Correction: It's the Irish Barack Obama (and Here's the Music to Prove It)

Readers in Dublin are buzzing* over the news of the not-quite-smash hit from Limerick group Hardy Drew and the Nancy Boys (aha --- even a-not-that-side joke with the name), "There's No One as Irish as Barack O'Bama".

*Our inside source in Dublin corrects us: "The word 'buzzing' should actually be 'embarrassed and ashamed'." We apologise for our initial error.

We've snared the music video for you --- and for anyone at Conservapedia who wants to set the record straight:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43Vk[/youtube]

Why We Love Conservapedia: The Muslim Barack Obama

We find a sense of humour at Conservapedia, our bulwark against liberal bias --- "the truth shall set you free".

The entry for Barack Obama reads, "President-elect Obama could become the first Muslim President, and may be sworn into office at his inauguration on January 20, 2009, using the Koran."

(The editors even put up a supposed source for this "fact", which on closer examination is a Christian Science Monitor article headlined, "At swearing in, congressman wants to carry Koran. Outrage ensues." Only the sharp-eyed would notice that Barack Obama on Inauguration Day will no longer be a Congressman, and that the story actually refers to Democratic Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota.)

Some very po-faced readers, citing accuracy, credibility, blah blah blah, keep trying to modify the entry --- at least to the extent of taking the Koran bit out --- but the editors are dogged enough to keep restoring the humourous parody.

So, kudos to y'all at Conservapedia! The Onion would be proud of you.

Iraq: Not So Fast....

There is a waving of banner headlines in the American and British press today that "Troops leave by end of 2011, US and Iraq agree". It appears that "after months of tense negotiations and public protests, the Iraqi cabinet on Sunday approved a bilateral agreement allowing U.S. troops to remain in this country for three more years."

Well, that's that, then. Americans can prepare for all their boys coming home by the end of 2011. Iraqis can bask in their freedom. Richard Beeston in The Times can even celebrate this great achievement of Bushian foreign policy: "This is a triumph in that it is precisely what the Bush Administration wanted in Iraq – a viable, democratic and independent government capable of making its own decisions and taking on greater responsibility for security."

Hmmm....Why am I a bit hesitant about such a triumph?

Well, a beginning might be to ask why, after so many months of negotiation, the al-Maliki Government has come off the fence and backed the Status of Forces Agreement. Of the reports I read this morning, only The Guardian of London --- drawing on an Associated Press account --- picked up on the catalyst:

On Saturday the leading Shia cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani dropped his opposition to the deal, in a shift that some observers believe paved the way for a Shia bloc in the cabinet to vote in its favour.

Al-Jazeera adds that al-Malaki "dispatched Khalid al-Attiyah and Ali al-Adeeb, two senior Shia legislators to Najaf to secure the support" of Sistani.

As late as Friday, it was reported that the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq --- the largest party in the al-Maliki coalition --- was holding back on approval. Meanwhile, Moqtada al-Sadr at Friday prayers was telling supporters to prepare for resistance against US troops.

Could al-Sadr's open call have pushed Sistani into public acceptance of the deal? Did the Islamic Supreme Council move first, or did they follow Sistani? And what of the nine ministers of the 37-member Cabinet who absented themselves from Sunday's meeting rather than give approval: are they from Sunni factions who now worry about a renewed US-Shi'a alliance against their interests?

I can't answer any of these questions yet. I do know, however, that there's an even bigger one that no one has broached today.

Is the United States really going to abandon more than dozen permanent bases, representing billions of dollars of investment, by the end of 2011? Or will there be interpretations and re-interpretations of the agreement to allow US units --- "trainers", "advisors", "mobile forces" --- to remain in Iraq?

Let's re-visit that headline: "Troops Leave by End of 2011". Here's the exact transcript of President-elect Obama on CBS television last night:

Kroft: Can you give us some sense of when you might start redeployments out of Iraq?

Mr. Obama: Well, I've said during the campaign, and I've stuck to this commitment, that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my national security apparatus, and we will start executing a plan that draws down our troops.

Once more, drawdown is not full withdrawal. As far as I am concerned, the best statement of near-future US policy in Iraq is the report of December 2006 by the Iraq Study Group (member Robert Gates, the current and likely near-future Secretary of Defense), which proposed the retention of 50,000 troops in various guises in the country.

Do Not Panic: The Culture of Fear is Still Alive and Well

For those of you who were worried that an Obama Administration might bring an unwelcome sense of moderation regarding the projection of the War on Terror, let us (and the President-elect) reassure you:

"I think it's important to get a national security team in place because transition periods are potentially times of vulnerability to a terrorist attack," Obama told CBS's "60 Minutes." "We want to make sure that there is as seamless a transition on national security as possible."

Fact x Importance = News (Nov 17)

I'm fully recovered after spending Saturday evening at a friend's parents', after his Californian mum organised a party to celebrate Obama's victory. The pressure was on when word got around just before the election-themed quiz that I was an American Studies postgraduate, but luckily I put everything I'd learnt reading Enduring America to good use and helped my team ensure victory:

I wanted us to be called 'The Maverick Renegades', but apparently the name was too long.

What other important stories happened last week?:

• The top two American intelligence officials expect to lose their jobs soon after Obama becomes President.


• There is debate as to whether the Democrats can investigate Bush administration officials for alleged abuses carried out during the 'war on terror'.


• Jason Burke thinks we should lower our expectations for Afghanistan.


• Activists in Tuscon, Arizona are using guerrilla art to protest hardline anti-immigrant law enforcement officials.


• Nobody knows what China's new hospital ship is for.


• Dubai has gone bust.

Let us know what you think of these stories, and what other stories you've been watching, in the comments.