Washington Post and Iraq- a couple of articles worth reading

Robert Samuelson revisits an earlier column on Iraq and the costs of the war.

With hindsight, it seems almost incontestable that the Iraq war should never have been fought. It has eroded our global power, weakened our military and resulted in thousands of American and Iraqi deaths. What I most regret about my earlier column is that it seemed to bless a war, when I was mainly trying to focus attention on questions more important than money. Given the headline (I wrote it) and the fact that those questions came at the end of the column ("Is this war justifiable? . . . What would happen if we don't fight? What will happen if we do?"), the reaction was understandable. In truth, I was uncertain about the war then, just as I'm unsure of what to do now.

I usually do not join intelligent and Bush, but early one I was impressed with the Bush plan to use the Treasury to fight terrorism. Not that we have heard much of it - not quite as macho as sending US military into a meat grinder - but a column in the Post today shows its effectiveness. I still have to think its effectiveness probably has nothing to do with the President.

Authority for the new sanctions, as with so many other policy weapons, comes from the USA Patriot Act, which in Section 311 authorizes Treasury to designate foreign financial institutions that are of "primary money laundering concern." Once a foreign bank is so designated, it is effectively cut off from the U.S. financial system. It can't clear dollars; it can't have transactions with U.S. financial institutions; it can't have correspondent relationships with American banks.

Finally a guest op-ed piece that got my blood pressure up. David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey wrote about European prosecutions for our extraordinary renditions (kidnappings) on foreign soil.

An Italian court announced this month that it is moving forward with the indictment and trial of 25 CIA agents charged with kidnapping a radical Muslim cleric. These proceedings may well violate international law, but the case serves as a wake-up call to the United States. Overseas opponents of American foreign policy are increasingly turning to judicial proceedings against individual American officials as a means of reformulating or frustrating U.S. aims, and action to arrest this development is needed.

Put that way, it does seem that the Italians are just finding a way to jab us in the ribs. To make the Italians (and everyone else indicting Americans overseas) seem even more unreasonable, there is this passage:

The United States has used extraordinary renditions as part of the war on terrorism, but the continuing value of this tactic, particularly in Europe, is questionable. One of the primary European objections to the concept of a "war" on terrorism is the fear that U.S. forces will treat Europe as a battlefield. Although this fear is specious -- international law has long provided that, even in wartime, a nation cannot pursue its enemies into the territory of friendly countries without their express permission -- extraordinary rendition gets uncomfortably close to U.S. military operations on European streets. Moreover, unlike many other aspects of U.S. policy, extraordinary rendition can probably be abandoned without severely undercutting the war effort. That being the case, and given the obvious and increasing hard feelings the policy has prompted in Europe, extraordinary renditions should end.

Yet the United States must still vigorously resist the prosecution of its indicted agents. If they acted with the knowledge and consent of the Italian government (as The Post's Dana Priest reported in 2005), they are immune from criminal prosecution in that country. Although foreign nationals traveling abroad are ordinarily subject to local judicial authority, international law has long recognized an exception for government agents entering another country with its government's permission.

Then I got to this paragraph:

Because of this general rule, elaborate Status of Forces Agreements are negotiated before the troops of one state are stationed in another. These agreements usually narrow the jurisdictional immunities to be enjoyed by American troops stationed abroad, although under the NATO Status of Forces Agreements, to which Italy and the United States are both parties, America retains primary jurisdiction over offenses committed by individuals on duty -- as would have been the case here. If the Status of Forces Agreement does not apply -- as it might not, because intelligence agents are involved -- then the general rule applies. In either case, it is up to American, not Italian, authorities to determine whether any offense was committed in the capture and rendition of Nasr.

Obviously, the Italians and the Germans and the Belgians do not expect us to determine whether any offenses against their sovereignty, their laws, their citizens have been committed, and they have good reason to have low expectations of our government. The writers do not address this aspect of their case. As former Reagan and Bush I officials can they really be expected to acknowledge the damage done by the current Administration to American integrity and American interests with our own allies?

E.J Dionne's column from February 26 finds a theme in how Cheney approached Iraq with the spin on the Libby trial.

Whatever price Scooter Libby pays, the country is already paying for the divisive practices of a crowd that wanted to go to war in Iraq in the very worst way -- and did exactly that. As a result, we confront the mess in Baghdad and the continued threat of terrorism as an angry, polarized nation.

Amen.