« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
We've been writing for a while about the difficulty of getting clear and consistent measurements about security in Iraq. The Government Accountability Office stated this week that there hasn't been a measurable decline in attacks on civilians over the course of the surge, something that General David Petraeus' command sharply disputes. Making matters more complicated, the Pentagon's quarterly Iraq reports have recently taken to revising its earlier estimates of sectarian killings without indicating what prompted the change. The statistical confusion is likely to play a prominent role in Petraeus' Congressional testimony next week.
So it's significant that Petraeus gave a subtly defiant interview to the Boston Globe's Charles Sennott. Petraeus, true to form, attaches qualifiers and caveats to his assessments, but he hits his main points hard: his is a "solid plan" that is achieving results, from the pacification of Anbar province to the increased capability of Iraqi Army and police forces that "hold" neighborhoods in Baghdad. He implies that the Sunni tribal turn against al-Qaeda is a turn for "reconciliation" with the Shiite-led Iraqi government, something that his subordinate commanders have doubted.
Unlike his interview last weekend with the Australian, though, he cites no statistics about overall declines in casualties. Instead, he pointedly states that "what our troopers have achieved is measurable and important." It's a loaded statement, implying that to question the statistics distributed by Multinational Forces-Iraq is to criticize the troops on the ground. That's something the GAO took great care not to do in its report this week, writing that the troops have "performed courageously under dangerous and difficult circumstances."
Something else to look for: Petraeus appears to anticipate a question about whether all or most of Baghdad has, in fact, been made secure. (He told the Australian that sectarian violence was down 75 percent in the capitol.)
As we have demonstrated through the employment of the forces that we have, we do not necessarily have to secure every part of Baghdad at once -- this can and has been done in stages. As the security situation in an area improves, forces are required to hold the gains that we have made. Over time some of those forces can be local police units working with the Iraqi Army and Coalition Forces in Joint Security Stations.
That sounds like Petraeus is conceding that Baghdad remains, at least in parts, unsecured. He's never explicitly said otherwise, and he would understandably resist being expected to solve the capitol's problems in less than a year. Indeed, to me and to other reporters, he's discussed how the Iraqis need to come to terms with an "acceptable" level of violence: after all, no city of 7 million can be completely secure. But expect Congress to grill him on what he's actually saying about the levels of security throughout Baghdad -- and how he measures it.
Josh
Zachary
The Bush admin is expecting fundamentalist Shiites to `make nice' with the secular Sunnis who subjected these Shiites to decades of murder, mayhem, rape, etc???
For that, they deserve to be shuttled to the Red Zone where they can live out the rest of their lives `delivering freedom' to Islamic fundamentalists who loathe the US and American values.
Iraq: The Way to Go
By Peter W. Galbraith
NYRB, Volume 54, Number 13 · August 16, 2007
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim leads the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC, previously known as SCIRI), which is Iraq's leading Shiite party and a critical component of Prime Minister al-Maliki's coalition.
He is the sole survivor of eight brothers. During Saddam's rule Baathists executed six of them.
On August 29, 2003, a suicide bomber, possibly linked to the Baathists, blew up his last surviving brother, and predecessor as SCIRI leader, at the shrine of Ali in Najaf.
Moqtada al-Sadr, Hakim's main rival, comes from Iraq's other prominent Shiite religious family. Saddam's Baath regime murdered his father and two brothers in 1999.
Earlier, in April 1980, the regime had arrested Moqtada's father-in-law and the father-in-law's sister—the Grand Ayatollah Baqir al-Sadr and Bint al-Huda.
While the ayatollah watched, the Baath security men raped and killed his sister.
They then set fire to the ayatollah's beard before driving nails into his head.
De-Baathification is an intensely personal issue for Iraq's two most powerful Shiite political leaders, as it is to hundreds of thousands of their followers who suffered similar atrocities.
September 7, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The original `loyal Bushies' once backed Saddam Hussein who was also anti-Iranian.
Back then, when Saddam Hussein was gassing Shiite `freedom fighters' and children, the best Sect Def Cheney could do was say that Iraq was "volatile" but under control. (see below)
Now, despited being gassed, raped, tortured, shot, etc for decades the next round of `loyal Bushies' are expecting the formerly oppressed Shiites to forgive and forget Sunni atrocities?
What a bunch of morons!!!
Bush warns Iraq on chemical arms U.S. fears use of weapons against rebels. Chicago Tribune. March 10, 1991 [snip]
Jawad al-Maliki of the Dawa Party said in Damascus, Syria, that mustard gas was used against protesters in al-Haleh, al-Kifil, Najaf and some areas of Basra, in southeastern Iraq.
Precisely what is going on inside Iraq is difficult to determine since Western reporters have been expelled. Most information is coming from refugees and opposition leaders in Iran and Syria.
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney described the situation as "volatile" but said it appears Hussein will be able to keep the unrest in check for now. The Iraqi leader is using his loyal Republican Guard to quell the rebellion.
September 7, 2007 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
As long as the script says that Petraeus, like McCain, is a straight shooter, the rest is kabuki.
September 7, 2007 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you can cook one book, it's easy to cook others. The intelligence was "fixed" before the war, why should they change course now? "Stay the course!" Any questioning of this course aids the terrorists.
September 7, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you can cook one book, it's easy to cook others. The intelligence was "fixed" before the war, why should they change course now? "Stay the course!" Any questioning of this course aids the terrorists.
September 7, 2007 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This morning on Air America Cenk Uygur interviewed Newsweek's Baghdad correspondent Babak Dehghanpisheh, who categoricaly stated it would be "suicidal" for a westerner to leave the green zone in Baghdad without bringing his own security. He said you could possibly go to other parts of the country, but not walk in Baghdad itself.
I would say that indicates a very low level of security.
September 7, 2007 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that if there is a complete withdrawal, there would be ethnic segmentation that would accelerate and create homogeneous religous areas or communities that would share commonality of religion and be prone to endorse theocracy. As 70% of the Iraqi nation is Shiite, this means an alighnment with theocratic Iran to the north. Should this have been seen as a possibility of an at large election? Should this have been a distinct possibility before the invasion?
When one stops to consider the influence of religion on what we term 'secular' government we should consider the term: "Christian nation" as it is applied to the US. Consider the stem cell research restrictions, consider the church and state pull that has been at the FOREFRONT of our recent elections.
When on stops to think of Israel, and their immigration and assylumn policy, it is based on religion.
Nepal Airlines said the animals were slaughtered in front of the plane - a Boeing 757 - at Kathmandu airport. The offering was made to Akash Bhairab, the Hindu god of sky protection, whose symbol is seen on the company's planes.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/goat-dies-airli.html
While it is true that the Bathists were 'different' than the Shiites, and that there were abuses by the government, the assumption on the part of Neoconservatives that an election and democracy, or the 'secularization' of that society could be acheived was ridiculous!
I saw Michael Scheuer on CNN last night and he stated 'essentially' that there is not even a sane debate on the conflict at hand! He went as far as to say that the politicians were not leveling with the public, and that is why progress was as it is.
And in part, I find it interesting that as a society we could conceptualize the idea that the Afghani's and 'mujahideen' who were refered to as 'freedom fighters' when the soviets 'invaded' and 'occupied' that nation, and see no parallel to our current circumstance.
The efforts of the Soviets to stabilize the nation of Afghanastan left that country in ruin, as a failed state, and in very high probability so will the intervention in Iraq.
About the only thing that can be rationally expected is to allow the ethnic cleansing and grouping to occurr, Bivouac troops (maybe 30K?) in more rural settings, and have those troops assist in policing when the local governments requested that aid.
The consequences of the neoconservatives naive understanding of elections is that now that very referendum cannot be sustained. It is the political mind and the religous mind: "whom will not allow facts to stand in the way of their convictions" whom make these same mistakes repeatedly!
I would expect a similar result if I had gathered a group of teenagers, and asked them to 'vote' on the activities that they wanted to engage in at graduation week at the beach, and then as a parent.. (oh the benevolent-paternalistic mentoring dictator) become angry, alienated, or undermined when they went their own course, or... REBELLED against that authority.
I cannot imagine a scenario from anywhere between 10 years and 40 years where anything less than 30K troops will be needed from keeping that nation from 'drinking the koolaid' and making what we as self-proclaimed secularlists deem mistakes.
If the same @ssholes who tell us that we want to trade our civil liberties for security here in the US failed to miss that point in Iraq, and disbanded the bathist police, then I see an inconsistency. "It was as if" From the Discourses~ that this curious group of neoconservatives snatched defeat from the palm of victory as they elected not to allow Sadam and his top leaders to go into exile and cut a deal with the Bathist party.
Maybe as UGLY as the parents are, parental control is not such a bad thing and that undermining institutions in the absence of a replacement, FOOLISH!
There is no avoiding the problems of Iraq at this juncture, no avoiding a complete failed nation state, unless we keep at a minimum 30K troops in country for a generation or so, maybe many, or at least until vital national interests make the economics of this similar to Africa where we don't intervene.
The problem with the neocons is that they are NOT pragmatists, they are circle jerk idealists.
We should have cut a deal with the bathists and not have drank the imperial kool aid.
September 7, 2007 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
What sort of creature is Gen. David Petraeus?
Find a good summary bio of him at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus
He is intelligent, though not obviously creative or really innovative. He is extremely ambitious. He is extremely political.
Remember that within two months of Petraeus's graduation from West Point, he married the daughter of the Superintendent. Might he have been looking for a suitable match that would enhance his career, sort of what John McCain did in pursuing a second wife who had the advantage of great wealth to boost the aspiring politician's career prospects?
Climbers climb. That is what they do.
Petraeus has been given the opportunity to write his own personnel evaluation and to fill out his own report card on his performance in executing the “surge” in Iraq.
So here is the question: should we trust anyone who is this political and this personally ambitious to provide us with a detached, accurate appraisal of the results of his own performance? Or should we expect him to make up numbers, cook the books and casualty figures, and try to convince us that his leadership of the “surge” has been a “breathtaking” (an adjective he has actually used for developments in Anbar Province) success and just needs another FU (or two, or three, or four, or whatever) to be a complete success?
Will our Senators and Congressmen let Petraeus off lightly and allow themselves to be bamboozled by this ambitious self-promoter? On Capitol Hill is there not at least a suspicion that any statistics cited by Petraeus will be fabricated, crafted, and fully vetted by the White House to promote a long-term military occupation of Iraq?
Juan Cole, Josh Marshall, and even the AP have exposed the distortions and outright fabrications underlying Petraeus's numbers. Are any Senators or Congressmen (or at least their staffers) paying attention?
September 7, 2007 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Questions for Petraeus.
1. What happened to all the weapons you lost?
2. Regarding the "pacification" in Anbar province, how did you control it? How much was expected, and how much was unexpected? How permanent is the pacification? Who is in charge?
3. Now that the surge has passed most of its benchmarks without meeting them, are our troops more or less exposed than before?
4. What happened to the internal security forces that you trained? How many of them are still our friends? If you don't know, why don't you know?
5. The military is not everywhere in Iraq. How can it count, let alone account for, all the deaths in the country?
6. As the ethnic cleansing occurring in Baghdad and throughout Iraq continues and approaches completion, sectarian violence will be reduced. Is this your goal? Is this how you define success?
7. You have failed to meet the benchmarks set for you. Why?
8. What are your strategic goals for the next 6 months. To what extent are they your goals, as opposed to goals dictated by your political masters in the Cheney-Bush Administration?
I'm sure there are many more, but I see no reason why Petraeus doesn't owe every U.S. citizen, and everyone in uniform, clear, honest answers. He volunteered for the job.
September 7, 2007 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
In reading the Globe interview with Petreus, if he claims that a sign that sunni's in an-bar have reconciled with the national government is that the new local sunni security forces have been integrated into the Iraqi Security Force then why is the U.S. military not sharing those sunni's names with the Iraqi army? A US army officer had a quote this week that they aren't sharing those names for fear that the shiites in the army and police would use them for assasination lists in the future. Some reconciliation!
September 7, 2007 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"expect Congress to grill him"
Why would we expect that?
September 7, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush loves generals who leap to their feet,salute and click their heels. Petraeus obviously, being a "brilliant" guy sensed this is the road from colonel to general, from 3star to 4star.Does anybody realistically expect him to torpedo his career at this point? Even if he gave a report truly reporting the impossibility of the task with the limited forces available it would be supressed. If the democrats don't get some spine,
somehow discipline the blue dogs and accomplish something soon the next election could produce some bad results.
September 7, 2007 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that it adds anything to the conversation, but for the sake of accuracy the caption on the photograph above is inaccurate. Petraeus is a General now; when that picture was taken he was a Major General.
September 7, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh was asking for the casualty numbers for 2006. Unfortunately, the story is not in the numbers. The story is in the change of strategy and why the strategy was changed.
General Petraeus has decided to, more or less, withdraw from the Baghdad area - less patrols and less American casualties, etc - and focus more on the Anbar province.
Not only will it make the war look better to the home folks, with less casualties, but they can also claim that they are making progress with the Sunnis and defeating the al Qaeda in Iraq.
Mostly, they are accomplishing this by paying off the Sunni sheiks and enlisting thousands of Sunni into security guard positions. This is why they have felt the need to ask for more money in another supplemental. Arming and training the new Sunni guardsman $600 per month is going to take a lot of money.
Unfortunately, they are driving the Shia closer and closer to the Iranian side. That is why also, they have decided behind the scenes that Maliki has to go. They need to get someone that can work with the Sunnis to rebuild the government. In effect, they have done a complete 180 degree turn. They are now supporting the Sunni over the present Shiite government which they helped form.
That is the story - not the casualty figures. So, then the question becomes, will this strategy work or is it simply meant to buy time to get thru the next political season? Will it create a "victory" or will it create something even worse than we now have? When first we practice to deceive...
September 7, 2007 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Petraeus wants to chairman of the joint chiefs of staff!
September 7, 2007 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Will our Senators and Congressmen let Petraeus off lightly and allow themselves to be bamboozled by this ambitious self-promoter?"
Let me guess. Yes?
September 7, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"When first we practice to deceive..."
We'll make a war and never leave.
September 7, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, the Repubican's goal here seems to be to establish a narrative so that Democrats can't pull the plug on Iraq without being subject to the partisan claim that "the surge was working and we were winning before the Dems pulled the rug out from under us. Thus, the Dems, not this [failed] president led us to defeat." Facing such an argument, the Dems will feel pressure to continue to fund the war.
Importantly, to make its case, the only thing that Repubicans and the Pentagon (completely under the president's control) need only to do is create uncertainty in the populace about progress. Given a large segment of the populations persistent gullibility, setting up such a situation (even under false premises) will raise the R's poll numbers and/or galvanize its base. The bamboozlement will continue at the expense of our troops and economy (but to the benefit of war-profiteers) because it works and because the Repubican party doesn't care one whit about America.
September 7, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's why Petraeus got the job.
Bush was looking for a general willing to echo his based-on-nothing optimistic progress. and finally he found one.
"It's difficult and it will take some more time. But, clearly (right now their favorite word) there are clear signs of progress."
And, of course, if we ignore reality, then we may see the progress that clearly isn't there. We may see less sectarian violence, less Gls in bodybags, more positive developments.
The onlt thing that's clear is that Petraeus is a bullshitter like GWB.
September 7, 2007 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's why Petraeus got the job.
Bush was looking for a general willing to echo his based-on-nothing optimistic progress. and finally he found one.
"It's difficult and it will take some more time. But, clearly (right now their favorite word) there are clear signs of progress."
And, of course, if we ignore reality, then we may see the progress that clearly isn't there. We may see less sectarian violence, less Gls in bodybags, more positive developments.
The onlt thing that's clear is that Petraeus is a bullshitter like GWB.
September 7, 2007 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the local police units were so corrupt and infiltrated it's been recommended we disband the entire bunch and start over.
September 7, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
When people at the higher levels of our govenment are making decisions benefitting them personally rather than benefitting the nation, they will hire those people they believe will attain those same benefits.
Not one individual involved in the Iraq fiasco was hired who did not directly support Bush's agenda. Because of this, the hirees tended to not be patriotic indiviuals. Rather, they, as their employer, were driven by other goals... politics, personal status, wealth, power, etc. the main point is that they were not based on our nation's well being, but their own.
We are seeing some of the results of these decisions. Buildings are falling down even before they are completed. Funds are deverted by fraud. We are jumping from one side of a conflict to another. Our President and his followers have not even admitted that there is a civil war going on in Iraq.
I agree with one of the bloggers above... that the actual tally of the dead is really just a diversion. The books have been and will always be cooked. Duh! One would be hard pressed to come up with a single argument involving Iraq which hasn't been skewed to put a positive view on Bush's involvement. We can stay over there forever and kill all but a dozen Iraqis and the story from the administration would be "Iraq is a success story. It was hard, but we stayed the course. We kicked ass and now the Iraqis are free!"
I think it would be more to our advantage to figure out how and why the majority of "We the People" continue to hire people in Washington who's goals are directed at benefitting themselves rather that this nation... IMHO
September 7, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assume for argument things have improved. How did the surge cause this? How did the presence of 300,000 US troops and contractors cause this? Is it not as possible or more possible that the Iraqis are getting a bit exhausted with civil war? Lack of any statistics about who (of the 300,000) was doing what differently, where and with what equipment, makes it difficult to conclude that the surge did anything as opposed to coincidentally occur with a decline (slight) in chaos in Iraq. And that assumes accurate and complete stats, realistically appraised, would show a small decline in chaos in Iraq.
September 7, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tacitus: They make a desert and call it peace.
Petraeus, political indeed. One of the nastiest legacies of the Bushies is the politicization and proselytization of the military. Francisco Franco was a savior, too, neh?
Now, where are those impeachment skeptics, and what will they have to say this time about why our constitutional mechanisms just aren't good enough to solve this problem?
September 7, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because he says it's so, doesn't make it so. After all, isn't he the long searched for General who would follow the Bush line? Also, what about the 4 Marines who were killed in Anbar yesterday, and just because he claims 'measurable progress' doesn't mean it's acceptable progress. In the 2006 elections, we told Bush and the Republican Party that enough was enough, and that it was over. It wasn't an invitation to negotiate dragging things out further.
September 7, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to ask Petraeus about AQI. The general has found it necessary to devote American troops to fighting this threat, thus he must know this enemy. How many men are member of AQI...20 200 2000? Are they primarily foreigners or Iraqis? If foreigners what nationalities and how do the get into Iraq? How are they funded? Where to the get their weapons from?
September 7, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, Boston Globe reporter, Charles M. Sennott, has drunken Gen. Petraeus' Kool-Aid. In two interviews of Sennott I just heard on local Boston radio (WBUR) -- he sounded more like the president of the local Petraeus fan club rather than anything resembling a journalist. Not even the slightest iota of skepticism, nor any attempt at balance, came through.
It appears that Sennott has followed Petraeus' career for a number of years and has a particular relationship with the general. Indeed, "fan club" seems to be an apt description.
September 7, 2007 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, Boston Globe reporter, Charles M. Sennott, has drunken Gen. Petraeus' Kool-Aid. In two interviews of Sennott I just heard on local Boston radio (WBUR) -- he sounded more like the president of the local Petraeus fan club rather than anything resembling a journalist. Not even the slightest iota of skepticism, nor any attempt at balance, came through.
It appears that Sennott has followed Petraeus' career for a number of years and has a particular relationship with the general. Indeed, "fan club" seems to be an apt description.
September 7, 2007 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And from a different Ministry, but taking the same approach:
"But actually, he thought as he readjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head."
--George Orwell, "Nineteen Eighty-Four"
September 7, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch how fast the Repubs change their tune after 2008 election.
The "metrics" will change so quick heads will spin. What was fodder for us masses now will be again re-chewed and regurgitated into a new narrative about how the Dems, the responsibility newly on their shoulders, should get us out of the Middle East quicker than lightning. The media will buy the new narrative as it is spewed forth from the conservative think tanks funded by ill-gotten gains, and from the media's own need to increase profits at the expense of printing anything close to objective accounts.
I don't think the Dems realize what is in store for them in 2008, assuming of course, that they "win" the election.
If they did realize it, they would be a lot tougher now.
September 7, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, if Congress would have gotten off their lazy asses and set up a "Truman Commission" immediately after taking control of Congress - and investigated the War Profiteering - the waste, the theiviery - the bribes and the corruption...and name Republican Names and Republican Companies - I assure you...Bubba would of been up in arms and this "surge" and Petraeus have mute. Bubba is in no mood for waste and corruption when he's having a hard time feeding the kiddies...
September 7, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Petraeus said.. "his is a "solid plan" that is achieving results"
Jesus, what do you expect him to say... "my plan was a boneheaded scheme doomed from the get-go and its just getting more people killed"?
The guy is simply writing his next performance review.
September 8, 2007 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
AL QAEDA'S NUMBERS ARE ONLY 3% TO 5% OF THE TOTAL SUNNI INSURGENCY!
IF WE'RE IN IRAQ TO FIGHT "AL QAEDA", THE TERRORISTS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11, WHY DO WE NEED 160,000 AMERICAN SOLIDIERS TO THWART A FORCE ESTIMATED TO BE AT BEST 3,000?
IS "AL QAEDA'S" FORCE OF 3000 SO MUCH BETTER ORGANIZED, ARMED AND EQUIPPED THAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO DEFEAT 160,000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS?
IS "AL QAEDA'S" FORCE OF 3000 SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEARLY 4000 AMERICAN DEATHS THUS FAR?
HOW MANY AMERICAN’S WERE KILLED BY SUNNIS OR SHITES? HOW MANY AL QAEDA HAVE BEEN KILLED BY AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ?
WHO IS DOING THE KILLING OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOSANDS OF IRAQI CIVILIANS?
AL QAEDA ISN’T THE REASON FOR ALL THE KILLING THAT’S GOING ON IN IRAQ. GEORGE W. BUSH IS!
"[I]t is estimated that foreigners make up at least 70 percent of al Qaeda's 1,000 to several thousand fighters. Other estimates suggest al Qaeda's numbers around 850, about 3 to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
September 9, 2007 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real problem is that we are in Iraq due to a confluence of events. For example, oil. If we did not go there for oil, why is there an attempt to have Iraqis accept a law that would ultimately give control and profits to American oil companies? Another is how AIPAC, the hard Christian right, and neoconservitives joined forces to weaken other middle eastern nations so that Israel would be and remain the major power in that region. Until, we (and I mean the entire American public) consider some of the fundemental reasons that got us in this mess, then it doesn't matter which general is giving us what report. We will be stuck in Iraq until a real leader has the courage to admit that the U.S. was wrong, and leave.
September 10, 2007 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink