The Liberal Journal thinks it’s a shame that some pro-Hillary blogs are quoting Republicans. So does Brad at Sadly, No! “You know who you are,” says Nelson M. of the LJ.

With all due respect to these fine publications, perhaps they had better consider what this means about the extent to which pro-Hillary bloggers have been alienated by the relentless scorn, sanctimony, and contempt with which some progressive blogs have treated Hillary Clinton and her supporters during the last few months. For one campaign and one segment of the party to drive Clinton supporters to this level of disgust with their fellow Democrats is also no small feat—and nothing to boast about. I am not sure what further instances of finger-pointing are intended to accomplish. Perhaps it would be more productive to ask how a large number of Hillary’s supporters have reached the stage where they feel that their traditional enemies—even Scaife, even Karl Rove— are speaking more rationally, objectively and justly than our fellow Democrats. Matter for reflection, guys.

…from Buck Naked Politics: A Note from the Pro-Hillary Blogs to the Pro-Obama Ones

When the kind of anti-apostasy fury that is pointed at people like me is pointed at Hillary and her supporters, it’s not a good thing (note that I consistently think it’s a bad then when applied to people like me or Joe Lieberman…). I know that makes me a concern troll; then again it may make 40% of the Democrats out there concern trolls as well. Which kinda sucks, unless you’re John McCain.

Before dropping snark on us at his own site (more below), lefty academic blogger John Quiggin stopped by the comments to my post on Basra below.

I posted a comment in response to him:

It’s interesting; I’ve just finished two of Biggest Guy’s books (he asked me to store them until his next phase) – “A Better War”, the revisionist Vietnam history, and “Masters of Grand Strategy”.

An observation occurs to me from both of those, which is that a typical mismatch is where one side is fighting to win, and the other is fighting to settle – pretty much the history of the latter part of the Vietnam War. Unless the imbalance of power is extraordinary, the side fighting to win tends to – win.

This also refers back to the endgame in WWII when there was heated debate among the Allies about conditional vs. unconditional surrender.

John Q’s notion, as I understand it, is that war is essentially a signaling exercise.

And in rationally bounded games, it typically is.

But as Taleb notes in “Black Swan” much of the interesting action happens outside those islands of stability.

A.L.

I’m kinda bummed that he didn’t reply, so I thought I’d put this up here and see what kind of discussion it triggers.

And as a historical point, I can’t think of a case where the winning side in a conflict made the initial peace offers; any help out there?

To expand on the post on Basra, below, go read this Abu Muquama post on Cordesman’s NYT column on the fighting.

Cordesman goes on to write, of the fighting in Basra, that…

There are good reasons for the central government to reassert control of Basra. It is not peaceful. It is the key to Iraq’s oil exports. Gang rule is no substitute for legitimate government. But given the timing and tactics, it is far from clear that this offensive is meant to serve the nation’s interest as opposed to those of the Islamic Supreme Council and Dawa.

A few thoughts: One, the fighting in Basra and Baghdad is, on one level, about asserting the control of the central government. That is a good thing. But two, on another level, the fighting that took place last week was about ISCI trying to set the stage for this fall’s provincial elections. It wasn’t about the central government versus local authorities at all — it was about cold-blooded intra-Shia politics.

Note that AM thinks we backed the wrong dog in the fight:

Do we have a dog in such a fight? Alas, we do. That dog’s name is ISCI. As the same friend mentioned above has noted, historians studying Iraq decades from now will wonder why the United States allied itself with the Iran-backed ISCI instead of the popularly-supported Sadr movement. (Hint to those historians: it’s because they dress well and speak English. This is what happens when you send smart but young Republican loyalists — who only speak English — to help run the CPA in Baghdad.) Once again, we have backed the loser…

Might I suggest that our deference to Al-Sistani might have had more to do with it? While their relationship is a complex one (see this interesting article suggesting they are more closely aligned than not), it’s certainly the case that they were significant rivals in the formative period of 04 and early 05.

MSNBC:

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr offered Sunday to pull his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities if the government halts raids against his followers and releases prisoners held without charge.

The offer was contained in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf.

This in spite of the press reports (on the admittedly confusing situation) that suggest that the ‘Mahdi Army holds firm as Iraqi PM risks all in battle of Basra‘.

The other side is always implacable, plucky, and standing firm – our side is always risking all, or otherwise at hazard. The reality is that both sides are hurting, and the question is who can sustain hurting longer.

Posted without comment from Nikki Finke):

I’m told #7 Stop-Loss opened to only $1.6 million Friday from just 1,291 plays and should eke out $4+M. Although the drama from MTV Films was the best-reviewed movie opening this weekend, Paramount wasn’t expecting much because no Iraq war-themed movie has yet to perform at the box office. “It’s not looking good,” a studio source told me before the weekend. “No one wants to see Iraq war movies. No matter what we put out there in terms of great cast or trailers, people were completely turned off. It’s a function of the marketplace not being ready to address this conflict in a dramatic way because the war itself is something that’s unresolved yet. It’s a shame because it’s a good movie that’s just ahead of its time.”

OK, I lied, I’m going to comment – from Box Office Mojo, opening US weekends:

Lions for Lambs $6,702,434 (2,215 theaters, $3,025 average)

In The Valley of Elah $1,512,310 (wide, 762 theaters, $1,984 average)

Redacted $25,628 (15 theaters, $1,708 average)

Grace is Gone $13,880 (4 theaters, $3,470 average)

Rendition $4,060,012 (2,250 theaters, $1,804 average)

So obviously no one wants to see movies on the War on Terror.

Well, maybe not:

The Kingdom $17,135,055 (2,793 theaters, $6,135 average)

Maybe, just maybe, the audiences don’t see ‘addressing the conflict in a realistic way‘ the same way that the studios do. Maybe, just maybe, we don’t have to be the bad guys. Just a thought.

…in Basra. Is that a bad thing?

From The Guardian:

A senior commander in the Mahdi army said today the militia was fighting a battle for survival in Basra against a rival Shia faction seeking to obliterate it ahead of September elections.

Fighting broke out in Basra on Tuesday when Iraqi government forces launched an offensive against Shia militia in the city. Overnight, US jets carried out air strikes in support of Iraqi forces in at least two locations.

Shiek Ali al-Sauidi, a prominent member of the Moqtada al-Sadr-led movement in Basra, said his men were being targeted not by the Iraqi government but by government militias loyal to the rival Supreme Islamic Council faction.

“They are a executing a very well drawn plan. They are trying to exterminate the Sadrists and cut and isolate the movement before the September local elections,” he said in a telephone interview with the Guardian.

What do you think?

I’ll help point people to the Live Leak version of Fitna:

I’m working and so haven’t watched yet, and so can’t comment approvingly or disapprovingly. More commentary to follow.

JK: LiveLeak pulled the movie, citing safety risks:

bq. “Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers. This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one…. We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.”

Fitna can also be found here – and here.

…from MyDD:

We’re gonna be working over the coming month to instituting some measures to make it more difficult to have an account here at MyDD. I’m sure there’s many places on the web where people that having nothing better to do than attack other users will be welcome, but not here.

By random chance, on Friday I picked up a used copy of Hume’s “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” at the awesome renaissance Bookshop at the Milwaukee Airport.

I was led there by Susan Nieman’s “Evil in Modern Thought,” about which I may try and write later. That was a challenging book…

And either I’m much smarter now and so more aware of the deep subtleties in books like this, or a whole lot dumber than I was in college when they were easy to read.

I’d tagged this article and want to just toss it up while I work on a longer piece on the points it makes.

David Brooks at the NYT, writing ‘Thoroughly Modern Do-Gooders‘:

Earlier generations of benefactors thought that social service should be like sainthood or socialism. But this one thinks it should be like venture capital.

These thoroughly modern do-gooders dress like venture capitalists. They talk like them. They even think like them. That means that aside from the occasional passion for heirloom vegetables, they are not particularly crunchy. They don’t wear ponytails, tattoos or Birkenstocks. They don’t devote any energy to countercultural personal style, unless you consider excessive niceness a subversive fashion statement.

Next to them, Barack Obama looks like Abbie Hoffman.

It also means that they are not that interested in working for big, sluggish bureaucracies. They are not hostile to the alphabet-soup agencies that grew out of the New Deal and the Great Society; they just aren’t inspired by them.

He’s talking about something that resonates with me pretty closely:

The older do-gooders had a certain policy model: government identifies a problem. Really smart people design a program. A cabinet department in a big building administers it.

But the new do-gooders have absorbed the disappointments of the past decades. They have a much more decentralized worldview. They don’t believe government on its own can be innovative. A thousand different private groups have to try new things. Then we measure to see what works.

Sounds good to me…