At the risk of being mocked for my naivete, let me say that I was under the impression that U.S. air strikes in Iraq had dwindled to only very occasional, discreet sorties months if not years ago. Fighting an insurgency with air strikes is like performing heart surgery with a chain saw. Apparently, though, that’s exactly what we are doing.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, hinted at ongoing air strikes this week when he told a group of military reporters that in a war with North Korea the United States would be hampered by the fact that so many guidance and intelligence assets are in use in the Middle East. As reported by the LA Times:

Pace said a conflict with North Korea, which both he and President Bush have said is highly unlikely, would rely heavily on the Navy and Air Force because of the significant deployment of land forces in Iraq. In addition, such an attack would not be “as clean as we would like,” he said, because guidance systems used to aim bombs were in use in the Middle East.

“You wouldn’t have the precision in combat going to a second theater of war that you would if you were only going to the first theater of war,” Pace told a group of military reporters. “You end up dropping more bombs potentially to get the job done, and it would mean more brute force.”

Although Pace did not name specific guidance and intelligence systems, Air Force officers have said they do not have surveillance aircraft such as Global Hawk and Predator reconnaissance drones available for East Asia because of their heavy use in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unmanned aircraft are used to spy on enemy territory.

Such recon assets are not used solely for air strikes; they support ground forces, too. But the report last week in the Lancet on the estimated number of Iraqi casualties (an astonishing 655,000 souls) also suggests ongoing aerial bombardment. Crooked Timber crunches the numbers (h/t to Ygelsias):

One number that is striking, but hasn’t attracted a lot of attention is the estimated death rate from air strikes, 13 per cent of the total or between 50,000 and 100,000 people. Around half the estimated deaths in the last year of the survey, from June 2005 to June 2006. That’s at least 25,000 deaths, or more than 70 per day.

Yet reports of such deaths are very rare. If you relied on media reports you could easily conclude that total deaths from air strikes would only be a few thousand for the entire war. . . .

The best source turns out to be the US Air Force Command itself. For October and November 2005, the US Air Force recorded 120 or more air strikes, and this number was on an increasing trend. Most of the strikes appear to be in or near urban areas, and the recorded examples include Hellfire missiles fired by Predators, an F-16 firing a thousand 20mm cannon rounds and an F-15 reported to have fired three GBU-38s, the new satellite-guided 500-pound bomb designed for support of ground troops in close combat. . . .

This sort of reliance on air strikes to combat the insurgency (which is becoming supplanted by sectarian violence, which our forces may or may not be in a position to distinguish) is a classic example of tactics divorced from strategy.

My own sense for some time has been that our inability to secure the peace–largely the result of our inadequate force size–has been the biggest obstacle to a political solution in Iraq. Obviously, many other factors come into play, and even achieving security, especially at this late date, does not ensure that a political solution is achieved. But persistent violence, and protecting oneself from it, has a way of trumping all other consideration for a civilian populace. If what we are doing in Iraq militarily still involves heavy use of air strikes, then we are a major source and cause of that violence to an even greater extent than I had imagined, and in a random and indiscriminate way which undermines anything we try to accomplish in Iraq politically.

Reed Hundt compares the number of Iraqi deaths since the U.S. invasion to the casualty figures in our own Civil War.

The rivalry between the camps of Bush 41 and Bush 43 were on full display at the recent christening of the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush, according to Tom DeFrank:

For five years, the 41s have bit their collective tongues as, they complain, the 43s ignored their counsel. But as the war in Iraq has worsened and public support for the current administration has tanked, loyalists of the elder Bush have found it impossible to suppress their disillusionment – particularly their belief that many of 43’s policies are a stick in the eye of his father.

. . .

“Forty-three has now repudiated everything 41 stands for, and still he won’t say a word,” a key member of the elder Bush alumni said. “Personally, I think he’s dying inside.”

. . .

“Everyone knew how Rumsfeld acts,” another key 41 assistant said. “Everyone knew 43 didn’t have an attention span. Everyone knew Condi [Rice] wouldn’t be able to stand up to Cheney and Rumsfeld. We told them all of this, and we were told we don’t know what we’re doing.”

On one level, I find all of this fascinating (perhaps best captured by the Dana Carvey skit from a few years ago in which, if I remember correctly, Carvey’s 41 takes 43 hunting and debates whether to shoot 43 for the good of the country).

On the other hand, 41’s cohort could have done so much more to sound the alarm and prevent the terrible slide the country has taken under 43. If Jim Baker’s return is a sign that the adults are back, then where the hell have they been?

Ken Mehlman, defending the GOP handling of the Foley scandal, today on CNN:

The fact is the speaker and our leadership could not have been more aggressive. The moment they found out about this, they gave Mark Foley the political death penalty.

They said, get out of Congress or we’re going to throw you out. They called in the FBI and the Department of Justice to investigate.

He just makes this stuff up, doesn’t he? Sits in on a conference call sometime Saturday evening with other clever guys and gals and just starts pulling responses to the expected Sunday morning questions out of the air.

Recall that Speaker Hastert has already admitted that Foley was gone so fast they didn’t have time to tell him to resign. They never told Foley, Quit or we’re going to kick you out. Simply never happened. It was Nancy Pelosi who first moved to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee, not any GOP leader. So I don’t know what exactly Mehlman considers to have been “aggressive” action by the House leadership because in fact they took no unprompted action.

Recall, too, that Hastert’s letter to the Attorney General requesting an investigation came after Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) had already publicly called for an federal investigation earlier that same day.

Like I said, Mehlman just makes this stuff up.

I mentioned today’s LA Times article on Ken Mehlman’s alleged role in firing a State Department official who was taking positions adverse to Jack Abramoff’s client, the government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Mehlman was asked about the LAT story in his appearance today on CNN. It is a model of saying nothing while seeming to deny everything, yet still managing to stick a few shivs in your opponents, so I’m going to post the entire exchange:

BLITZER: There’s a story in the Los Angeles Times today that directly involves you. And I want to give you a chance to respond to it.

It suggests that an official at the State Department was fired, a man named Allen Stayman, who was involved in the tiny Pacific Island nations of the Northern Mariana Islands. He was fired because Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, now confessed felon, came to you and basically said, fire this guy; he’s not allowing the policies in the Northern Mariana Islands that Abramoff and his clients wanted.

“Newly disclosed e-mails,” the L.A. Times reports, “suggest that the ax feel after intervention by one of the highest officials at the White House: Ken Mehlman, on behalf of one of the most influential lobbyists in town, Jack Abramoff.”

You were then the political director.

MEHLMAN: I was.

BLITZER: Is that true?

MEHLMAN: It is not true. And I’m not sure that those e-mails suggested that. First of all, I did not have the authority, as the political director, to fire anybody. It wasn’t my decision.

As political director — now second of all, I also don’t recall the specifics of this matter involving Mr. Stayman. But as a matter of course, and certainly the first term, I had, frequently, people come to see me with political issues they wanted talked about.

BLITZER: Including Jack Abramoff?

MEHLMAN: Or personnel issues that they wanted talked about. And when they would come see me, what I would do…

BLITZER: Jack Abramoff, also?

MEHLMAN: Again, I don’t recall that specific matter that he came to me for, but I had a way of dealing with all these matters, which is to let the policy-makers or the personnel deciders know exactly what people said. And they made the decisions.

What’s interesting about this, though, Wolf, while I don’t recall it specifically, I have seen some articles since then, since this came out. And what they suggest is that Mr. Stayman violated the Hatch Act, which is a federal law that prohibits employees of the government engaging in politics on their official clock.

And it also suggests he may have been working with the DNC on some things. So while I certainly didn’t have the authority to fire anybody and I don’t recall this specific matter, it does appear, from what other news reports indicate that there was apparently cause for Mr. Stayman to be removed.

BLITZER: Because, in the L.A. Times, it quotes an e-mail from one of Abramoff’s associates, as saying, “Mehlman said he would get him fired.

MEHLMAN: Yes, Mehlman didn’t have that authority. Mehlman wouldn’t say he had that authority. And remember, you’re dealing with individuals who, as we know, have pled guilty to defrauding their clients by saying they did things they weren’t able to get done.

My job as a political director, and any job as a political director, is to hear from people, whether it’s about personnel or about policy, and make sure that the policy-makers understand their concerns.

Three Ken Mehlman posts in one day. I feel like the poor guy with the shovel following the elephant.

There’s been a lot of chatter in the last couple weeks about which House races the GOP may now have written off entirely. I’d heard that about the Hostettler race in Indiana 8. And this may be why. A new poll commissioned by the Evansville Courier & Press has Democratic challenger Brad Ellsworth with 55% support versus Hostettler’s 32%.

In Monday’s paper the Times gives a relatively detailed run-down of the GOP’s decision-making on which races to write off and which to pour money into in the final three weeks of the campaign. The topline is that the national party has decided not to spend any more money on Mike DeWine in Ohio. In addition to DeWine, they are expecting Santorum, Burns and Chafee also to go down to defeat. If those assumptions are right, that leaves Democrats needing two more pick-ups to take control of the senate, with Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia, probably in that order, being the most likely places to get them. (Of course, that’s assuming that Bob Menendez doesn’t lose in New Jersey. That seems more likely than not; but it’s certainly not a sure thing.)

That’s the GOP’s side of the equation. How about the Democrats? As we noted a few days ago, since September 29th, a whole swath of Republican seats have started trending in the Democrats’ direction. And one big question over the next twenty days is whether Democrats will be able to get money into that batch of races which looked safely Republican a month ago but now look up for grabs or at least in contention.

Here’s a passage from Charlie Cook’s latest overview of the campaign …

On a conference call today, James Carville suggested that the Democratic Party should expand beyond just the top targeted races. He believes the party should help fund previously ignored Democratic challengers in second- and third-tier districts–the next 30 to 50 Republican-held seats–to fully capitalize on this environment and help those candidates maximize their chances of winning. Carville went as far as to suggest Democrats go to the bank and borrow $5 million. If I were them, I’d make it $10 million and put $500,000 each of these 20 districts.

This is a nice problem to have. But it’s still a problem. Normally at this phase of the cycle you’re triaging races, pulling the plug on ones that didn’t pan out and focusing money on races where wins still seem possible. But the playing field only seems to be expanding.

Do the Dems’ have the money on hand to fully exploit the situation? I don’t really know the answer. I don’t follow the money ins-and-outs closely enough.

But what I do want to do over the next two weeks is focus in on this new group of races moving into the competitive category. I’m not a vet like Cook. But I’ve been covering elections long enough to know that in every cycle there are bunch of campaigns out there yammering on about how they’re really in a winnable race and that they could win if only this or that party committee realize how close they and give them some money. This time, though, some of them, and possibly a lot of them, are going to be right.

But which ones?

In no particular order, but just races that I’ve got my eye on this week …

New York 20: Sweeney (R) v. Gillibrand (D)
Ohio 2: Schmidt (R) v. Wulshin (D)
CA 11: Pombo (R) v. McNerney (D)
WA 8: Reichert (R) v. Burner (D)
CO 4: Musgrave (R) v. Paccione (D)
NY 19: Kelly (R) v. Hall (D)

You’re out there on the ground. What are you seeing? What I’m interested in here are not the races where Democratic challengers now seem likely to win. I’m also not looking for those that still look like a longshot. I’m trying to put together a list of those which looked like a longshot six weeks ago but now seem possible, ones where the Republican incumbent is still clearly favored but perhaps not for long.

I’d like to put this question out there for observers and activists in the district and also the folks in the party committees, 527s, et al. Needless to say, if you’re dishing some inside knowledge, your identity and specifics of what you tell us will be held in the strictest confidence.

And one other thing. At this point in the campaign ads get run or yanked at lightning speed. They may come from the candidates, the party committees, independent expenditure groups, etc. When you see a new ad running in your state or district, particularly if there’s something new about it or you see it running a lot, let us know. What’s the ad say? Who’s identified as the advertising party? How heavy does the rotation seem? If you can record it and send us a clip, even better.

We do a lot of traditional reporting here at TPM and we keep an eye on the money drops as reported in the public filings. But our real advantage at TPM, in terms of keeping our reporting ahead of the pack, is our engaged readership. Tell us what you’re seeing. Let us know the details. We read all your emails and they’re critical in helping us cover this race.

RNC chief Ken Mehlman revises his personal history with Jack Abramoff. That and other news of the day in today’s Daily Muck.

Radioactivity Watch: Hastert fundraiser postponed in NJ 5.

Update: They say that the event has only been postponed for now, not cancelled. We shall see.

Department of amazing coincidences: Saddam verdict to be read out on November 5th.