Sometimes I like it whenever other journalists beat me to the punch. I was considering putting together a list of all the supposed "turning points" in the Iraq War that, of course, turned out not to be points of turning. But, it turns out, Foreign Policy, a feisty magazine that's not just for wonks, has already done so. Here's how FP starts its web-exclusive piece:

As the Bush administration readies a "pivotal" progress report on Iraq, it's worth asking if this time will be any different than the past. We've seen countless politicians and pundits on both sides herald the arrival of a "turning point" in Iraq, only to watch the war roll on. Herewith, a quick rundown of the "turning points" that turned out to be anything but.

Read the full list here.

The current issue of Foreign Policy has a sharp article by Jane Loeffler, a historian of embassies, on the new U.S. embassy in Iraq. The subscription-only piece begins:

A citadel is rising on the banks of the Tigris. There, on the river's western side, the United States is building the world's largest embassy. The land beneath it was once a riverside park. What sits atop today is a massive, fortified compound. Encircled by blast walls and cut off from the rest of Baghdad, it stands out like the crusader castles that once dotted the landscape of the Middle East. Its size and scope bring into question whether it is even correct to call this facility an "embassy." Why is the United States building something so large, so expensive, and so disconnected from the realities of Iraq? In a country shattered by war, what is the meaning of this place?

For security reasons, many details about the embassy's design and construction must remain classified. But the broad outline of its layout says a lot about one of America's most important architectural projects. Located in Baghdad's 4-square-mile Green Zone, the embassy will occupy 104 acres. It will be six times larger than the U.N. complex in New York and more than 10 times the size of the new U.S. Embassy being built in Beijing, which at 10 acres is America's second-largest mission. The Baghdad compound will be entirely self-sufficient, with no need to rely on the Iraqis for services of any kind. The embassy has its own electricity plant, fresh water and sewage treatment facilities, storage warehouses, and maintenance shops. The embassy is composed of more than 20 buildings, including six apartment complexes with 619 one-bedroom units. Two office blocks will accommodate about 1,000 employees.

Loeffler notes, "The United States has designed an embassy that conveys no confidence in Iraqis and little hope for their future," With this embassy, she points out, there will be no need for the Americans to interact with Iraqis for anything. And she argues, "Diplomacy is not the sort of work that can be done by remote control. It takes direct contact to build goodwill for the United States and promote democratic values."

So as another "turning point" is reached in Iraq, the Bush administration is to open on September 1 one helluva symbol. But if this turning point isn't the one that does the trick, at least Americans official in Baghdad will live and work in comfort and security as they plan the next one.

THE NEXT A.G. The leading speculation continues to center on Michael Chertoff, the head of the Homeland Security Department. Though Chertoff is no Bush crony or Cheney-bot, the confirmation hearings sure could be explosive. Democrats could pound him for his miserable performance during Hurricane Katrina--a performance which should disqualify him for any promotion. And there's more: the Department of Homeland Security is widely regarded as an agency plagued with ineptitude and institutional corruption. Put that on the agenda, too.

Posted by David Corn at August 28, 2007 11:17 AM