Defense said that the prince would carry out a "normal troop commander's role."

In a joint statement, they said: "We can confirm today that Prince Harry will deploy to Iraq later this year in command of a troop from 'A Squadron' of the Household Cavalry Regiment.

"Whilst in Iraq Cornet Wales (Harry's regimental title) will carry out a normal troop commander's role, involving leading a troop of 12 men in four Scimitar armored reconnaissance vehicles, each with a crew of three.

It is interesting that his deployment seems to coincide with British troop reductions in the area. However, just the fact that he wants to fight and has rejected the idea of preferential treatment says a lot about his character. I know that British Royals are expected to serve in the military, but I feel like Harry going beyond the minimum that is expected of him. At least that is the impression that I get from the stories I've read.

Troop increases and troop decreases

While the United States carries on with its troop surge plan, other countries begin to scale back, including our closest ally Great Britian.

Via the BBC - Blair announces Iraq troops cut

Prime Minister Tony Blair has told MPs that 1,600 British troops will return from Iraq within the next few months.

He said the 7,100 serving troops would be cut to 5,500 soon, with hopes that 500 more will leave by late summer.

Mr Blair said some soldiers, stationed at Basra air base, would remain into 2008 to help secure supply routes, the Iran border and to support Iraqis.

And in related news, also via the BBC, Denmark to pull troops from Iraq

Denmark will withdraw its troops from Iraq by August, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said.

The troops, numbering about 460, will be replaced by a unit of about 50 soldiers manning four observational helicopters, he said.

It makes it sound like we are sending soldiers to the proverbial sinking ship.

But the Denmark article does note:

Mr Rasmussen said the withdrawal from Iraq would enable Denmark to increase its troop deployment to Afghanistan.

So it is not a complete abandonment of the situation in the Middle East.

For more discussion of the Iraq part of the story, check out Poliblog.

Prince Harry may be headed for Iraq

CNN - Report: Prince Harry due in Iraq

Prince Harry, a 2006 graduate of Britain's prestigious Sandhurst military academy, will soon go to Iraq with his military unit, a British military source told CNN.

The posting to Iraq, something Prince Harry has been actively seeking since being commissioned, is expected in April or May, the unidentified military source told CNN.

[. . .]

His father, Prince Charles, was a pilot with the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. Harry's grandfather, Prince Philip, had a distinguished career in the Royal Navy. Harry's uncle, Prince Andrew, was a Royal Navy pilot and served in the Falklands War against Argentina.

As the second in line to the British crown, Harry's older brother, William -- while also a military officer -- is not eligible for combat service.

People often joke, or maybe not really joke, about the fact that Bush is not willing to send his twin daughters to Iraq. Obviously the British royal tradition of military service has survived quite well.

"Delusional"

BBC - Iraq invasion plan 'delusional'

The commanders predicted that after the fighting was over there would be a two- to three-month "stabilisation" phase, followed by an 18- to 24-month "recovery" stage.

They projected that the US forces would be almost completely "re-deployed" out of Iraq at the end of the "transition" phase - within 45 months of invasion.

"Completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq permeate these war plans," NSA executive director Thomas Blanton said in a statement posted on the organisation's website.

One has to wonder just who it was that Franks was getting his information from. I do not personally have an in depth knowledge of the region, but one of my former professors, who has studied the region in depth, seemed to realize that deposing Hussein would lead to further instability in the region and possibly civil war. It would seem that experts on the region would have been consulted on the matter and at least the possibility of such an outcome would have been suggested. It would seem to me that only an ideologue who was totally sold on the universal goodness and applicability of democracy could have come up with that time line.

Twisting the facts

BBC News - Pentagon 'twisted Iraq findings'

The Democratic chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee has suggested intelligence was twisted in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

[. . .]

Under repeated questioning by Sen Levin, Mr Gimble said the conclusions reached in reports by Mr Feith were not fully supported by the available intelligence.

'Relationship' unproven

In particular, his conclusion there was a "mature and symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda could not be justified on the basis of the available intelligence.

And an alleged meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and a leader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohamed Atta, never took place.

This comes as no major surprise. I assumed they were twisting evidence from the beginning.

Update: After reading a post over at Poliblog on a similar article from the Washington Post, I was inspired to point out the lame excuse used in this article:

Mr Feith told the inspector general his reports never pretended to be intelligence assessments, the report's executive summary says.

Officer to stand trial

NYT - Trial Starts for Officer Who Refused to Go to Iraq

A court-martial started here on Monday against an Army officer who refused to serve in Iraq last summer because, he has said, the war is illegal.
[. . .]
Lieutenant Watada has said the Bush administration has falsely used the 9/11 attacks to justify the war. He has said that the war has been proved unjust because unconventional weapons have not been found in Iraq and that American soldiers have mistreated the Iraqis.
[. . .]
His prospects appear uncertain. The judge, Lt. Col. John Head, reinforced on Monday an earlier ruling that Lieutenant Watada could not base his defense on his contention that the war is illegal.
[. . .]
“From what I understand, that under military law those in the military are allowed to refuse — in fact, have the right to refuse unlawful orders — a duty to refuse,” Lieutenant Watada said last month at a forum featuring war opponents, according to a transcript distributed on Monday by Zoltan Grossman, a professor at Evergreen State College who helped organize the forum.

In the transcript, Lieutenant Watada said being denied the chance to argue the legality of the war in his court-martial was “a violation of our most sacred premises of due process and, indeed, is un-American.”

This is beginning to sound like a draft war. It is understandable to have conscientious objectors during a draft, but it seems a little odd with a volunteer military. The article notes that Watada is the first officer to object to service in Iraq but that many enlisted soldiers have objected. Does this represent some major milestone in the war, or is it just an isolated incident? I suppose only time will tell.