Well, it looks like the war in Iraq may not be going so well, at least according to those “in the know” about the forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). It’s a report comprising input from all the intelligence and military organizations in the US. Alas, they think that things could go from bad to worse:

The Pentagon’s intelligence arm painted a scenario in which Iraq could dissolve into civil war if Iraqi security forces don’t soon get their act together. One official familiar with the briefing, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive subject matter, said that the picture it painted was dire, although another official–who requested anonymity for the same reason–insisted it was not entirely despairing, since Iraqi security forces were beginning to improve.

More after the jump…

Did anyone catch the not-even-remotely subtle framing:

…if Iraqi security forces don’t soon get their act together

But, wait! The Iraqi security forces have their act together, according to our very own President, way back in Nov. 2005:

To strengthen security, the Coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive – clearing out areas controlled by the enemy, holding that territory using Iraqi forces, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives.

And again in Mar., 2006:

We saw the leadership of Sunni and Shia clerics, the capability of the Iraqi Security Forces, and the determination of many of Iraq’s leaders to come together and act decisively to diffuse the crisis.

The Aftermath Of The Samarra Mosque Attack Shows The Progress Made By The Iraqi Security Forces. After the Samarra bombing, Iraqi Security Forces – not Coalition forces – restored order. Iraqi leaders put the Iraqi Security Forces on alert – canceling leaves and heightening security around mosques and critical sites. In Baghdad and other trouble spots, Iraqi police manned checkpoints, increased patrols, ensured peaceful demonstrators were protected, and arrested those who turned to violence. Public Order Brigades deployed rapidly to areas where violence was reported. During the past two weeks, Iraqi Security Forces have conducted more than 200 independent operations.

Having Iraqi Forces In The Lead Has Been Critical Because They Can Do Things That Coalition Forces Could Not. For example, on the day of the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi National Police responded to an armed demonstration where an angry Shia crowd had surrounded the Sunni Al Quds Mosque. The Iraqi Brigade Commander placed his troops – who were largely Shia – between the crowd and the mosque, and called for calm and urged the crowd to disperse. After a two-hour standoff, the crowd eventually left without incident, and the National Police remained in position overnight to guard the Mosque until the threat was over. The fact that Iraqis were in the lead and negotiating with their own countrymen helped diffuse a potential confrontation and prevented an escalation of violence.

Iraqi Security Forces Are Making Progress Against the Enemy, And They Are Gaining The Confidence Of The Iraqi People. Last fall, there were over 120 Iraqi Army and Police combat battalions fighting against the terrorists – and 40 of these were taking the lead in the fight. Today, there are more than 130 battalions in the fight – and more than 60 are taking the lead. As more Iraqi battalions come online, these forces are assuming responsibility for more territory. Iraqi forces now conduct more independent operations throughout the country than do Coalition forces.

[emphasis in the original White House document]

But wait! There’s more! Apparently, the administration was given carte-blanche to spend whatever was needed in order to accelerate Iraqi troop training back in June, 2005.

House Passes Inslee Amendment to Lift Funding Limit on Iraqi Troop Training

Accelerates Replacement of American Troops with Iraqi Security Forces

20 June 2005

In an effort to bring American troops home sooner, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee offered and successfully passed an amendment today to help fully fund the training and equipping of Iraqi and Afghan troops. Inslee’s amendment removes the $500 million cap that had been placed in the Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act to train, equip and provide assistance to security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The DOD bill includes $45.3 billion for military operations in Iraq, yet placed limitations on the amount of money that could be spent on training a viable Iraqi security force. The House passed Inslee’s amendment by a voice vote, without any objections.

Said Inslee, “This amendment is a significant step forward in accelerating our efforts to train and equip Iraqi security forces to replace American troops. The Administration should be called upon to hasten this process so we can bring our troops home earlier and with dignity. Despite Secretary Rumsfeld and the Vice President’s rose-colored optimism, we have a long ways to go to establish a viable Iraqi security force that will allow Iraqis to control their own destiny. My amendment keeps us focused on an exit strategy by removing the handcuffs that have been placed on the funding our military can spend on training Iraqi security forces and interpreters.” Inslee continued, “We hope that the Administration listens to the voices in Congress that have said, ‘If we can train and equip Iraqis one day earlier we should do so. If this training brings Americans home one day earlier we should make this a priority.’”

If sufficient troops still aren’t trained after all that time, where did all the training money go?

Did the responsibility for training Iraqi troops really shift from the US to the Iraqis themselves? If so, when? And if so, why weren’t the unused training funds returned to the budget?

Gosh, where’s a real journalist when you need one? Apparently not on MSNBC…

[thsi post has been edited: fixed a typo in the 1st paragraph]

I admit to having been a bit trepidacious about walking the eight miles from Shelburne Farm to Battery Park for today’s finale of the five day march on global climate change put together by author Bill McKibben. As anyone who’s seen me recently can attest, I’ve really (ahem), shall we say let myself go over the past few years.

But what a great scene it was. This final day of the event started with around 450 walkers. By the time we reached Battery Park in Burlington, we were around 800 strong, and with the additional folks joining us in the park, the afternoon boasted at least 1000 people of all ages. It was very encouraging and a roaring success.

The heart of this final day were the addresses by the candidates for office. As each one approached the microphone, they were handed a sharpie and asked to sign onto a Global Warming Pledge committing them to the goals outlined in the legislation put forward in Washington by retiring Senator Jim Jeffords. To their credit, everyone who attended signed the pledge. It’s a testament to the depth of the feelings and evidence on the matter that not only did Rich Tarrant sign the thing, but Martha Rainville reversed herself – having suggested only weeks ago that global warming may not even be real – and added her own signature to the pledge (Note: the glaring no-show was incumbent Republican Governor Jim Douglas, whose absence Democratic opponent Scudder Parker drew pointed attention to).

At this point, I couldn’t care less about anyone’s motivations for showing up, speaking, and signing the pledge. The very fact that they did only adds to the force and the volume of the movement to address this most critical of problems before we pass that tipping point that scientists like NASA maverick James Hansen have warned us may be less than a decade away. Thanks to everyone who was there in body or spirit. There is a lot starting to happen on this issue, so keep watching (and voting).

Click below for a summary of the Jeffords bill.

From Senator Jeffords’ website:

Summary of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006 is based on the increasing scientific evidence that global warming poses a significant threat to the national security and economy of the United States, to public health and welfare, and to the global environment, and that actions can and must be taken soon tobegin the process of reducing emissions substantially over the next fifty years. The bill sets out a roadmap of targets, requirements and incentives that EPA will use to reduce U.S emissions and help stabilize global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Global concentrations of greenhouse gases are higher than ever and during the past years global temperatures have risen by almost 1 degree Fahrenheit. Nine out of the past 10 years are among thewarmest 10 years on record.

In order to avoid some of the most dangerous consequences of global warming, the United States, which is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, must take action soon to reduce its emissions substantially.

There exists an array of technological options for use in reducing greenhouse gas emissions andsignificant reductions can be attained using a portfolio of technologies that will not adversely affect the economy.

The bill sets a goal of achieving a reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that will contribute to stabilizing global concentrations of carbon dioxide below 450 parts per million.

To achieve this goal, the United States must reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide and its equivalentsto 1990 levels by 2020 and make additional reductions between 2020 and 2050. The bill includes a combination of economy wide reduction targets, mandatory measures, and incentives for the development and diffusion of cleaner technologies to achieve these goals.

Targets: The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006 requires that the U.S. reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases between 2010 and 2020 to 1990 levels. By 2030, the U.S. must reduce its emissions byan amount equal to 1/3 of 80% percent below 1990 levels, by 2040 by 2/3 of 80% percent below 1990 levels and by 2050, to a level that is 80 percent below 1990 levels.In the event that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide exceed 450 parts per million or that average global temperatures increase above 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average temperature, EPA can require additional reductions. The National Academy of Sciences will report to EPA and the Congress regarding whether such events have occurred.

Specific Provisions: Section 701 contains findings related to climate change and announces the goal of reducing U.S.emissions to facilitate stabilization of global atmospheric concentrations below 450 parts per million.

Section 702 announces the purposes of the bill, which are to achieve a reduction in U.S. emissionconsistent with stabilization of atmospheric concentrations below 450 parts per million and to preventglobal temperature increases by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average, by reducing emissions by 80 percent by 2050. In doing so, the United States will be positionedas the world leader in reducing the risk of potentially devastating and wide ranging impacts associatedwith climate change and in developing and implementing low carbon energy technologies and strategies.

Section 704 contains mandatory emission reduction milestones leading to an 80 percent reduction by 2050. The bill does not require a cap and trade program, but in the event that EPA uses a cap and tradesystem, it is directed to consider a declining cap with a technology based stop price. Such a mechanism isdesigned to provide a smooth glide path for reductions that is keyed to the price of available technologies.

Section 705 sets conditions for accelerated reductions, including if greenhouse gas concentrations exceed 450 parts per million or there is an increase in global average temperatures above 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The NAS will report to EPA and the Congress regarding the occurrence of suchevents.

Section 706 provides for allocation of allowances in any cap and trade program to be allocated fortransition assistance for industries and to consumers disproportionately affected by the transition to a lowcarbon economy, as well as to other low carbon or carbon sequestration technologies.

Section 707 contains vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light-duty vehicles as well as medium and heavy-duty vehicles and directs EPA to consider reductions available from non-roadvehicles.Section 708 contains mandatory greenhouse gas emissions standards for all power plants built after 2012 with a compliance date of 2016. By 2030, final standards will apply to all power plants regardless ofwhen they came online.Section 709 contains an increasing low carbon generation requirement for electricity generation fromcoal, petroleum coke, lignite, biomass or any combination. By 2015, 0.5 percent of electricity generationbased on the above resources would need to be low carbon, with an increasing percentage of 1 percenteach year until reaching 5 percent by 2020.

Section 710 contains standards for geological disposal of greenhouse gases.

Section 711 provides for a research and development program on global climate change.

Section 712 contains an energy efficiency standard requiring reductions in end use electricity consumption.

Section 713 contains a renewable portfolio standard requiring a minimum annual percentage of 20 percent renewable electricity by 2020.

Section 714 contains standards for biological sequestration of carbon including in forests and soils.

Section 715 provides for a waiver of the requirements of this bill in the event of a national security emergency as determined by the President.

Section 716 contains a standard for renewable fuels mandating 5,000,000,000 gallons annually beginning in 2015, through an amendment of the Clean Air Act; includes the sense of the Senate that the U.S. should reengage in international climate change discourse; requires annual trade reports to Congress from federal agencies; requires the consideration of climate change under NEPA; and directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate regulations requiring corporatedisclosure of climate change risks.

Click here for the full text of the bill.