Given the steady flow of anti-war and anti-surge rhetoric spewing from the mouths of the Congressional majority and Presidential candidates seeking the Party's nomination, I have to wonder if key Democratic players suffer from a genuine lack of understanding regarding the threats we face if we fail in Iraq, or if they are just choosing to ignore those threats and the likely consequences of precipitous withdrawal.
Critics of recent Congressional action on the Iraq war like to argue that Democrats are traditionally weak on national security, and that they simply don't have a firm understanding of what will happen if we pull our troops out prematurely and surrender Iraq to the jihadists and the Iranians. This position is understandable.
It's easy to surmise that those on the left misunderstand the threat when you read comments like the ones made by LA Times columnist and fervent Bush / Republican basher Rosa Brooks, who in a column called "9/11 was bad, but..." published on April 27, wrote: "The 9/11 attacks were appalling and tragic, but they did not threaten the survival of the nation." Ms. Brooks went on to write, "Of course, 3,000 dead is 3,000 too many. But keep it in perspective." Keep it in perspective? Her words and her comparison of the death toll from 9/11 with our casualty figures from the two world wars, Korea and Vietnam reveal a leftist mentality that is focused on the damage caused by one supposedly isolated act of violence and not on the threat posed by a radical ideology determined to effect our eventual subjugation under the banner of Islam.
While this belief of natural weakness and lack of comprehension may be true for the more radical members of the Party, who are blinded by their hatred for the President, wars in general, and the Iraq war in particular, I don't believe it to be the case for the Democrats' core leaders in the Congress or on the Presidential campaign trail. Instead, I believe it more likely that the heavy hitters of the Democratic Party do in fact recognize the threats we face and are purposely ignoring the consequences of defeat for political gain in 2008.
There is some basis for this theory. Earlier this year, the Democratic Leadership Council, chaired by former Representative Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee, published its Plan B on Iraq, citing the failure of President Bush's strategy as a call for changing direction in the conduct of the war. Part of the plan reads as follows:
"...the ‘out now' option would likely compromise U.S. security interests, trigger a full-scale civil war, invite foreign intervention, provide an unprecedented propaganda victory for Sunni Jihadists and Shi'a theocrats whose savage violence has been aimed at creating this outcome, and abandon those millions of Iraqis whose suffering under Saddam Hussein will be compounded by more chaos, war and tyranny."
The plan goes on to say: "A precipitous withdrawal would also drive the Iraqi government further into the arms of the Iranians...making Shi'a-Sunni reconciliation even harder and increasing Iran's regional influence. And it could definitely create a dangerous recruitment point and training base for the international Jihadists who remain the key global threat to our, and the world's security interests. A rapid and complete withdrawal from Iraq isn't really a Plan B: it's a ‘Plan Zero' for liquidating the whole Iraq engagement as hopeless."
So where's the disconnect? How can the Democratic Leadership Council recognize the dangers associated with premature withdrawal while the Party's Congressional leaders and Presidential candidates vociferously demand that very course of action? How does the Council reconcile its position with Senator Reid's public statements concerning a war that is already lost and the need for bringing our troops home in accordance with the mandate allegedly granted by the November 2006 elections?
The truth, I believe, is that most Democrats understand exactly what will happen if we fail in Iraq. They understand that the unchecked genocide of Iraqi Sunnis by the Shi'a majority could spark a regional sectarian war. They understand that Iran's position in the region would be enhanced and that a traditional buffer against Shi'ite influence in the Middle East would be eliminated. They understand that the violence and chaos in Iraq would likely escalate, endangering our allies in the region and our national security interests worldwide while creating a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. And they understand that terrorists around the world would be emboldened by their victory over the world's only remaining superpower, just as they were when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.
Given this understanding of the consequences of premature withdrawal, why are leading Democrats denouncing the President's "surge" strategy and demanding a reduction in forces or a complete pullout instead? There can be only one answer.
Democrats know that they must maintain the status quo in Iraq until after the 2008 elections. To concede, even a little bit, that the surge might be working, that there may be signs of progress, would be to admit that the President might have been correct in implementing his new security strategy for Baghdad and al-Anbar Province. That is why it was necessary to discount General Petraeus' reports of initial progress and encouraging signs even before he appeared in the House and Senate. It is also why Speaker Pelosi felt it was more important to work on securing votes for the withdrawal resolution than it was to be at Petraeus' briefing.
The success of the surge would spell political disaster for Democrats as Americans realized that we could in fact win in Iraq, and that there was an honorable end in sight for a conflict that has torn at the very soul of this nation. For Democrats, the surge must fail in order for Iraq to be used as political ammunition in the 2008 elections.
Democrats also know that they cannot, under any circumstances, cut off funds for the troops, for they alone would bear full responsibility for abandoning our men and women in harm's way and for the increased violence and chaos that would surely follow in Iraq after U.S. troops were redeployed.
So what we get from the Democratic-led Congress and from the Democratic Presidential field is resolution after resolution criticizing the President while avoiding responsibility for anything that happens in Iraq. The hope, I believe, is to maintain the current pattern through the 2008 elections, allowing Democrats to claim that the President was the problem and that they were powerless to stop him because Republicans in the Congress would not support overriding a Presidential veto.
The end result is the undermining of the Commander-in-Chief, the troops in the field, and their mission in Iraq purely for political gain. The strategy is an astute one, as far as Washington maneuvering goes, but it is also one of surrender and defeat in Iraq in order to secure victory at the ballot box in 2008. For Democrats, political advantage has taken priority over national security. That is why the surge must fail, and that is why Democrats have fittingly been accused of being "The Party of Defeat."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 73
Oh, and as for the mandate, a one seat majority in the Senate acquired by razor thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a mandate, as evidenced by the split votes in the Congress. Without the earmark spending added to the bill in the House to buy votes (as Rangel admitted), more than 16 Democrats would have voted against the withdrawal. Hardly a mandate.
"......the threat posed by a radical ideology determined to effect our eventual subjugation under the banner of Islam."
everything else flows from this perspective. next to the idea that islam poses an incontrovertible and historically unavoidable threat to western culture, all other points are digressions, mere noise.
this is the point, i think, that america needs to debate. given the fact that islam has in recent years undergone the largest baby boom in the history of the world, how we decide this debate is as important as the debates that preceded the revolutionary war, the civil war or world war II.
Did it ever occur to you what this catch phrase is actually saying? To "play politics" means, actually, to do the will of the people with hopes of winning votes. So, is doing the will of the American people who voted these people into office in November, largely on the basis of the failed war efforts and the enormous monetary and human costs of this war, so bad? Don't forget, we're STILL a representative form of government, no matter how hard this administration wants to fight it.
and honestly, the versions of the koran that i have read do not strike me as blueprints for tranquility and peaceful cooperation. instead, they seems to be blueprints for the subjugation of non-muslim peoples (in particular, jews and christians) and for global hegemony. and islamic military conquest throughout history bears this out.
at minimum, anyone who faults the west for being imperialistic must recognize and admit that islam has been as imperialistic and as messianic as we have.
whether we pull our troops out or not, i think unfortunately that this confrontation is inevitable and if we do not fight them here and now, we will fight them later.
If the folks in Congress are truly representing the wishes of the people, why is the vote so evenly split? Are half of our elected representatives ignoring the desires of the populace? The reality is that Republican defeats in November were the result of a number of problems with the way Republicans were running the country. The war was part of the dissatisfaction, but not all of it. There was scandal and corruption, infringement on civil rights, reckless spending, etc.
The November 2006 election was a referendum on government as a whole, not just on the war. The mandate argument simply doesn't hold up.
Your article is well thoughtout and well written. I can't challenge any of your points.
I can only mention my disappointment in the accomplices to this political game. The media, they don't report on it nor do the pundits comment on this political strategy nor on the potential consequences.
For both the war in Iraq is only a setting on the stage of their political games.
That's classic "playing politics" and it's despicable. As much as I can't stand John McCain, I give him credit for sticking with what he believes. He's willing to risk any chance at the Presidency and possibly the retention of his Senate seat over the war. That's adhering to principle and not politics. Right or wrong, he's sticking with his personal beliefs. That's something you don't see a lot of out of Washington these days.
As for benchmarks, the problem so far is that they are set up for failure. If the Iraqis fail to meet the first one, we are supposed to start pulling out. Potential progress in other areas becomes irrelevant. The only one that matters at that point is the first one. That tells the Iraqis they can ignore everything else and focus just on that first benchmark, whatever it may be (number of trained Iraqi forces, oil law, changing de-Baathification, whatever).
The other proposals I've seen include GOALs and not requirements. They are nonbinding. Well what's the point? The military and the embassy in Iraq already have goals, and they are almost the same as what many in the Congress has proposed. So why do they need to be restated?
All of this is happening to score political points. The actual plan proposed by the Democratic Leadership Council is exactly what the military is doing in Iraq right now: training Iraqi forces, fighting al-Qaeda, etc. It's almost a mirror document of the coalition's end of year report for 2006. So why even say it? It's already in progress?
I know I've ranted long enough, but the point is that the playing of politics has gotten out of hand (and both sides are guilty). Clearer heads need to prevail and acknowledge the realities if we precipitously withdraw. Then those clearer heads can figure out the best way forward.
There is simply no way, no rhetorical trick, that you can come up with that will pass responsibility for this tragedy from this Republican administration to the Democrats. Nice try though.
All your supposed ME and military expertise and this is the best article you can write, Greg? Everybody is looking for a solution to this disaster and you find it more amusing to play a blame game.
Since you still like the surge (although you intelligently find its chances of success minimal), I would be much more intrigued to read an article from you about tactics, troop levels, and what the heck Petraeus is going to do about the "surge" of resistance OUTSIDE Baghdad and Anbar. Or, failing that, the "surge" of spectacular attacks, probably from Sunnis, INSIDE Baghdad and Anbar.
As for the phased drawdown, what's the point? The assumption is that things will only get worse, so why phase it (even though many Democrats in the Congress do in fact want an outright withdrawal, but they are afraid of being depicted as irresponsible)? If it's only going to get worse, should we get out as fast as the planes can take off from Kuwait?
The timeline is arbitrary anyway. What's so special about July, or October, or next March? The dates are not based on any actual conditions in Iraq, so why keep Americans in harm's way any longer than necessary? This is the fallacy of the phased withdrawal argument.
If the war can be won, then talk of timelines goes away. If it can't, isn't it morally irresponsible to leave our soldiers in Iraq one minute longer than is necessary?
Ah yes, the surge. I've said this on Gather about 1,000 times, but I'll say it again. The theory is that once American troops clear an area, Iraqi troops move in to hold it, freeing up American forces for operations elsewhere while still denying the enemy a refuge to return to. Does that answer your question about other areas?
As I've also said, the strategy is unlikely to work because the Iraqi forces are too fractured, too incompetent, and too poorly led to be effective enough to relieve American forces. Still, the President as Commander in Chief has the authority to execute it IF THE CONGRESS GIVES HIM THE MONEY. Right back to the funding issue. The ball is in the Congress' court. They just don't know what to do with it.
Greg - do you realize that you just supported my point in your response to me? Why would they turn against the administration just to secure their own political futures? The answer is, because they realize that WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.
This is a frustrating view to me. We saw it in microcosm in CT with Joe Lieberman. He justified his stance on the war as a personal commitment - basically, defending Israel. I don't elect a senator to get in there and fight for his personal likes and dislikes - I vote for the person who will REPRESENT ME. That's what representative government is all about. Why is this so hard to understand? If the Republican reps want to keep supporting Bush without question or compromise, then they will hear from their constituents loud and clear come Nov 2008, or before. They are not princes or kings, they are representatives of the people.
It may also include removing American Forces from Iraq.
The only way an army can abandon a battle, without being slaughtered as they run, is by an end to the hostilities before the retreat begins.
We must FIRST agree to leave, and then leave, or we must send a half million forces to occupy Iraq by force.
Get real here. The USA is going to face consequences for the invasion of Iraq, just as Iraq faced consequences for the invasion of Kuwait. Minimizing those consequences is the ONLY OPTION.
I agree that most Americans are unhappy with the conduct of the war, but consistent polling also reveals that we don't want to leave in defeat. This is dangerous ground for Republicans and Democrats alike. A pullout that sends the entire region into war or creates a massive humanitarian crisis will be a political liability.
That's why I say the status quo is necessary for Democrats until after the elections. What do you think will happen if Democrats force a withdrawal and the whoe region goes to hell, requiring U.S. forces to intervene once again? I would venture to say that they won't pick up seats in the Congress. Same goes if the surge works. Then the constant anti-surge rhetoric and action will come back to haunt them.
Someone in the Democratic leadership was bright enough to figure that out, and that brings us to where we are now.
There will be no end to hostilities with the proposed phased withdrawal. Simply saying that we agree to leave will not stop the attacks. Sunnis are attacking Shia, Shia are attacking Sunnis, Kurds are attacking Sunnis and Sunnis are attacking Kurds in Kirkuk, al-Qaeda in Iraq is attacking everybody. To think that if we simply say we will leave the forces of violence will just allow us to withdraw on our timeline is fantasy. It's a ridiculous argument. Even if they left us alone as we left, they would still systematically kill each other. What does that solve?
How does pulling out minimize consequences? It actually creates new consequences. It may eliminate American military deaths, but that's about it. Think big picture (strategic level). There is more at stake here. Even the DLC recognized this (reread the passage from the Democratic Leadership Council's plan).
I keep hearing from Democrats how we need to once again make America the leader of the world. How is abandoning the 21 allied nations that are with us in Iraq, permitting wholesale genocide, provoking regional war, expanding Iranian influence, and emboldening terrorists worldwide make us an international leader?
Our credibility has been damaged with the Iraq war, but it will be destroyed with a precipitous withdrawal.
I think what they are trying to do is send a strong message to the Iraqi government and Bush's administration that they have neither an open-ended commitment nor a blank checkbook. When you go into a negotiation, you start from a place that provides room to get an acceptable compromise. The problem here is that Bush has had it "my way or the highway" for 6 years and can't deal with logic or compromise. If he wants to play chicken with the situation, then he is the one that is being totally unreasonable.
I think that, regardless of what Bush wants, the US government as a whole is going to go forward with other methods (i.e., serious talks with the neighbors in the region & candid talk with the Iraqi leadership) that will yield results seeing that the surge of troops is not a long-term resolution, even if they were seeing results. Too bad Bush can't be a man and at least come to the table in the spirit of compromise. The Repubs are starting to see a little too late that this man is going to bring the entire party down with him and his obstinence.
BTW, I'm a registered Republican and a small business owner. Surprised?
If the Democrats are trying to send a message to Bush or the Iraqis, then I say make it a message with substance. Right now nonbinding resolutions and arbitrary timelines are political posturing and nothing more. Many Dems have been saying for four years that there was no open checkbook, but they still won't take action to back up those statements.
In my opinion, both sides are being somewhat unreasonable and there will likely be a compromise, more to Bush's liking than to the liking of the Democrats. One other thing, you mentioned the government going forward regardless of what Bush wants. Really that only applies to the Congress, since the departments and agencies work for Bush.
I would say that Democrats have to be careful in the precedents they are setting. I fully expect to see condemnation and criticism when we have a Democratic president and Republican congressmen are traveling the world undermining the president's role in foreign policy. I also expect Republicans to exert more control over the executive just as the Dems are attempting to do with Bush.
You know what they say, what comes around goes around. And the surge is not designed to be a long-term solution. As General Petraeus said last week, it is designed to buy time to give the Iraqis the opportunity to get their act together. Success or failure hinges on them, not on American troops.
And no, I'm not surprised. Many Republicans are dissatisfied with Bush. There are plenty of things I disapprove of. But I believe he has a firm grasp on what will happen in that region if we just pull out. The difference between me and him is that he still believes we can salvage Iraq and I believe that it will be divided and no longer one country.
But my view doesn't matter when it comes to the armed forces. He is the Commander in Chief and he decides how to employ our military. The Congress decides to fund that employment or not. Which brings us to my biggest problem with Democrats in Congress right now.
I'm literally at the point where I'm saying "put your money where your mouth is." They have the power to end the war, but won't do it, choosing instead to do the things I pointed out in the article. If they truly believe in their hearts that the war is illegal and immoral and that the American people gave them a mandate to pull out, aren't they morally obligated to deny the President the funds?
Dennis Kucinich made a good point in the debate the other night. He said there is already enough money allocated to withdraw, no new funding is needed. If that's true, why don't they just tell the President "no more money." He would have no option but to pull out American forces. But they won't do that because they are afraid of the consequences.
That is the main point, at least from my perspective, Greg. I agree with you that Dems have not gone far enough with their non-binding this and that. But they know that they do not have a real majority (one that could override a veto). They are trying to present issues with a spirit of compromise, ill-founded or not.
I saw an interview with the head security advisor (forgot his name) on C-Span this weekend. The journalists interviewing him pointedly asked him what Plan B was - the plan that Bush has in place if the surge does not work out by August. He said *yes, said, not inferred* that Bush does not have a Plan B. They are putting all their efforts into making the surge work (which I have serious doubts about if the Iraqi government is going out on a 2-month vacation during this critical time) and will think of a Plan B in September.
That does NOT give me confidence in this administration at all. Why would anyone take this administration seriously and put their faith behind this surge when:
1 - they are doctoring the numbers on victims during this period; and,
2 - they do not have a plan to turn to in the event that this strategy is not working.
Can you honestly say that gives you confidence?
Greg Reeson: "Ah yes, the surge. I've said this on Gather about 1,000 times, but I'll say it again. The theory is that once American troops clear an area, Iraqi troops move in to hold it, freeing up American forces for operations elsewhere while still denying the enemy a refuge to return to. Does that answer your question about other areas?"
No it does not. That is not at all the stated methodology for the surge, which is to clear AND HOLD. US troops are to hold the area, take up residence in the held neighborhoods, and participate with the Iraqis in maintaining security. To hope that Iraqi troops will simply take over responsibility is ridiculous based on past experience.
Fred Kaplan, writing in Slate.com, ran the numbers in January and saw the problem as follows:
-------------------
Petraeus and his co-authors discussed this strategy at great length in the Army's counterinsurgency field manual. One point they made is that it requires a lot of manpower—at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area's population. Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops.
Right now, the United States has about 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq (another 60,000 or so are support troops or headquarters personnel). Even an extra 20,000 would leave the force well short of the minimum required—and that's with every soldier and Marine in Iraq moved to Baghdad. Iraqi security forces would have to make up the deficit.
In the short term, then, say for a year or so, enough troops might be concentrated in Baghdad if troops now deployed in Iraq have their tours of duty extended, troops due for redeployment to Iraq are mobilized several months ahead of schedule, nearly all these troops are transferred to Baghdad, and enough Iraqi troops can be mobilized to make up the remaining slack.
Meanwhile, how will Petraeus be able to keep Baghdad's insurgents from simply slipping out of town and wreaking havoc elsewhere? This is what happened in Fallujah when U.S. troops tried to destroy the insurgents' stronghold in that city.
http://www.slate.com/id/2157155/pagenum/all/
I just for the life of me can't see the President having any other options.
So, what are we going to do when the surge is not working by September? The obvious answer is that whatever happens, the military is going to be pressured to say that it is working. But even then, what happens? Does this surge strategy go on forever? I don't know of any other benchmarks associated with this strategy other than a grudgingly provided "check" in September.
There HAVE to be other options in place, working or not. To quote you, I for the life of me can't see the President NOT having any other options in place.
As for the sizeable U.S. presence still in the country, what size? By the end of this year there will be 40,000 trainers plus the logistics elements to support them (generally 2 to 1, but probably a little less with the civilan contractors), putting roughly 100,000 on the ground just for the training mission. Then you have to add in the forces for combatting al-Qaeda and force protection. There are only 150k in country now. How much of a reduction can there really be and still be able to accomplish those missions?
Don't forget that in addition to saying terrorist incidents had increased because of our presence in Iraq, the NIE also said a withdrawal would embolden them and give additional life to their cause. Usually people only quote the first part.
I've read the Biden plan. The only problem with it is that the Shia and the Kurds have shown no desire or willingness to reconcile with the Sunnis. That is a fundamental condition of the Biden plan. Otherwise there will be no sharing of oil revenue and no accommodation on mixed cities. Unless that fundamental premise changes, it just won't work.
I don't fully buy the political convenience argument for the surge. I think Bush truly believes that there is an opportunity to create enough stability for the Iraqis to reach a political accommodation. I personally don't think it will happen. He's right in that security is a necessary precondition for diplomacy, but the Iraqis, in my opinion, are not interested in diplomatic accommodation.
The surge is designed to clear and hold. In that you are correct. Where possible, Iraqi units take the lead in clearing, with U.S. assistance. Where that is not possible, U.S. units take the lead. Part of the holding operation is setting up small outposts with a few U.S. soldiers. You are not talking about entire units setting up shop in FOBs in neighborhoods. The majority of troops in neighborhoods after the clearing is done are supposed to be Iraqis.
That in theory frees up the majority of U.S. troops for other areas while Iraq soldiers with some U.S. back up hold areas to deny a return spot for insurgents.
I agree with you, and have said often, that it is ridiculous to expect the Iraqis to step up and make this work. They are too fractured, too incompetent, and too poorly led. Primary loyalties lie with tribes and clans, not with the central government. But that doesn't change the consititutional authority of the President or the Congress. That's what I defend.
As I said, if the surge worked with Iraqis taking primary responsibility for held areas, U.S. troops would be free to pursue insurgents into other areas. It can't work any other way. We simply don't have the manpower, the equipment reserves, or the public will to do anything else.
You're going to have to do better "picking my posts apart."
So, while I think you are correct in that we don't WANT to leave Iraq in a mess, we may very well end up doing just that.
There have to be police efforts where law enforcement agencies can track terrorist cells that are known and visible (never an easy task), there has to be sharing of intelligence and information between law enforcement agencies, and there has to be a rigorous prosecution effort when terrorists are identified and enough evidence is gathered to hold them criminally liable.
There have to be efforts among states and businesses to restrict the finances of terrorist organizations. Bin Laden runs several legitimate businesses in the Middle East that he uses to finance terror attacks.
And there has to be the military option. Our technology allows us to conduct precision strikes that can target non-state actors and training facilities with minimal risk to civilians who may be in the area. Generally, I would say that military force is more effective against states than non-state actors, but the Israelis have a very effective anti-Hamas and anti-Hezbollah campaign that has forced most of the terrorist leadership of those two groups into hiding.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that there has to be a comprehensive approach on many fronts, something we have not been very good at.
For detailed reading on this subject, I recommend "Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy" by Paul Pillar or "Fighting Terrorism" by Benjamin Netanyahu.
Greg Reeson: "So what we get from the Democratic-led Congress and from the Democratic Presidential field is resolution after resolution criticizing the President while avoiding responsibility for anything that happens in Iraq.
...The end result is the undermining of the Commander-in-Chief, the troops in the field, and their mission in Iraq purely for political gain."
As I suggested earlier, your "angle" on this, I believe, is disingenuous and demagogic given that:
1) It's equally valid to suggest that the Democrats are attempting to fix the mess that the President got us into. The American people honestly want things to get better. Listening to them and trying to come up with solutions cannot automatically be dismissed as "purely for political gain." And you cannot cherry-pick one analysis (even if commissioned by Democrats), take the most extreme action ("precipitous withdrawal", not envisioned in the current bills) and leverage the current direction into blame.
2) The Democrats do not have the votes in any case. How convenient for you that they can't prove you wrong by overriding the veto.
Your argument deflates further if one doesn't hold fast to the idea that a different sort of redeployment won't succeed better than the "surge" policy. Frankly, there is plenty of evidence that, if the troops remove themselves from populated areas in Iraq, some things will get better, maybe a lot of things, especially on the Shia side.
a) The occupation has lost the support of the Iraqi people.
b) The targeting of militia further inflames sectarian tensions, due to the makeup of the Iraqi contingent working with the coalition.
c) The scenario of Iraq falling into the orbit of Iran is not at all a foregone conclusion. That analysis fails to give any weight to nationalist sentiments in Iraq, which are strongest among the Shia--seemingly the "natural" allies of Iran. If the US occupation has accomplished anything, it has stirred up nationalistic feelings among the Iraqi citizenry. al-Sadr, although he's only too glad to soak up Iranian money and weaponry, follows the family line of nationalist fervor, and especially now, when it can provide him "street cred" over the likes of that Iranian, Sistani, and others in the Hawza.
d) There remains the case where the Iraqis successfully take responsibility for the running of their country. Who knows, maybe they'll even get some international help along the way!
Greg is playing a little political shell game to arrive at the preordained conclusion that the Dems are the "party of defeat". Real classy.
I don't have a problem with anyone coming up with solutions. The problem with the Congress is that their solution is meaningless. As I said, a phased withdrawal makes no sense. If the effort is lost, we owe it to the soldiers on the ground to get them out as quickly as possible, not wait until July, October or next March because those are arbitrary dates picked on a calendar.
A withdrawal is a withdrawal. Phasing it out only delays the inevitable because conditions will only deteriorate as the number of U.S. forces is decreased. If the dates were based on something other than just dates someone selected, I would consider them differently. Show me a meaningful solution and then we can talk.
You miss the point on the vote. The Democrats have the ability to end the war if they want to. It doesn't require a vote at all. The President ASKED for funds because he can't allocate them himself. All the Democrats have to do is say no. No resolution, no bill, no vote needed. Dennis Kucinich said during the South Carolina debate that the money needed for withdrawal was already in the pipeline so no new additional funds are needed to end the war.
What are they waiting for? If they really believe the war is immoral and illegal and must end now, they have the power to do it. There is only one explanation for not doing it, and that was the point of the article.
Let me tell you about pulling out of the populated areas, at least as far as our force casualties are concerned. And that's what the real rub is after all, isn't it? It's our "unacceptable" casualty rate (which is a historical low for American wars) that is cited most often as the reason we must pull out. The enemy will follow us wherever we go. This fantasy notion about pulling out of the cities to rural areas along the borders is just that--fantasy. Every time we changed location, convoy route, patrol sector, etc. in Iraq both times I was there, the enemy followed us. Then, when we moved to another area to lessen attacks, they followed us again. They will not simply leave us alone because we move out of populated areas. I concede that I haven't seen the evidence you refer to, but I can tell you what I experienced during two tours.
Did you notice that the protests against U.S. troops were largely limited to al-Sadr's strongholds and that people in the south of the country and in the area known as Iraqi Kurdistan celebrated the American-led invasion of 2003 on its fourth anniversary? The occupation has lost the support of some of the Iraqi people, but not all. For every poll that says the Iraqis want us out, there is an opposite poll that says the Iraqis are fearful of what will happen when we leave.
The targeting of militia is a problem. But the militia themselves are also a problem. Al-Sadr's Mehdi Army is one of the worst perpetrators of sectarian violence. You have a simple choice: target them to try to cut the violence or let them continue killing Sunnis at will.
I completely disagree about Iran. I do think that at a minimum we have lost southern Iraq to major Iranian influence. There is not nationalist sentiment in Iraq. Each group is looking out for itself, which is why there has been no political accommodation, no oil revenue sharing, biased provision of basic services, ethnic purging of the security forces, etc., etc., etc. The Shia are nationalist Iraqis as long as they control the government. Start taking away oil revenues and allowing the Kurds independent control and that nationalist sentiment disappears really quickly.
Finally, don't count on the international help. Although Iraq's neighbors have a greater stake than anyone in a peaceful and stable Iraq, none wants to stir up any friction among their own Shia, Sunni and Kurd populations. And none wants to get in the middle of a chaotic war that involves what is essentially ethnic cleansing.
I agree that there is no painless way to deal with Iraq. But read my posts about phased withdrawals. This is not a solution. Offer up something credible and we can talk.
That is so simple to say, and so naive that I can't believe that YOU believe it. First of all, it took quite a while to get the forces into theater, because, uh, the Turks said "no" to the North door, and, other stupid planning by Rumsfeld, and... The troops are all in one location now. You don't think the troops can execute a rear guard action? That's traditional military "book," Greg. Counter-insurgency, THAT's what they are not prepared for.
Of course, so much of what you have to say depends on a black-and-white "stay the course" vs. "full retreat" dichotomy that other possibilties apparently aren't on your radar. It hurts my eyes to read your comment that the American military cannot secure a base of operations. That said, even if the base were within reach of resistance forces (and why?), wouldn't that IMPROVE the situation in the populated areas? I'm willing to learn something new here, Greg.
"Al-Sadr's Mehdi Army is one of the worst perpetrators of sectarian violence."
What is that, your Jerry Bremer impression? The spectacular bombings of civilian populations in Baghdad are overwhelmingly unleashed on Shia neighborhoods. A huge percentage of the credit you are giving to Coalition forces for the early "success" of the "surge" can be attributed to the fact that al-Sadr called for a cessation of violence by the Mahdi militia in Baghdad. Much of the Shia-on-Sunni violence in Baghdad in the last few years has come in the force of "death squad" retributory attacks, many of which at the hand of rogue elements of the Iraqi police (our "partners"), and not the Mahdi element.
"Dennis Kucinich said during the South Carolina debate that the money needed for withdrawal was already in the pipeline..."
Kucinich is a "trusted source" for you, is he? My turn to go political on you, Greg. The Democrats have to work with the President. He DOES need that appropriation. The nation also needs a path out of the quagmire, which many believe the President has not shown us. You've gone out to edge city with that argument.
"Iraq's neighbors have a greater stake than anyone in a peaceful and stable Iraq..."
Stop right there, Greg. I agree with you. Making that reality palpable in part REQUIRES a new framework free of a chaotic war, and more importantly, free of a war where they need to sign on to an American-dictated formula for conflict resolution.
What does that make the Reps? The party of fiasco? Geez, if you're serious about ending this mess with a minimum of carnage, why get all rhetorical about it? The current Dem offer is clearly an attempt to get Bush out of wishful thinking "stay the course" mode, and by gum if it ain't working in a reasonable way. There was no simple course for the Dems to take, and this is a logical opening nudge. It's just plain partisan meanness to start in with the party of bad things BS.
Mr. Bush rammed this down America's throat, and he and his cheerleaders are not deserving of any excuses for why it will end in chaos if somebody doesn't get him to drop the showbiz heroism shtick.
Although the casualties, the brain injuries, the amputations sadden me greatly, that was not my point. As annoyed as I am at the failed US dependence on contractors to train the Iraqis (2003-4) and as skeptical as I am at the competence of Iraqi security forces, I think that (because of the open distain of the Iraqi population for the occupation forces coupled with the increased violence due to attacks on US military) the American presence in populated areas is counter-productive. I am anti-"surge." That does not mean I'm pro-failure, though.
I'm wondering if you saw a reduction in smiles over your time in Iraq, Greg. George Packer, in his Afterword to The Assassin's Gate, noted a reduction in smiles in 2006. No smiles, no waves, no eye contact with civilians seen on patrol.
The Dems have placed themselves not as the party of "America is good and we can make it better." Instead, they have positioned themselves as the party of "America is bad, America is the problem, Republicans are mean and Bush would be evil if he wasn't so stupid - so vote for us."
I love the quotation marks. Another touch of class.
Why not have them say; "We are sleazeballs", and have a real thrill ?
It's a simple fact that when one party (like say...Republicans) screws things up really bad and displays poor ethical qualities the other gets elected. What is with the "news flash" attitude here? Would you rather one party (like say...Republicans) was immune from this natural consequence?
Yet, for all their flaws, they still, for the most part, are not out cheering everytime an American soldier dies so that they can put up another mark on the "Hall of Shame" board like so many Dems do. They aren't calling American soldiers terrorists (Kerry), pronouncing guilt (Murtha), comparing them to Hitler's men (Durbin) or actively undermining our foreign policy (Pelosi in Syria).
That is disingenuous. Like ALL politicians, these folks heap praise in abundance on the troops in general, and such statements are made in regard to the relatively few (hopefully) incidents of our people acting like animals. There have been several instances of truly heinous crimes which ought to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Not only are such renegade (hopefully) activities morally sickening, they also undermine our standing in Iraq and the world. To say nothing against such brutes, is to miss an opportunity to mitigate the damage they do.
What are we fighting for? To repress hordes of radical Muslims ready to storm our shores and subjugate girls from Dallas to Chicago, Miami to Seattle in Burkas? You got any idea how dumb that whole idea is? Nope we are fighting to give international investors majority stake in exploiting Iraqi oil and industry, while the Iraqis meekly cede sovereignty over their economic future. This isn't "Bush hatred." (A really annoying and quite cowardly way of dismissing justifiable critique of this Admins legion of failure.) This is the terms of the Iraqi oil law, crafted by Americans and forced thru parliament where, unfortunately, all of Dubya's strong arming can't quite seem get it voted on. 12.5% royalty at the terminal, costs determined by the oil giants. We know at the pump in American how trustworthy these guys are. The Iraqi national oil company gets 17 of 80 known fields. The rest go to the big four to exploit as they see fit. The law makes it illegal to for a sovereign nation to join OPEC or restrict oil flow in any way. Industry and society which lived in socialistic largess from oil revenue is now cast on the "free market," and unemployed Iraqis be damned.
We are not fighting for freedom, security or repression of the Muslim horde: We fight for oil to the benefit of the few, most of whom are card carrying members of the RNC.
As for the examples I cited, they were all done with one thought in mind, to denegrate the US and its soldiers so that the Dems could gain political power. Naahh, nothing disengeneous there.
Sam - so let's take the troops out. What are you going to want the US to do when we have our next 9/11? Or will that be what we deserve for all the ills we bring to this world?
I see no reason why the oil companies cannot run the oil fields, it is what they are expert at, and Iraq will benefit. I think if they forbid joining OPEC or restricting oil they will make tons of money still and break the price gouging from OPEC and prices will be stable, predictable, good for business, good for the consumer, not even that bad for Iran or Saudi Arabia, they waste most of the money they get from oil anyway.
You should be as concerned for the US as you apparently are for Iraq.
1. It is impossible to fully secure any operating base. No matter where a FOB was located, it would still be subject to indirect fire, which has caused a fair number of casualties so far. Additionally, soldiers would still leave the FOB on occasion, by helicopter or by convoy, putting them at additional risk from attack. Simply put, the enemy has access to all parts of the country. To think that it might be possible to locate outside of the enemy's reach is naive. And moving out of populated areas would not improve the lot of the Shia. The vast majority of violence is Iraqi on Iraqi, not Iraqi on U.S. or coalition. We are not the only targets. If anything, the presence of U.S. troops in a populated area DECREASES the likelihood of Iraqi on Iraqi violence.
2. Yes, spectacular bombings are primarily directed at the Shia, but sectarian executions are primarily conducted BY the Shia. There is no question that the Mehdi Army is laying low, but only some parts of it. That is not happening for the entirety of the militia and we have credible evidence of rifts within the militia over the decision to disengage from attacking U.S. forces. That has led to rogue elements within the Mehdi Army conducting operations without al-Sadr's blessing. The Mehdi Army, in some form, is still engaged in sectarian killings. To think otherwise is delusional.
3. Kucinich is not a trusted source for me, but what struck me most about his statement was that not one presidential candidate refuted what he said. No one contested it. Does that lend it credibility or are they just being dismissive? The answer to that is open to interpretation.
4. What exactly is the appropriation needed for? Bush needs it for military operations that the leading Democrats say must stop immediately. They simply do not have to give it to him, which brings us to the point of the article. They have the ability to do what they're mouths are proposing, but they CHOOSE not to.
I would actually applaud the Democrats for fulfilling their constitutional role. My overall point in the article is that they are only resisting the strategy verbally, but are unwilling to back up what they say by denying the President the funds he needs for the war.
That's what's got the party's extreme left so upset. They are DEMANDING that the money be cut off because the Congress has the power to do it.
As for withdrawal, it could be accomplished a lot faster than is proposed in the phased withdrawa. The point is that the dates are arbitrary. If all is lost, why not get the hell out as fast as possible and minimize the risk the U.S. personnel? It may take 3-4 months to pull our people out, but it certainly wouldn't take until next March. There is nothing soldiers do faster than get ready to go home.
I would have much more respect for Democratic leaders if they acknowledged that waiting until July, or October or next March would not change conditions on the ground and then insisted on an immediate withdrawal. That's a solution based on reality and not on some dates a staffer picked on the calendar.
This region never had countries like we define them, and as everyone is so find of pointing out, the British partitioned the area in ways that did not create stable countries. Also we have these intolerant, belligerent nations that oppress their own people, hoarde all the money for giant yachts and estates all over the world, export violent Islamic Jihad.
Just as it makes no sense to give a revolver to a child, or a felon on the theory they should be treated like a responsible adult, trying to force these countries into being treated like developed democracies is ludicrous.
None of these places would have anything if it were not for the oil, and the oil is being misused, and further it is being used as a weapon against the West. So don't read this as we should feel great about stealing their oil and killing their people because you are one to overreact or exaggerate sometimes, I am saying in light of history and reality it would be in order for the US to help administer Iraq's oil, both for the Iraqi people, and as a relief value in the supply line to stabilize the supply and price of oil to assist in the transition to better economies and new energy sources, in fact I think it is brilliant. I think once the US or whoever is in charge ove there can get the lights on and some clean water, and a measure of security you would be surprised at how fast the Iraqis would opt in. Either way though, I think it is worth a try.
I also think the talk about neo-con fantasies is really useless. It makes a very negative argument, without actually saying anything, it is the straw man argument or guilt by association, so I am not going to elaborate on that. Going into motives and trying to say if we did this then this would happen is just guessing and hot air.
I am not "you guys" and I never use the "holy war" phrase, except to the Islamo-Nazis that is exactly what this is. It amazes me that you seem to think that the bumbling Christian coalition is more threatening that the IslamoNazis, given the need to condemn something you always look for something at home to condemn without analyzing the maginitudes of the threats. There are some Christian wackos out there but they are not murdering people in significant numbers to justify military reactions, but we would if they did.
Your last line is the one that really explains to me how you perceive this, you really think this is a war of conquest, and I think there is nothing Americans would ever support LESS. The US is not a military empire, in fact as far as I know of history the end of WWII was the first and only time a power had overwhelming world militay superiority and then stood down. I just want to know how you square that with thinking that we are this rabid tyranny invading other countries lilke the Nazis?
Iraq is not going well, but I think it is not a disaster. The same thing is happening that probably would have happened when and if Saddam died, you just have such a need to blame America and go into hysterics over how evil we are. I really disagree.
The longer we stay in Iraq ,maintaining a policy of confronting the insurgency , the worse it will be for the Iraqis, the region and ourselves. The most responsible thing we can do is to seek help from whoever will help and declare we areno longer going to be "occupiers." We should provide aid and reparations for what we have done, but we no longer can administer or control the situation.
We need to disabuse ourselves of the illusion that we are threatened by Islam This idea has been used fostered to justify ill-advised military adventures . It has succeeded in making a lot of people hate us and created many terrorists. If we get out of where we aren't wanted, we will be taking a big step toward reducing the threat from terrorism at home.
One positive strategic step we can pursue in the region is to work to establish normal relations with Iran - which will take a change of attitude, time and patience for there are years of bad relations and mistrust. A stable and prosperous Iran will do more to stablize the region than we can .
The basic error of our foreign policy strategy is that it belongs in the last century. We don't need to control its oil. If we persist in a militaristic policy , we will weaken ourselves and experience more failure.
An old hand, Edward Luttwak, a senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, writes trenchently in "The middle of nowhere" (Prospect Magazine Issue 134 , May 2007), "Western analysts are forever bleating about the strategic importance of the middle east. But despite its oil, it... is less relevant than ever, and it would be better for everyone if the rest of the world learned to ignore it...
Yes, it would be nice if Israelis and Palestinians could settle their differences, but it would do little or nothing to calm the other conflicts in the middle east from Algeria to Iraq, or to stop Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Muscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence between traditionalists and Islamists, and between Sunnis and Shia, nor would it assuage the perfectly understandable hostility of convinced Islamists towards the transgressive west that relentlessly invades their minds, and sometimes their countries....
[T]he same mistake keeps being made by the fraternity of middle east experts. They persistently attribute real military strength to ... societies whose populations can sustain excellent insurgencies but not modern military forces...
The third and greatest error repeated by middle east experts of all persuasions.... is also the simplest to define. It is the very odd belief that these ancient nations are highly malleable. Hardliners keep suggesting that with a bit of well-aimed violence ("the Arabs only understand force") compliance will be obtained. But what happens every time is an increase in hostility; defeat is followed not by collaboration, but by sullen non-cooperation and active resistance too. It is not hard to defeat Arab countries, but it is mostly useless...
Unless compelled by immediate danger, we should therefore focus on the old and new lands of creation in Europe and America, in India and east Asia."
We do not need to control the oil in the middle east, but we do not need to ensure that the western economies have enough energy and are not threatened, extorted or cut-off. If you look at the prices we are paying for energy I say we have been extorted for decades now. Yeah, we share blame for that one and we are negligent, but it does not change the fundamental equation.
As the oil dependency decreases to a more manageable level, the threat to violent Islam the fortifiying of these tyrannies and the spread of this into western countries is a concern for me.
Israelis and Palestinians cannot settle their problem, because it is not between the Israelis and Palestinians, it is between all of Islam and anything non-Islamic.
Yes, right now, the military threat from islamofacists is small, but you want to let it grow. The main threat is that they are emmigrating all over the world and NOT mixing in with their hosts, and out breeding them while attacking their institution and demanding Sharia law and recognition of Islamic tradition in the secular societies, while also maintaining a high degree of intolerance ... even within a foreign culture they have decided to live in.
We cannot wait for immediate danger, WWII proved that.
1. First, well-written post. Now I'd like to emphasize some points.
2. I applaud you for taking a firm position. While I do subscribe to the belief that there are severe strategic consequences (which I think we have debated before) associated with pulling out, I do appreciate the fact that someone can make an intelligent and reasoned argument that is actually solid from that particular point of view. That's one of the problems I have with what the Democrats are doing right now. The phased withdrawal is a fallacy. I would rather they say we should just get out as quickly as possible. That would be a solution based on a belief that the war cannot be salvaged. It recognizes a situation and proposes a solution.
The phased withdrawal doesn't do that. It recognizes a situation and proposes to drag out the end state until March of next year. While I disagree with the pullout, I appreciate the argument for immediacy rather than phasing.
2. Second, I agree that we are not threatened by Islam. One of my biggest gripes is that the hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims around the world are largely silent about the threat posed by a radical few who are attempting to hijack their religion. There are very few moderate voices out there, even though they far outnumber the folks who can't find it in themselves to live peaceably with other faiths.
3. I disagree with the notion of establishing normal relations with Iran. Iran declared war on us in 1979. They had their reasons, but they are not truly interested in "normal" relations with us. Any dialogue will serve only to advance their national interests without regard to anyone else's. They want all relations on their terms, which is not my definition of normal. And as the summit in Egypt gets underway, keep in mind that it is the Iranians who have ruled out talks with us.
I do agree that Iran can be a stabilizing force in the region, but they are just as capable of destabilizing the region. Sunni governments are increasingly worried about Iranian and Shi'ite influence. There is real potential for a regional sectarian war if Iran pushes its position too far.
4. Finally, our foreign policy in the Middle East has been out of whack for a long time. It didn't just start with Bush, although the war in Iraq has done much to undermine America in the region.
Again, Clarke, thanks for stopping by.
I do not say all of Islam, but the potential is there. Moderate clerics are just now starting to speak out against this, but the message is too difficult a one to get out clearly to most Muslims, particularly the ones that need to hear it the most.
There are two possibilities. One that Islam will not be able to be hijacked and turned into a violent militany superpower, the second is that the current strategy will work and they will. At that point we have a bloc more totalitarian, more focused and more willing to die than the USSR ever was. We cannot have leaders of countries in the world talking about destroying Israel with radiation, denying that the Holocaust ever happened, hold seminars about "the world without the US", maintaining countries where non-Muslims are third class citizens, and the regular citizens are pawns in a totalitarian religion.
Those of you who are so against the idea of a Christian state in the US, I am, where we have mandatory prayers of outlaw abortion, are so actively belligerent to this idea, as am I, but you seem to be fine with something 100x as bad in control of the part of the world where there are more people and more oil than about anywhere else?
Our foreign policy in the Middle East has been out of whack for a long time, I grant you that, but it is not because the US and the world have been responsible for so many bad things there, it is because this area is or was like a lot of parts of Africa, with warlords and constant fighting, until we needed stability to get the oil. I think the region needs to be undermined as man part of Africa under corrupt tyrannies need to be undermined.
I would prefer the US had the help of the UN or most of Europe to get this done and I would never had launched the attack on Iraq myself, but now that we are there, we gain very little by just leaving and may gain more by pushing forward that is to dealing with Iran.
I appreciate your very precise response. My perspective on Iran is different. I posted a general comment "Engaging Iran," but let me get personal, but not at great length here. I spent several years in Iran under the Shah. I also spent time in Iraq, Afghanistan most of the other countries in the region. Inadvertently,I got involved in the 1967 War. (The CIA told myself and my wife it wasn't going to happen, but if Israel attacked "one week, , if the Arabs attacked "two weeks.) Carter screwed the Shah in 1979, for all his faults. I lost many friends to the new regime - and some of the bastards who did it are still in the government.
The "declaration of war" you refer to has a history. The theocrats wanted to eliminate the democrats in the new government, and the hostages offered a means. The students had no intention of occupying the Embassy for more than a few days. They had done so several times that year, and it was no big deal. The US ambassador called the Iranian government and the students were told to go home. The last time the mullahs decided to play their game. Keep in mind that the CIA regional headquarters had been shifted from Athens, Greece (because of assassination) to Tehran and a US Ambassador, to Iran, Helms, had been taken from being head of the CIA in DC a few years before. There was a lot of CIA stuff paperwork around in the Embassy. The paranoia by the Iranians that the US wanted to overthrow the new regime was not based on fantasy. We sponsored serious revolts throughout the country. After the hostage crisis, in 1980, we arranged to blow up nearly the whole ruling government, the top 80 leaders, including Ayatollah Behesti, the named successor to Ayatollah Khomeini. Rafsanjani, who became leader after Khomeini's death in 1989 had stepped out of the room before the bomb. There were many violent incidents between the US and Iran after that. The Iraq-Iran War was the most well known.
Rafsanjani chose a pragmatic policy focus on developing Iran's domestic economy when he came to power and ended spreading Khomeini's ideology of revolution from 1989. This served the wealthy mercantile class and the corrupt theocrats. The reformers got elected in 1997 and couldn't overcome the influence of the theocrats. The populist Ahmadinejad got elected in 2005 because Iran had been threatened by the US and he was not corrupt. His rhetoric did not represent Iran's foreign policy, however. He was the chosen tool of the theocrats who were losing control. The 2003 offer by Iran to the US to recognize Israel , cut ties to Hizbollah and Hamas and more was real, and it had the support of the theocrats. Iran wanted to work toward normal relations. This was not responded to by the US.
It is counterproductive to repeatedly threaten Iran . Although Iranians don't like the theocrats, they will resist outside interference. The best and brightest are leaving because there aren't enough jobs. If the US pushes for regime change it will be counterproductive. Iran has a democratic, educated populace who are not anti- American . They have the power of the vote, although the theocratic system has partial control because it can exclude candidates. The bottom line is they need to develop their economy and they don't want to get into conflict with others . They don't like Arabs and most Iranians don't feel the Palestinians are their business. Traditionally Iran and Israel have had good relations., during the time of the Shah. Today Iranians and Israelis still travel back and forth to each others countries. Many Iranian Jews did emigrate to Israel after the Islamic Revolution, but they return to visit their relatives in the Iranian Jewish community.
As far as Iraq and Iran are concerned, Iraq depends on trade with Iran. But Iraqi Shia are nationalistic. they composed most of the Iraqi army that fought the Iranians. The most popular leader in Iran , the Shia,Moqtada as--Sadr is a nationalist, and respected by the Iraqi Sunni. The Prime Minister Maliki depends on Moqtada to stay in power. he has limited power to to influence teh situation. The other Shia groups have more complex relations with Iran because they are playing along with the United States in order to use them to oppose the Sunnis and other factions, figuring when the Americans leave they will take control - which may be a drawn-out bloody conflict. The last thing Iran wants is a civil war next door.
I think an accurate view of the situation in Iraq is that the insurgency will grow the longer we stay. There are ideas, perhaps shared by the former commander, General Abizaid that US troops should be removed from direct confrontation. Some suggest 20,000 troops outside the cities should be remain. I expect some planners envision retaining military bases and a limited force, and have thought so for several years. I question whether this is a sensible option now. As it is, I am concerned, as several military logisticians have been for some time, that should the the exit and supply route to the south be closed, the whole army cannot be supplied or maintained to defend itself.
Thank you for the diligent effort to "humanize" these people. I really think that it is the tendency for folks to buy into the semi-racist notion that there are sub humans roaming all over the Mideast, and they can be rationally dealt with as a sort of clone race of drooling fanatics, which fuels much of the simplistic "show em who's boss" thinking that is currently in vogue.
They are fully human, and perfectly capable of reasoned response. They are just like us, in that they come in all sorts of mindsets, and it is no more true to say "they" are dangerous than to say "we" are. Dangerous people exist in all societies, and it is empowering for them when foreign agencies start getting all threatening and hasty in dealing with the people as a whole. Just as militant types here would gain in power and influence if such pressure were exerted on this country, and a certain amount of "extremist" rhetoric would become common, it is having that effect in the Iranian society.
Of course there are radicals, just as there are here. Of course there are fundamentalist clerics, as here. But the average man is also similar to us, and we only work against his steadying influence when we try to bully ourselves into a position of strength and say-so over Iranian decisions. Just as would be true if the reverse were going on, and Iranian power were being exerted over our affairs.
It is a self fulfilling prophesy to try to muscle people because "they aren't like us". The very ones who really are violent and extreme are empowered to act out their nutty agendas, cause THEIR talk of how different WE are starts to look justified.
Ayatollah Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Hosseini Beheshti (Persian: محمد حسینی بهشتی), (October 24, 1928 - June 28, 1981) , was to be the successor to Khomeini. At the time he was the secretary-general of the Islamic Republic Party, and the head of the Islamic Republic's judicial system. He was assassinated together with more than seventy members of the Islamic Republic party on June 28, 1981.
1. I think the biggest difference between us is the degree of belief in Iranian sincerity. For example, the 2003 offer. I just can't help but be wary of it. I don't buy for a minute that Iran would cut ties with Hizbollah and Hamas for to do so would undermine their ability to significantly influence the region. Hizbollah and Hamas fight proxy wars for Iran, so they don't have to do the dirty work. The ties are very strong and I just can't see Iran undermining the effort it has been making for years to become the dominant power in the Middle East (and by dominant, I mean most influential, not necessarily controlling, although an argument could be made on that point as well).
2. There is no question that the Iranians have ample reason to be wary of U.S. intentions. But we have equal cause for worry with respect to the Iranians. They present a strategic problem for us and Sunni governments in the region as long as our foreign policy has us engaged in the region. The mistrust goes both ways and it will take a lot to get past that.
3. While our rhetoric may be counterproductive, so is the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad. Mouthpiece puppet with no real power or not, it is not helpful to call for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth or to hold conferences on whether the Holocaust is fiction or not.
4. I think you overstate the nationalist ambitions or intentions of the Iraqi Shia. They are very fractured right now with multiple groups adhering to different agendas. As long as tribal / clan ties take priority over nationalist ideals, the ability of the Shia to come together is very much in doubt.
5. Finally, remote location of forces. No place in Iraq is out of reach of insurgents. The idea that we could move out of the cities and be safe is a faulty one. Both times I was in Iraq the enemy moved to wherever we located. If a location got too hot and we moved, they came with us. Same for convoy routes. Moving out of populated areas may reduce civilian casualties associated with attacks on coalition forces, but it will not appreciably reduce coalition casualties.
As for resupply, the plans I have seen call for occupying the major airfields, which would allow us the ability to resupply by air. It would be more difficult and we would lose the ground option out of Kuwait, but we could still sustain our forces.
Late in 2004, Ed Luttwak wrote: "Given the bitter Muslim hostility to the presence of U.S. troops--labeled "Christian Crusaders" by the preachers--their continued deployment in large numbers can only undermine the legitimacy of any U.S.-supported Iraqi government. With Iraq more like Spain in 1808 than like Germany or Japan after 1945, any democracy it sustains is bound to be more veneer than substance. Its chances of survival will be much higher if pan-Arab nationalists, Islamists, and foreign meddlers are neutralized by diplomacy and disengagement. Leaving behind a major garrison would only evoke continuing hostility to both Americans and Iraqi democrats. Once U.S. soldiers have left Iraqi cities, towns, and villages, some could remain a while in remote desert bases to fight off full-scale military attacks against the government--but even this could incite opposition, as happened in Saudi Arabia. A strategy of disengagement would require much skill in conducting parallel negotiations. But its risks are actually lower than the alternative of an indefinite occupation, and its benefits might surprise us. An anarchical Iraq is a far greater danger to those in or near it than to the United States. It is time to collect on the difference. "
The situation has disintegrated considerably in the years since he wrote that. Increasingly power has shifted from the leading parties in the central government to many different municipalities throughout the country.
Westerners since the 19th century have been misreading the society, and today they seem even less informed. I wish they would start from 500 BC; then work through, decade by decade in the 20th century, the various premutations. This notion of creating Sunni, Shia and Kurd divisions is not practical. All these are intermarried . There are many different groups related by communal ties. There was a Jewish plurality for the first half of the century , perhaps 30%, whose loss was a tragic one for the whole society. Yet the culture and society of Iraq resembles today what it was more than a thousand years ago. It may outlast the West, which has been in decline internally, while Asia has risen in wealth and power.
Most Shia have traditionally sought to integrate with the wealthier Sunni class and many had succeeded. Iraq was a prosperous country, the technical and cultural center of the Arab world until the sanctions were imposed in 1991. Personal income now is ten times less than it was then. The current militia-factionalism developed largely from that time. Saddam had ruled by building a Stalinist-type party; but, aside from the problems with the Kurds (which Iran and Turkey have their own versions of) he had not fractured the mutual alliances that had been developed among varying groups over centuries. There are Sunni, Shia and Kurdish tribes in the south, for example, who have lived there for generations.
I haven't looked at the logistics of supplying by air in awhile. It seemed that about 25% of what was necessary to maintain a force could be supplied by air. That would be based on 14 Forts and 150,000 troops. It was taking 2000 tankers from Kuwait a day just for fuel. Not being able to use trucks to distribute supplies in country would be very difficult. There are an additional 100,000 or so foreign contractors and non-military in Iraq.
You repeat the misquote of Ahmadinejad regarding Israel. Don't you know what he actually said?
I agree that indefinite occupation is not the answer and that an unstable Iraq poses the greatest threat to neighboring countries. I also concede that those countries are unlikely to get engaged as long as we are there. There has to be overlap--they can't wait for us to leave and then decide to get engaged. So far, they have been unwilling to commit to the overlap because of fear of unrest among their own Sunni-Shiite populations and because they don't want to get involved in the chaos that is Iraq. That gap has to be bridged, but it requires effort on the part of Iraq's neighbors as well, an effort that they have thus far been unwilling to undertake.
I agree that the Iraqi sects are "intermarried." But they are divided largely along ethnic lines (Kurds in the north, Shia in the South) with minorities in each area and mixed cities throughout the country. This is one of the biggest problems we face. Joe Biden has called for ethnically separate regions, but "pure" regions are impossible. Large factions of Shia and large factions of Sunnis have not demonstrated any willingness to reconcile, even though the groups are "intermarried." So what's the answer? I don't pretend to know.
I don't believe a central government will work unless another dictator takes the reigns or the warring parties finally tire of killing each other. I support the President's plan to ATTEMPT to establish security to provide that OPPORTUNITY for the sects to come together. This has to be their last chance; the public and the Congress, I believe, will say enough is enough after this. The President is right in that security is a necessary precondition for diplomacy.
Increasingly, though, the signs reflect the emerging reality that the warring parties will not come together for a very long time, longer than public sentiment will allow. The true test is with the Iraqis. If they cannot work out their differences, no amount of American soldiers will help. The President was faced with a choice: abandon the mission or give them one last chance. He made his choice, he has the authority to do it if the Congress gives him the funds, and we should respect that system of checks and balances. Enough, we have talked about this before.
Over the last year or so, we have been steadily increasing the level of resupply by air in an effort to get convoys off the road. The big problem is fuel, and we have attempted to address that by hiring third country nationals to drive civilian trucks north out of Kuwait. You can't fly in the fuel (unless you waive a whole bunch of safety restrictions), so that commodity still needs a ground option.
I never read a transcript of Ahmadinejad's remarks, so I concede I have relied on news reports, op-eds, analyses of the Iranian threat, etc. that all quote or paraphrase him. Can you send something else?
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816
Some bits from the article:
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
rallies.
And here's a counter-argument about what he said from albion.net:
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0605a/iranmisquote.html
Here's a bit from that article:
It turns out that Ahmadinejad never said what is being routinely attributed to him. Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at University of Michigan who reads Persian, explains that he actually stated (quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini): "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."
Now, some might say, "So he didn't say, 'wipe off the map,' he said 'erase from the page.' What's the difference? Anyway he's saying he wants to get rid of Israel." But Cole explains why the mistranslation significantly distorts the Iranian leader's words. "Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map' with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."
I can't agree with you, but I appreciate your exchange.
I have studied what different military logisticans said, and I claim no special knowledge in that area. There may be more recent studies I am unaware of (as from the War College in Carlisle).
I think we lost credibility in 2004, and the best course since has been disengagement. Everything we have done since has been wrong-headed and against everyone's best interest. If we try to set up a dictatorship, seek a Biden-type partition, train Iraqis , segregate Baghdad etc , it is not sensible. Disengagement and exercising diplomacy with others in the process is our best.
option. Recently, General Odom's response (non-partisan but for the Democrats, following Bush's Saturday talk to the nation ) is along the right line.
If you understood the actual history of Palestine and Israel, you would better understand the meaning of the rhetoric used by Ahmadinejad. He is a politician, and although he does not understand the West , he has been successful in communicating to most people outside Iran in regard to imperialism, as has Hugo Chavez. However, he is subject to the authority of the Supreme Leader Khamenei, who has consistently stated Iran's official policy whenever Ahmedinejad spoke. Iranians have plan A, plan B, plan C, plan D etc . They keep them all going at once.
You seem to think Ahmadinejad's talk it is about denying the Holocaust and about seeking the destruction of Israel. This is not based on facts or how most people understand the history. The accounts of this history most Americans know is largely a fabrication invented (first in 1948,and then revised in 1967 !) by certain groups in Israel and among a certain group of American Jews, notably the AIPAC organization. I could go into detail, "following the money," about the powerful corporate military-industrial- banking interests involved, but it would take many pages.
Learn the facts and you will be able to form an unbiased view regarding that, and see what is behind the political rhetoric used by all sides.
I learned the history not just from books, but from people who lived it. My chief mentor was a founder of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in 1925, and I have worked with generations of Israelis, Jews ,Arabs and Iranians most of my life . I only seek the welfare of all of them.
Most Iranians today don't even know there was a Holocaust. The Iranian government accepts the cause of the Palestinians, and supports whatever settlement they they choose to accept. Iran also accepts the 2002 Arab peace proposal to Israel, which favors a two nation solution.
A significant fact is that for over 200 years Iran has been one of few nations in the world that has not invaded any other nation. There are some good reasons for this: it is a minority in its region and has 15 neighbors with different cultures to cope with . It has survived many invasions by others.
The revolutionary zeal of an Ahmadinejad and Iran's alliances with other groups in other countries do not represent the basic, traditional aim of Iran's policy in the region. It has the possibility of becoming the leading power in the region, but to see it as threat to its neighbors or others is not a right view. The United States and Israel should accept this.
In regard to your question, I did make a brief comment on Ahmadinejad's rhetoric here on Gather . See "Lost in Translation."
PS-
I wrote the above, not having read your following post. Juan Cole, whom you quote is a good source of information.* I don't subscribe to all his views.
Perhaps I am older and wiser! I am more focused on "globilization" and how the different regions and alliances throughout the world will come together in this century. What interests me is how East and West will relate. The Middle East is one part of picture. I hope to visit Russia, China and Iran to do research.
I kind of know beforehand what Hezbollah, Hamas, Israel, bin Laden, Bush et al. are going to say, ad infinitum. What is actually going on is a different matter. You might find some of Pepe Escobar's recent reports from Iraq , at Asia Times interesting.
*I don't recall if my comment some time ago (Lost in Translation) offered something more than Juan Cole .
Disengagement: My belief is that disengagement makes sense if the Iraqis can't come together politically. The "nationalist" sense you talk about and "intermarried" nature of the population have not translated into a meaningful effort to quell the violence and move forward as a unified nation. If they can come together, then I support a U.S. presence to help maintain stability long enough for institutions to become effective. That is what I think the "surge" is designed to do. Honestly, I don't think the Iraqis can overcome the sectarian divides right now. Al-Maliki is ineffective and his government is dysfunctional. The various warring groups seem to be trying to gain as much strength and power while they can, knowing that a U.S. withdrawal is coming sooner rather than later. As I've said before, the key is the Iraqis. We cannot force them to reconcile unless we put 500k troops on the ground and physically enforce a separation. We're not going to do that. If they continue to show an unwillingness for accommodation, then my belief is that we say, "We tried, we gave you and opportunity. We can do no more." Then we leave.
My personal patience will expire with General Petraeus' and Ambassador Crockers early fall evaluation. I have felt for a long time that this won't work, but I respect the authority and responsibilities of the President and am willing to support his effort if the Congress, exercising its role in the checks and balances process, provides him the funds to do it.
I'll admit that my study of the Middle East did not begin in earnest until I received deployment orders to Iraq, but that does not make for bias. I make observations based on what I have read and on what I have experienced. That experience may not be as extensive as yours, but that does not make for bias. One could make the same argument for your opinions. While you dismiss the statements coming out of Tehran as rhetoric that masks true intentions or goals, you denounce the United States for its rhetoric. What is coming out of Tehran is still provocative and not any less damaging than what comes out of Washington, complexities and nuances of the region aside.
We'll have to disagree on whether or not Iran is a threat. I cannot dismiss the actions Tehran has taken that have destabilized not just Iraq but the entire region. Iran may not be a threat to its neighbors in the classic sense of conquer and dominate, but it is a threat in its undermining of the Lebanese government (along with Syria's undermining of the Lebanese government), its sponsorship of Hamas and Hezbollah (and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and who knows who else), its fomenting of unrest in Iraq, its appeals to Shiites in Bahrain, etc.
I too want welfare for all groups in the region. The Middle East has been beset with violence, poverty, chaos and instability for far too long. No people deserve to suffer that much for that long. We just have different ideas about the intentions of some key players.
I'm not much on the Asia Times, but I will check out Mr. Escobar's work, at your suggestion.
Take care and I look forward to more exchanges.
You misinterpret my use of the word "bias." I have been mentioning the partial and false views that have been held and still are by different peoples and their thinkers, historians, politicians and so on. This would apply to any time and place. Take the history of the Cold War and Soviet and United States relations. They failed to understand each others' interests and views in many ways. Histories of that time that are written and taught are frequently partial and biased.
In diplomacy and war , it is wisest to know what are the interests of all parties. Some interests oppose, some don't conflict, some are shared. Your suggestion that I underestimate "threats" from Iran, and condemn "threats" from the United States is unjustified. It is possible to work out a relationship that serves the interest of both.
I think you are fundamentally in error in seeing Iran's policy is directed to destabilizing the region. The examples you cite are ones that don't match with the facts. I wrote about this in general in my article "Engaging Iran." We are in the region,threatening them and supporting terrorist actions against them in their country. They are interested in their security but not in expanding their territory or creating instability in neighboring countries. We destabilized Iraq, they didn't. They didn't support or create the insurgency against us in Iraq. They have supported the Iraqi government and sought to develop good relations with various groups as the Kurds and Shia . This is in their long-term interest. They don't want a destabilized Iraq and they don't want to control Iraq. There is considerable commerce and travel now between Iran and Iraq. Is it the policy of Iran to arm Iraqi groups? I don't think so, although there are probaby some factions and groups who may be engaging in this.
Our foreign policy, increasingly since 1991, has brought us to the current mess, in which large global alliances have formed to limit our power, we have lost the confidence of our allies and are feared and hated by many who used to respect us and look to us as a force for good. We need to restore our credibility . The squandering of our treasure and the misuse and weakening of our military to serve corporate interests has done serious harm to our economy, institutions and society. A hegemonic agenda will not serve our best interest in this century.
Disengagement from Iraq is long overdue. We have not made things better since 2004, but worse. We are doing more of the same. Blaming the Iraqis is self-serving and dishonest. We need to work out a coherent policy in the region. There are contradictory policies being implemented from Washington.
We need to rebuild our credibility , not weaken it further. Creating conflict between our allies there and Iran is not wise. We approved the sending of terrorist jihadi groups into Lebanon under pressure from one faction of the Saudis (whose leadership is sharply divided on policy). Europe, the Saudis and the United States are supporting the current Sinora government against Hezbollah, with the cooperation of Israel. But Hezbollah is a national party and the European Union and the UN have not considered it a terrorist organization for a decade. It is not under the control of Iran. Its strategic value to Iran is limited. It is the Sunnis in Lebanon who are going to Iraq to fight. Israel is more a threat to Lebanon than is Hezbollah to Israel. Israel's hardliners have been convinced since it became a state that southern Lebanon must be part of its territory for its security. That is going to have to be sorted out together with Israel's relations with its other neighbors. This administration made a serious error in abandoning the role of honest broker between Israel and its neighbors. We of course have no defense agreement with Israel, beyond supplying arms. The corporate business involvement with Israel is influencing Israel's policy as well as ours. Israel sells arms we make to China and other countries, produces components for the arms, such as planes, that our defense companies sell to our government, and Israel develops arms under contract to our defense deparment (as a $1 billion contract for a tank). Key senior advisers to the present Bush administration who had served the former Bush administration resigned prior to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. They have expressed their strong disapproval of our failure to act as an honest broker between Israel and her neighbors. We need to work on this.
I agree that our presence is threatening to them, but I also think that you overestimate their support of the Maliki government. I would also suggest that you would have to discount as inaccurate what our military commanders and intelligence officials in Iraq are telling us about Iranian support to both Shia and Sunni groups, in terms of money, explosives, weapons, training, etc.
There is a high stakes chess game being played between Washington and Tehran right now. Washington wants a U.S.-friendly Iraqi government and Tehran wants an Iran-friendly Iraqi government. Severaly analyses that I have read have suggested that the unrest in Iraq, which is contained within Iraq's borders right now, is more beneficial to Iran than is a stable Iraq that is overly friendly with the United States. It's really a no-win situation for both sides because Iran will take steps to prevent U.S. domination and the U.S. will take steps (including a continuing troop presence) to prevent significant Iranian influence.
Again, I have to ask, do you really think the violence and chaos will decrease with a departure of U.S. troops?
And do you not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization? I find that extremely hard to believe from a man of your intelligence and experience. And while Tehran may not control Hezbollah, it certainly funds it, provides weapons to it, and influences its actions.
And I wonder why the Israelis would want to secure territory that would protect them from attack by neighboring countries? Could it be because the Israelis have been repeatedly subjected to such attacks? That's the rub with the Golan Heights and Syria, isn't it? Syria wants the Heights back but Israel believes it cannot cede that ground and adequately protect its citizens from attack.
No question that we have to work on the Israeli-Arab problem. But which side is more likely to break a cease fire agreement, the Israelis or Hamas / Hezbollah (take your pick)?