The American Civil War and The War in Iraq:Drawing Parallels

It is always tenuous to try and draw parallels between historic events especially wars. Most of liberal friends and colleagues get angry whenever I try to draw that parallel mself. It is one they want nothing to do with because after a long, bloody and quite unpopular war, in the end, a hapless, unaccomplished, steadfast, and in many ways, stubborn, President was ultimately proved correct. History of course has lauded Abraham Lincoln as a great leader, a man of courage, and of conviction, but that was not the way his opponents saw him then.

Take a look at the 1864 Democratic Party platform.

Resolved, that in the future, as in the past, we will adhere with
unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution, as the only solid
foundation of our strength, security, and happiness as a people, and as a
framework of government equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity of
all
the States, both Northern and Southern.
1864 Democratic Presidential
Nominee,
General George B. McClellan

Resolved, that this convention
does explicitly declare, as the sense of the
American people, that after
four years of failure to restore the Union by the
experiment of war, during
which, under the pretence of military necessity, or
war power higher than
the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been
disregarded in every
part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden
down, and the
material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice,
humanity,
liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made
for a
cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the
States or other peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable
moment peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the
States.

Resolved, that the direct interference of the military
authorities of the
United States in the recent elections held in Kentucky,
Maryland, Missouri, and
Delaware, was a shameful violation of the
Constitution, and a repetition of such
acts in the approaching election will
be held as revolutionary, and resisted
with all the means and power under
our control.

Resolved, that the aim and object of the Democratic party
are to preserve
the federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired ;
and they hereby
declare that they consider the administrative usurpation of
extraordinary and
dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution; the
subversion of the civil by
the military laws in States not in insurrection;
the arbitrary military arrest,
imprisonment, trial, and sentence of American
citizens in States where civil law
exists in full force; the suppression of
freedom of speech and of the press; the
denial of the right of asylum; the
open and avowed disregard of State rights;
the employment of unusual test
oaths, and the interference with and denial of
the right of the people to
bear arms in their defense, as calculated to prevent
a restoration of the
Union and the perpetuation of a government deriving its
just powers from the
consent of the governed.

Resolved, that the shameful disregard by the
administration of its duty in
respect to our fellow-citizens who are now and
have long been prisoners of war
in a suffering condition, deserves the
severest reprobation on the score alike
of public policy and common
humanity.

Resolved, that the sympathy of the Democratic party is
heartily and
earnestly extended to the soldiers of our army and the seamen
of our navy, who
are and have been in the field under the flag of their
country; and, in the
event of its attaining power, they will receive all the
care, protection, and
regard that the brave soldiers and sailors of the
republic have so nobly
earned.

Now, take a look at this diary from the Virginian

First, although the war was about saving the Union and ending slavery, it was
– as it was known throughout much of the South - the “War of Northern
Aggression.” Unfair, perhaps, but the South’s objective in the Civil War was
to be left to secede in peace, not to invade or conquer the North. The Civil
War’s fighting was ostensibly begun by the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the
surrender of Major Anderson and his 85 troops. The fighting was not expected to last very long at all,
and the surrender of the fort's defenders was quickly followed by their release
to Union warships outside Charleston harbor. Major Anderson later became a Union
General. But, while the skirmish at Fort Sumter marked the initiation of
shooting, the Civil War was started by Abraham Lincoln’s decision to prevent the
South from seceding, and his willingness to use military force to prevent
it.Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union and – as a result – Northern
armies invaded the states that seceded to bring them back under Federal
Government control.

Virtually all of the war was fought on secessionist soil.Today we consider
that a good thing. But it was not inevitable. Lincoln could have allowed the
South to secede and made arrangements with the Confederate government to
cooperate in developing another separate country on the North American
continent, thereby saving roughly 600,000 lives; 2% of the population.

In todya's terms that same death toll would equal 6 million people.Following
the war, the South was treated as conquered enemy territory during “Reconstruction” and its economy was so
devastated that it took a century before it fully recovered.There were many
people who opposed the war.

First or course were the 10 million people of the Southern states who would just
as soon not fight an invading army. But even among the 20 million Northerners,
there was a very large contingent who did not feel the war was worthwhile and
who were content to see the South secede. Among these was George McClellan, the top
Northern General at the beginning of the war who ran against Abraham Lincoln in
1864 when his party – the Democrats – ran on an anti-war platform, promising to
end the war and negotiate with the Confederacy

read the rest at the link...

Will Moveon Hand Rudy Iowa

Their hubris of course knows no limits. Only hubris of an unbelievable scale could have made anyone at that group think the now famous Betray Us ad would work on the entire population. Now, they are taking on Rudy in full force. They have decided to expand their advertisements in Iowa against him. This from CNN

The liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org announced Tuesday it is expanding its Iowa
television ad attacking GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani to national
cable, a move that follows the former New York City mayor's release of a radio
ad blasting the group and calling himself its "worst nightmare."
The MoveOn
ad, which began airing in Iowa Monday, slams Giuliani for leaving the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group after two months. The ad argues that he “has always been a big
fan of George Bush’s war in Iraq. Yet when Giuliani had the chance to actually
do something about the war, he went AWOL."
Giuliani's radio ad released
Tuesday does not address MoveOn's claims..."

Now, as we all know, it was a tactical error for Rudy to wait so long to advertise in Iowa. As a result while he is the prohibitive front runner, in Iowa, Mitt Romney, fourth or lower nationally, leads. We all understand how important the first state is to the national race, and now, while in the lead on the one hand, Rudy trails where it will probably matter most.

Enter Moveon.org to pump Rudy up in Iowa. If we all think about it, Moveon.org placing anti Rudy ads in Iowa are not only more effective than his own ads but obviously much cheaper. Rudy now has priceless free advertising at a time when he desperately needs it.

Is their hubris really this ridiculous? What do the folks at Moveon.org think will happen everytime any Republican primary voter hears one of their ads attacking Rudy? Do they really think that their political opponents will be swayed in their direction? Obviously, we all know what will happen as a result of this full frontal assault on Rudy by Moveon.org.

Rudy loves to fight. I have mentioned it earlier. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if I found out that in school he got into lots of fist fights. Now, he gets into lots of poltical fights. Rudy will fight with Moveon.org as long as Moveon.org reciprocates, and if that means a confrontation all the way to the primary in Iowa in January so be it. Of course, if that happens he won't just win Iowa but win big.

So, if I am in the Rudy camp, I am grinning. I wouldn't want to smile too big or maybe just maybe, Moveon.org will realize what any high school level poly sci class student can figure out on their own.

As a Rudy supporter, bring it on Moveon.org, Rudy is behind in Iowa and he needs all the help he can get.

Barack Obama's Withdrawal Plan

It just occurred to me. While most anti war politicians have called for a pullout of one sort or another, none have turned that pull out into a specific plan. Whether this is by accident or design, it has the effect of countering reality with utopia. Many times the opposition has countered the reality of Iraq with some sort of utopia. For instance, Hillary Clinton did it when she called for the ouster of Prime Minister Maliki without endorsing another candidate or explaining how this would be done.

Today, Barack Obama will reveal his pullout plan and no longer will we need to compare reality with some sort of utopia.

His plan is an unmitigated disaster good for nothing more than a thought experiment. That is exactly how it was described by Fredrick Kagan.

I don't know if Obama himself ever leveled this charge, but one of the criticisms of Bush's Iraq policy was framed as the whack a mole arguement. Whack A Mole is a game with five holes in which five moles pop up one at a time and the object is to pop each mole back in its place as it pops out of its hole. The metaphor is that as we cleared one trouble spot the enemy would just clear out and move to another spot or after we pulled back to our bases the enemy would return.

In fact, our new strategy of clear, hold and build assures that this error is corrected. Yet, despite the obvious flaw in our previous system Obama's pull out plan ensures that once again we will play Whack A Mole only in reverse.

Obama wants to pull out brigades and battalions in phases starting with the quietest areas. The flaw is obvious. These areas are quiet specifically because U.S. troops are there in conjunction with Iraqis. Let's take Ramadi for instance. This used to be one of the most violent cities in the world, and now it is so quiet that soldiers actually complain of boredom. Obama hasn't specified which quiet area goes first but let's say it is Ramadi.

What does any reasonable person think the enemy would do as soon as U.S. soldiers are pulled out of Ramadi. They would return and return it to its previous violence. What of our allies in Ramadi: the local government, the Sheiks, tribes, and ordinary citizens. Do they follow our soldiers out of Ramadi. If so, how? If they don't what will happen to them?
They will get slaughtered of course. They won't just get slaughtered but their slaughter will most likely be posted on the internet, Al Jazeera, and anywhere else that will have their propaganda.

Once Ramadi turns into a bloodbath, then what. Will we move our soldiers from another quiet area to Ramadi? That of course will inevitably turn the next area into the next bloodbath.
This is the absurdly fatal flaw of Obama's pull out plan. It fails to realize why certain areas are quiet. Furthermore, it is totally duplicitous. If he believes that all quiet areas will continue to be quiet whether U.S. soldiers are there or not, then the only logical thing to do is to continue to apply man power to any spot that isn't quiet. After all there are only a finite number of troubled areas left. Once all of those are pacified, he could logically call for a phased pull out.
There are several other problems with his plan,

He wants forces to remain in Iraq to protect our embassies, military installations, and strike at Al Qaeda. First, the best way to do all of this is to stay on the offensive. Pulling out is a defensive strategy. Second, as I have already pointed out, AQ would simply fill the vacuum of any area that our troops would be pulled back from. If we pulled out of Ramadi, AQ would move into Ramadi. What does Obama propose that we then move a residual force back into Ramadi? From where? Wherever it came from, AQ would simply fill the vacuum there.

Then, Obama would put pressure on other Middle Eastern nations to provide security and diplomacy in Iraq. Does he seriously think that anyone is going to listen to anything we say with regards to Iraq as we pull out troops and spiral the country into chaos and genocide. Obama seems to think that other countries aren't doing enough while our troops are there en masse, but will become good partners while we are in the process of washing our hands of the nation.
As to genocide, Obama says he will reserve the right to step in if a genocide ensues. What a foolish statement. He will first create a genocide in a city like Ramadi and then reserve the right to pull forces back in to stop the same genocide that he created. How exactly would that work? Who in their right mind would trust our soldiers after they witness their brethren get slaughtered because they were precipitously withdrawn?

The problem is that Obama fails to realize that you don't end wars with phased withdrawals. They are won or lost. He is dressing up his loss into some high minded concepts that he himself doesn't really understand. The enemy is not going to sit on the sidelines while we withdraw in an orderly fashion. They will take full advantage of it, and our troops along with our allies will be caught in the chaos that follows. There is nothing orderly or responsible about this plan. This is a recipe for a humiliating defeat, a genocide, and ultimately a regional war that we will not be able to contain.

The Surge and the Political Evolution of the war in Iraq

George C. Scott, playing General George S. Patton, once uttered these famous words,

"All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all
admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, big league ball
players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a
loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a
man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost, and will never
lose a war... because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans."

In politics there is only one thing more dangerous than being in invested in a long, difficult, and unpopular war, and that is being invested in defeat. Americans, as Patton pointed, love winners and hate losers. There, in a nutshell, is the political evolution of the war in Iraq.
When the surge started, many of us, who hoped for success, wondered aloud if the MSM media would report on the successes.
Things began with hopeful signs. This report from Iraq the Model received some media attention.

"Operation “Imposing Law” continues in Baghdad. In contrast with previous
operations to secure the city, this one is managing to not only keep the initial
momentum, but the operation’s effects seem to be growing as well.
A few days
ago the government announced a more traffic-related measures to support
“Imposing Law” in Baghdad. Under the first order, it will be forbidden to park
any private vehicles in the main streets of the city.Under the second - a
reinstating of an old order- vehicles with odd and even numbered plates would
only be allowed on the streets on alternate days. This means that only half of
the several hundred thousand of private vehicles will be on the streets on any
day. The order applies to private vehicles only, but cuts the work involved in
screening vehicles approximately in half.
Aside from security concerns, the
order also reduces the huge traffic jams caused by the numerous checkpoints. The
downside, if any, is being felt mostly by one particular class of Baghdadis:
taxi drivers. They can now work only every other day and still have to live with
sluggish traffic and expensive fuel"

This was followed by John McCain's speech at VMI

"On my trip, I traveled to Baghdad, Ramadi, and Tikrit, met with Iraqi
cabinet officers, our top military leadership, including Generals Petraeus and
Odierno, and with embassy officials, including our new ambassador, Ryan Crocker.
I also had the privilege of spending time with our soldiers, from generals to
privates. Their courage and resolve in this frustrating war is an inspiration,
and serves as a reminder of our obligations to avoid the expediency of easy, but
empty answers or the allure of political advantage to choose the path in Iraq
that best honors their sacrifices.

"We're going to need their courage more than ever. The divisions in Iraqi
society are deep, and the need for greater security critical. Innocent Iraqis
are still being murdered, and our soldiers are braving dangers no less
threatening than in the past. Every day we read about or watch on television the
latest car bombing, IED explosion or sniper attack. But something else is
happening, too. There are the first glimmers of progress under General Petraeus'
political-military strategy. While these glimmers are no guarantee of success,
and though they come early in the implementation of the new strategy, I believe
they are cause for very cautious optimism.

"For the first time in my visits to Iraq, our delegation was able to drive
- not fly by helicopter-- from the airport to downtown Baghdad. For the first
time we met with a Sunni tribal leader in Anbar province, who is working with
American and Iraqi forces to fight al Qaeda. Sixteen of the twenty-four Sunni
tribal leaders in Anbar are now working with us. We visited Iraqi and American
forces deployed together in Baghdad - an integral part of the new security plan
- where they maintain a presence in a neighborhood cleared of militias and
terrorists, and hold the ground they have retaken rather than return to base,
after which the enemy returns to impose its will again on a defenseless
population. The government of Prime Minister Maliki is delivering on its promise
to deploy Iraqi brigades to Baghdad. A plan to share oil revenues equitably
among all Iraqis has been approved by Iraqi ministers and is pending approval by
the parliament. After an important visit by Prime Minister Maliki to Ramadi in
Sunni dominated Anbar, he promised a new policy to allay Sunni fears that they
will be excluded from sharing in the political future of the country. An
important result of the new security plan is the cooperation we are receiving
from the Iraqi people, who are beginning to provide us with actionable
intelligence about the whereabouts and plans of the enemy. These welcome
developments have occurred even though only three of our five additional
brigades have arrived."

However as April turned to May, the enemy countered and violence started to pick up. The narrative became one of never ending and uncontrollable violence again

"For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of
defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic
of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese
communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing
hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more
destructive regional war.
These debacles are not attributable to individual
failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general
officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for
war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the
aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First,
generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct
estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America's generals in Vietnam and
Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in
American generalship requires the intervention of Congress"

As the summer dragged on the Democrats became more and more confident that they would win the next looming funding battle now only weeks away

"In addition, Congress considers an annual Department of Defense authorization
bill for the coming fiscal year. The legislation establishes defense policy for
the next 12 months and is usually passed at the same time as the DOD
appropriations bill
The Democratic congressional leadership has made it clear
that it expects to enact language in either the DOD appropriations bill or the
DOD authorization bill which will lead to a timetable for disengagement of U.S.
troops in Iraq. President Bush so far has successfully resisted any such
timetable.
However, the closer the 2008 elections loom, the more nervous
vulnerable Republican congressmen and senators will become. Ultimately, a
significant number of Republicans will join with Democrats and vote for a
timetable for withdrawal.
U.S. military officials in Iraq will report on the
progress of the surge of additional U.S. troops some time in September. It is
certainly possible that they will not be able to give a definitive answer to
whether the surge has been successful, but critics of our continued involvement
in Iraq will seize on any doubts they express about the success of the
mission."

A funny thing happened on the Democrat's path to surrender, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack penned this piece entitled, A War We Just Might Win, in the New York Times of all places,

"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally
getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have
harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were
surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily
“victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live
with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land
in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found
American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy,
were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an
approach that could not work."

Many people have questioned me when I have emphasized the importance of this piece. Pollack and O'Hanlon were both both initial supporters of the war, who had grown quite critical of the execution. They are both extremely intelligent, with years of experience in these matters, and most importantly they both work for a left of center think tank, the Brookings Institute. Still, they are two people and so why would one analysis carry so much weight.
The answer lies in the quote from Patton, "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed." As much as the American people hated the war, it's mismanagement, and everyone and everything related to it, what they hated even more was losing. Pollack and O'Hanlon gave them a reason to believe that victory was possible.

Once the levee broke on good news there was no stopping it. Nearly every single politician who visited Iraq from Dick Durbin to Carl Levin admitted, begrudgingly usually, that the surge was working. The next pivotal moment came in the form obscure liberal Congressman Brian Baird,

"The invasion of Iraq may be one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in
the history of our nation. As tragic and costly as that mistake has been, a
precipitous or premature withdrawal of our forces now has the potential to turn
the initial errors into an even greater problem just as success looks
possible.

As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been
frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am
convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change
substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our
diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most
importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued
support and more time to succeed."

The public started to believe. The first poll of notice was conducted by left wing MSM mainstay the New York Times, the poll was so surprising in fact that they did it twice. Then, just recently Zogby came out with a poll, that said a majority of Americans believe the war can be won.

And for icing on the cake, even Katie Couric, on the ground, couldn't help but notice progress being made,

"We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there
in terms of security and stability," Couric said Tuesday. "I mean, obviously,
infrastructure problems abound, but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together.
They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda."

The political tide has turned so much that the Democrats have been forced to admit, yet again, that they are changing political tactics

"Designed to attract support from Republican moderates who have so far continued
to back Bush’s Iraq policy, the bill sets a “goal” of having the majority of
American combat units out of Iraq by early 2008. Levin and Reed had proposed
a withdrawal date of April 30, 2008, but Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, said he and Reed are revising their bill.

“The question is what changes, if anything, in our previous approach could gain
some Republican support and whether such changes would be acceptable” to other
Democrats, Levin said. “That’s up in the air.”
“A lot is going to depend if
we pick up some Republican support, some bipartisan support,” he added.
The
new Levin-Reed proposal is expected to be debated in mid-September when the
Senate takes up the Defense Authorization Bill."

Back in 1864, this same Democratic Partywas also heavily invested in defeat in another very unpopular war,

"Resolved, that this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the
American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the
experiment of war, during which, under the pretence of military necessity, or
war power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been
disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden
down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice,
humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made
for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the
States or other peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable
moment peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the
States"

Americans ultimately rejected their defeatism then, and so are Americans rejecting their defeatism now. Democrats are learning the hard way, again, that the only thing more dangerous than being invested in an unpopular war, is being invested in defeat.

Hillary to Save Social Security

I found this via newsmax. Hillary seems to have reached a new level of unrealistic campaign promises with this one...

"The New York senator told the AARP's legislative conference that she would
bring a "renewed national commitment to Social Security" to the White House."

Not only did she promise to save social security, but she also promised that she wouldn't do several things...

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton promised retirees that if elected president she
will not cut Social Security benefits, raise the retirement age or privatize the
taxpayer-funded system...
"She also said she does not support cutting
benefits or increasing the retirement age. Seniors can begin collecting partial
benefits at age 62, with full benefits available at age 67 for those born in
1960 or later."

Now, I personally have considered social security a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme works by getting a person to invest with the promise of future returns. The way that person is paid is by getting more people to invest with their own promise of future returns. Social security works much the same way. Each generation is paid by the taxes of the generation just younger than them. All working Americans are currently paying for the current retirees.

As with any ponzi scheme it works as long as you can find new suckers. The social security ponzi scheme had an endless supply of new suckers or at least that is how it would have worked in theory. The only problem was if one generation had a boom in births...

Now, the baby boomers are the suckers holding the final bag in the ponzi scheme known as Social Security. There aren't enough new suckers to fund their promised investment. Of course, all of this is lost on Hillary Clinton who says this about Social Security,

" This is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United
States"

If it is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States, then why does it need saving? By Hillary's standards the airlines are the most successful businesses in the United States.

Of course, Hillary won't do any of the politically dangerous things to save Social Security: she won't cut benefits, she won't raise the retirement age, or privatize. In fact, she said this about privatization...

"When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer
to anything"

One has to wonder really hard if she is talking strictly about Social Security or in general. Remember, Hillary also believes in socialized medicine, having a village raise a child, and she was even once quoted as saying, "it is time to end the on your own society and bring in the era of the we're in it together society". Hillary is closer and closer everyday to admitting what I already know that she is in fact a Socialist .

Finally, Hillary has mastered the art of Chutzpah. With all of these other options off the table, how exactly does she plan to save social security...

" Clinton said instead she will protect the program through fiscal
responsibility and criticized President Bush's leadership on the issue."

Clinton maybe a lot of things but a champion of efficient government, fiscally responsible government, she is not. Just a few weeks ago she promised to set aside one billion dollars to bail out struggling homeowners. That maybe noble and compassionate (and of course downright counterproductive), but it is NOT efficient. She also wants to socialize medicine, about one eighth of our economy. That plan maybe a lot of things but efficient it is not. She is the one that wants a village to raise a child. That plan maybe a lot of things but efficient it is not. How exactly does efficient government square with Hillary's plans to nationalize everything she possibly can? I don't know and I doubt she does either.
Of course, we all know what "fiscal responsibility" really means and the National Review points it out...

Well, let's see, when raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, and private
accounts are taken off the table, what's left? You're pretty much left with the
option of bringing more money in, a move more commonly known as tax
increases."

they finish by describing everything that Hillary wants, not just for Social Security, but for all policy...

"Privatization is "not the answer to anything." Well, we know where we stand
with her - government ever bigger, ever more controlling, ever more powerful,
ever more expensive"

Political Progress in Iraq?

This weekend brought about several underreported stories of political progress in Iraq. Any story of political progress in Iraq should always be met with a healthy dose of skepticism and caution, however that is no excuse for the blogosphere being the only outlet for them. While the MSM media had a literal orgy with the GAO report, there was little mention of potential political breakthroughs on several fronts.

Of course, I have already pointed out that this GAO report may in fact be bunk.

there's nothing striking about them. TheDemocratic Congress ensured that
the report would deliver negative "grades" forthe Iraqi government by asking the
GAO to evaluate whether or not the benchmarkshave been met now--just two months
after the major combat operations of thesurge began. For the report from the
White House, Congress asked theadministration to detail if the Iraqis are making
"sufficient progress." ButCongress asked the GAO, by contrast, to report if the
Iraqis had "completed" thebenchmarks. This ridiculous standard was a
Congressional trap that forced theGAO to waste time and taxpayer money to come
out with a pre-ordained andmeaningless judgment, since no one ever promised or
expected that the Iraqiswould have met the benchmarks by now. And the GAO report
doesn't really shedlight on the key question: Are the Iraqis making
progress?"

This GAO report has captured the spotlight either way since the Washington Post initially leaked it. What hasn't garnered much attention though is reports of political progress in Iraq. This is the same political progress that most Democrats now say is impossible.

I had to go here to find this story

Representatives from Iraq's Sunni and Shia groups attending secret talks in
Finland have agreed a set of principles aimed at ending sectarian violence.
Politicians from Northern Ireland and South Africa also attended the four-day
meeting, to share their experiences of bringing divided communities together.

The Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, was one of the
chairmen of the talks. The event was organised by a conflict prevention group
based in Finland. The group, Crisis
Management Initiative, released a statement late on Monday, saying the
participants had "committed themselves to work towards a robust framework for a
lasting settlement".

As a result of this meeting in Finland, this was published, a 33 page agreement among the major factions for national reconciliation and a cessation of violence. Isn't this the political progress everyone was hoping for...

Then there is this

The agreement by the five leaders was one of the most significant political
developments in Iraq for months and was quickly welcomed by the United States,
which hopes such moves will ease sectarian violence that has killed tens of
thousands.
More:
But skeptics will be watching for action amid growing
frustration in Washington over the political paralysis that has gripped the
government of Shi’ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
White House spokeswoman
Emily Lawrimore congratulated Iraq’s leaders on the accord, hailing it in a
statement as “an important symbol of their commitment to work together for the
benefit of all Iraqis.”
The apparent breakthrough comes two weeks before U.S.
President George W. Bush’s top officials in Iraq present a report that could
have a major influence on future American policy in Iraq…
Iraqi officials
said the five leaders had agreed on draft legislation that would ease curbs on
former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party joining the civil service and
military.
Consensus was also reached on a law governing provincial powers as
well as setting up a mechanism to release some detainees held without charge, a
key demand of Sunni Arabs since the majority being held are Sunnis.

This could be huge, but it got no traction in the MSM. Why is that...

Is Liquidity Coming Back to the Mortgage Market?

So says Dan Green over at themortgagereports.com.

Good News For Mortgages #1: Pricing incentives on jumbo loans
A very
large bank is offering pricing incentives for all jumbo, fixed, full
documentation loans. If you meet the criteria below, your rates won't be
as bad you may have been told.
Mortgage greater than $600,000 mortgage
30-year fixed mortgage
Willing to prove income and asset with
documentation
So far, I only know one bank that is making this discount
available. You may need to work with a broker to make sure you get it, or
hope that you do your banking there.

Good News For Mortgages #2: Large Alt-A lender places jumbo mortgages
in secondary market

IndyMac sold $590 million in mortgage bonds to the markets for the first
time since July.
About 40% of those bonds were rated "AAA", meaning the risk is deemed to as
close to nil as possible. Only government bonds are rated
safer.
IndyMac's placed offerings were for jumbo mortgages.

Good News For Mortgages #3: Foreign National lending pricing continues to
improve
Foreign National lending is a niche and one in which I like to
work. It's very encouraging to see that mortgage
rates are still improving for this portfolio product. Lending to a
non-U.S. citizen can be a risky proposition for a bank because a foreign
borrower has a different incentive system to pay a mortgage.

If a U.S. citizen walks away on a mortgage from a U.S. bank, getting a loan
from another bank in the future is a huge challenge. For a foreign
national, it just means limiting their real estate exposure to the other
193 countries in the world.
Because the risk premium is reducing for
foreign nationals from Ireland, England, Spain or wherever, it suggests brighter
skies for all mortgage borrowers.

I am personally less optimistic. My evidence is no less anecdotal than Dan's however, what industry insiders are telling me about default rates is downright scary.

One account rep, told me that at their bank 35% of their second mortgages are currently in default. This bank happens to be a sub prime bank. Let me tell you why this is scary. Second mortgages were done on high combined loan to value loans. The second mortgage, for all intends and purposes, cannot foreclose. The reason is if they tried the first mortgage would get first dibbs and they would get whatever is left, which 99.9% of the time is nothing. The borrowers know this and so what many who can't afford their mortgage do, is not pay the second. That means that these borrowers aren't really paying their mortgage back, but rather manipulating the system to keep their homes. These first second combos were extremely popular and made up an overwhelming amount of sub prime loans, well over 50%. If 35% of these seconds are delinquent (and at least with this bank they are), then I think default rates are much higher than what is currently being estimated.

Another account rep tells me that they cut all of the Alt A products because upon analysis they found that their worst performing Alt A loans, were the stated loans with the highest credit scores. Now, if high credit score borrowers are defaulting at unusually high rates, then again, we haven't seen the worst yet.