Buried in a Newsweek story about the mess in Iraq is this little gem:

One idea behind the war, it is clear, was to give America a big say in the future of this oil-flush nation. And, after all, we’ve never completely pulled our troops out of Germany or Japan either.

Does that mean that it is now legitimate in the mainstream media to say that oil was a motive in the U.S. invasion of Iraq? I doubt it. (Even more so, it is verboten to say that Israel was a motive, too. The war, of course, was about Iraq's WMD, remember?) In any case, for your edification, the magazine goes on to say, rather dreamily:

Rice, in a speech in Britain last week, laid out an eloquent vision of how she and Bush see their legacy. “Someday, people in Baghdad and Beirut and Cairo and, yes, in Tehran … will wonder how anyone could ever have doubted the future of liberal democracy in their countries. But most of all, they will remember fondly those fellow democracies, like Britain and the United States… who stood with them in their time of need.” Whether fondly or not, the Iraqis won’t have too much trouble remembering that the Americans were there. Why? Probably because the Americans won’t have left yet.

The Forward, the leading U.S. Jewish newspaper, carries a strong editorial suggesting that an attack on Iran would have incalculable consequences, perhaps even worse than Iran having a nuclear weapon.

After noting all the war talk, the Forward asks: “What could be worse than the terrifying uncertainty of a world in which Iran possessed a nuclear weapon?”

It answers its own question:

The answer is alarmingly simple. Worse than those uncertainties would be the very certain consequences of an American attack on Iran. Begin with an unwinnable quagmire in a Muslim nation three times the size of Iraq. Then consider a global wave of Islamic rage against America that would make our current diplomatic predicament look like a honeymoon. Add to that the destabilization and likely collapse of unpopular pro-American regimes in places like Egypt, Pakistan and perhaps Saudi Arabia.

Instead of one Islamic republic that threatens to develop a nuclear bomb down the road, we would then face three or four — one of which would be in possession of a fully developed nuclear arsenal from day one.

How compelling is the military option against Iran? Jack Straw, the foreign minister of Great Britain, our most reliable ally, has for months been calling the idea "inconceivable." This week, after the reports of escalating war plans began surfacing, he went a step further and called it "completely nuts." And that's our closest ally.

Another highly respected European foreign minister, speaking last week on condition of anonymity, told a small group of Jewish community leaders in New York that the idea of an American attack on Iran would produce "a catastrophe — an absolute calamity." He was speaking at a convivial dinner party, lubricated with wine and good cheer, until he was asked about the prospect of Iran war. At that point, his face turned white.

"Imagine the current situation in Iraq," the minister said, ticking off the unwinnable quagmire, the collapse of a strategic nation into chaos, the turning of Iraq into an incubator for global terror and growing worldwide rage against America. "Then multiply it by 25, by 30. The implications are almost unimaginable.”

Where are the similar editorials in the MSM?

Gotta love this from the Post's coverage of the White House "shake up." After quoting a top Republican lobbyist, Charles Black, that almost all of the president's troubles stem from Iraq, the article goes on to say that the new chief of staff won't address national security issues.

Black warned, "Adding or subtracting staff is not going to make the war in Iraq go swimmingly. Ninety percent of the president's problems and discontent among his friends is Iraq."

None of Bolten's changes, though, appears targeted at Bush's national security team. On Friday, as Card was leaving and Bolten began his transition, the new chief orchestrated the issuance of a statement by Bush expressing "strong support" for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has come under fire from several retired generals.

It's unclear what happened yesterday in the seven-hour battle in Adhamiya, the Baghdad suburb. Apparently, insurgents (mostly Sunnis) and a neighborhood armed (mostly Sunni) militia clashed first with government forces and then with reinforcements from the (mostly Shiite) Interior Ministry commandos, from whose ranks are drawn the Shiite death squads that are killing dozens of Sunnis every day.

The Post, though, knows which side it is on, it seems. In its coverage of the confusing incident, the Post says:

Reinforcements cordoned off the neighborhood and five terrorists were killed and seven detained.

Hello? Terrorists? The New York Times account (unlike the Post) mentions that the Iraqi government forces are often linked to death squads, and provides a far more nuanced account of the events.

In themselves, the events in Adhamiya clearly suggest that the civil war in Iraq has expanded to engulf an entite Baghdad neighborhood, which started building self-defense militias after Shiite revenge attacks that followed the bombing of a Shiite mosque on Feb. 22. More and more, things are spiraling out of control, and the U.S. army finds itself in the middle.

Ominous pattern? Absolutely. The brothers of two leadiing Sunni politicians in Iraq, arguably the two leading Sunnis, were found murdered in quick succession. First, Taha al-Mutlaq, brother of Salah al-Mutlaq (who heads a neo-Baathist political party), was kidnapped and found killed. Then, Mahmoud al-Hashimi, whose brother Tariq al-Hashimi heads the Iraqi Islamic Party (linked to the Muslim Brotherhood), was killed while driving through Baghdad. This is serious stuff. Who's doing this? Very unlikely that it is the Iraqi resistance or Zarqawi's forces; far more likely, it is the work of Shiite death squads tied to one of the militias or to the Interior Ministry's commandos.

Amazing to read this in the New York Times--sanity, at last, and from Tom Friedman of all people. He says that having a nuclear armed Iran is better than having W. and Rummy launch attacks. In his own words:

If these are our only choices, which would you rather have: a nuclear-armed Iran or an attack on Iran's nuclear sites that is carried out and sold to the world by the Bush national security team, with Don Rumsfeld at the Pentagon's helm?

I'd rather live with a nuclear Iran.

While I know the right thing is to keep all our options open, I have zero confidence in this administration's ability to manage a complex military strike against Iran, let alone the military and diplomatic aftershocks. As someone who believed — and still believes — in the importance of getting Iraq right, the level of incompetence that the Bush team has displayed in Iraq, and its refusal to acknowledge any mistakes or remove those who made them, make it impossible to support this administration in any offensive military action against Iran.

The fighting in Adhamiya, the Sunni section in north Baghdad, is hugely important. For the first time, the (mostly Shiite) Iraq government forces, including the police, are fighting house-to-house street battles with (mostly Sunni) neighborhood militias, possibly supported by armed elements of the resistance and even parts of the Iraqi army itself. If that isn't civil war, I don't know what it is.

Quote of the Day: From Condi Rice: "Americans must be prepared for violence to continue in Iraq even after a government is formed. There will be no Iraqi equivalent of VE Day."

I get the violence-continues part. As for the VE Day, we might not be celebrating one any time soon. But, they might.

Quote of the Day II: This one is from Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal of the country named after his family. "The threat of breakup of Iraq is a huge problem for the countries of the region, especially if fighting is on a sectarian basis. This type of fighting sucks in other countries."

True. It sucks everywhere. It even sucks in Saudi Arabia, where the neocons never tire of pointing out the large population Shiites that inhabit the oil-rich Eastern Province.

God made him do it. President Bush: "I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true. One, I believe there's an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody's soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free."

He didn't elaborate on whether he believes the Almighty sometimes takes human form in the shape of Dick Cheney.