....a panel at Princeton Reunions....Ray Close, a retired CIA Arabist who spent virtually his entire career in the field....

Well, according to what I just read just below on this site, guys like this are toast by 2010, "the grass roots" will be taking over?

People will not be consumers of politics grown in a tank –think or otherwise – but will the producers of politics which leaders will forge into policy.

More seriously, thanks for once again sharing with use some of the "insider think" you have access to.

In the year 2010 an opinion of another can be frigtening one. But when you see it's output placed not on one focus but those placed on many you can see the work of not only the CIA but it's international work. Stockmarket, oil, other resourses can find it's why back in to it's own economy, finding others with little to know support can be a new turn around. Don't just look in to it's disaster area givin you can't seem to hear the cries of it's people in a time of war.

I respect Mr. Close's analysis of the situation and agree that many high hurdles remain in Iraq. Yet what bothered me about his analysis was not the dire situation facing the United States government or U.S armed forces. Indeed, the problems facing those two mutually exclusive bodies have been well established. Rather, what bothered me about his piece is that he seems not only unwilling to give the Iraqi's any credit for work being done in the region, but also his subtle implication that Iraqi's are absolutely helpless and unwilling or unable to assist greatly in the reconstruction of their country. Granted, sectarian violence has been high in recent months and a wholly viable unity government appears to be many months out, but the fact remains that not all Iraqi's align with the insurgency (even if they do not like or appreciate the American occupation). It seems that many people like Mr. Close tend to argue that Iraqi's either side with the Coalition forces or the insurgency; and that is simply not the case. Average Iraqi's can be BOTH anti-American AND anti-insurgency. Remember, a lot of these people have families and jobs will be available in the coming months so that they can put food on the table. I am certainly not predicting that the ultimate outcome in Iraq will be a staunchly pro-U.S. representative Democracy. Far from it. But let's at least give the Iraqi's a chance to help themselves. It is far too early, and wounds are still too fresh, to expect any kind of national solidarity. Mr. Close is absolutely correct when noting that both sides of this debate, those who were for the invasion and those who were against it, agree that it will take a very long time to determine what will happen. One final note, the very nature of this debate, prognostacating what Iraq will look like in 2010, is not particularly helpful because we are still in the partisan stage in which those who opposed the action will come up with clever, cogent arguments as to why the region will be in strife for the forseeable future while those who favored the invasion will offer similarly clear, realistic arguments as to why the region will ultimately be peaceful.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

"Far too early?"

Hogwash - way too late

John Murtha put the choice today

There's the Bush way, and my way.

Take your choice.

I agree with Close in situations 1 and 2, but not the last. (To hopefully avert flaming attacks for being "pro-Bush" or "Neocon," I solemnly declare that I was and am still very, very much anti-Bush for, among many other things, his having go us into the war. I also blame Neocons for their presumptuous scheming to get us into war Iraq and then hadn't the slightest idea what to do when their schemes proved false and so fell apart.)

If there is another 9/11 magnitude attack on our soil, I believe that Americans will harden their resolve to stick it out in Iraq, damn the cost in lives and money to do so. The American public is frustrated now because for all our strenuous efforts to date, a satisfactory outcome remains in doubt - to say the least. But another catastrophic event here would shudderingly remind us of what the stakes are in the global war against terrorism. In that event, Americans would advance from frustration to fury, and would see that pulling out of Iraq would be nothing but a sign of abject weakness and defeat. (Paradoxically, this would work beautifully for Al Quaeda et al., by goading us to "go ballistic," upping the ante exponentially. Is this also a Catch-22?)

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

If anything the burden is on those who urge us to "stay the course", to give us something more than slogans "we'd only encourage the terrorists"; "we can't cut and run"..etc

But they can't. They haven't been able to muster more for 1181 days and counting

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

PAKISTAN - Paking it In - William Lind

as for Iraq, Lind gets it

They are caught in a hurricane, and all they can do is spit in the wind. The rest of us should get ready for the house to blow down.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22."

"It's the best there is." 

Anyone with the least knowledge about Iraq back in 2003, meaning anyone who was at all literate, knew that the situation we now face was almost inevitable. If we then had truly been acting in the best interests of our country, we would have made the effort to rehabilitate Saddam and support him as the President of Iraq. No one in their right mind could claim that things are better for our country now than they were and would have been with Saddam in power. The only gains that resulted from invading Iraq were made by the corporate honchos who made megadollars from the effort.

So, we can "stay the course" and be slowly bled dry, or we can just pull up stakes and leave Iraq alone now. In either case the average Iraqi is going to suffer and suffer big time for the next few years. And, the Middle East is probably further from a lasting peace than ever before. Even democracy in any real sense is further away now than ever before in that area.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Maybe that's how they get troop levels up in Iraq, require proof of insanity from National Guard units.  

http://www.haberarts.com/

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Anyone with the least knowledge about Iraq back in 2003,

Which Hoppy is why I voted for Martin Luther Church last Tuesday and called in my support of the Kerry Amendment today to Sen Feinstein's office

(also voted for Phil)

Bronto I will not begin to guess what America will look like in 2010; I would hypothesize that it will be much as it is today. As for the Iraq War, the jury is still out and will be for the next several years. As you mentioned there were solid arguments being put forth by the pro-war Right in 2003 and they had very real "connections to reality." It is easy to forget that over 50% of the country favored an invasion of Iraq when the fighting commenced. It matters little in hindsight that many of the fears of the day have proven unfounded; such a fact simply does not matter because it cannot change anything. Those who opposed the war in 2003 were candid yet cautious. I distinctly recall attending a James Fallows talk on the seemingly inevitible conflict just two weeks before it started. He, who has become one of the more respected anti-war writers in America, certainly felt no different at the time but was nonetheless equally guarded with a quiet optimism. He did take time to mention several positives that theoretically could come from a successful campaign.  My point is that it is very simplistic and easily retrospective by looking back and claiming that the war had "no connection to reality."  Communism, we can say, never truly was a threat to the world.  Yes at the time it was.  Slavery, we can say, is a very bad and inhumane institution.  Yet at the time it was vital to not only a large portion of the United States, but also Western Europe who desperately relied on American cotton for textiles.  History cannot be read with hindsight or retrospective.  Rather, time must be allowed to play its role. 

To put it in another way: If a pit bull who is mauling a horse's leg is suddenly attacked by another pit bull and decides it will maul the horse even harder, well then that's a pretty stupid pit bull, would you not say??

I guess you are one of those who chides the "reality based" community for its uselessness. It does matter to realize that Iraq was a monumental blunder if only to find a way to salvage the situation. As they say, when you dig yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

How about pulling out of Iraq, apologizing profusely to the rest of the world for having fucked it up, and blaming it all on Bush? He's a lame duck, and he's at 33%. Those 33% aren't voting for Democrats anyway.

It'd be a huge blow to US credibility, but so is every month that goes by that we stay in Iraq. And those months cost at least $5 billion each.

"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock

Actually, it'd probably be a huge boon to US credibility. Often it takes considerable strength of character to admit one's own mistakes.

Finally, remember my point that failure in Iraq will make every single other potential disaster in the region much more likely to occur and much more apt to produce equally tragic and wasteful results.

First of all, I seriously question that, since it sounds a great deal like the doomsaying that preceded our getting out of Vietnam years ago. All of Southeast Asia was going to turn bloody and communist red. Didn't happen, probably because Southeast Asians aren't crazy and because the primary cause of war and chaos was our neocolonial presence there. The situation is very similar in Iraq, and the people aren't crazy. Well, the outsider terrorists are, but they'll have no base when we leave. The Iraqi people will get a compromise together when it's clear what the relative military strengths of the different communities are. The only problem will be if the US insists on occasionally rushing in and amping up the relative power of one community or another, then backing out again, keeping the power equation permanently unstable/unreliable.

How can we broker a peaceful settlement between Palestinians and Israelis when the prospect of a viable Palestinian state is patently unrealistic in political, economic and geographic terms?

1) So someone still seriously thinks the US is trying to be a peace broker and not an Israel uber alles supporter? 2) A viable Palestinian state is completely realistic if only one common sense thing happens: the US drops its slavish support for Israel and demands something for all its vital support. That something is a viable Palestinian state. If we ever decide to _really_ demand that, it will happen.

Finally, what's deeply, perversely wrong with the retired CIA analyst's laundry list of nightmares is that those potential nightmares would be happening to some of the worst regimes on earth. So wharped is his mainstream US perspective that trouble for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan -- three maximum brutality dictatorships for their peoples -- is 'bad' and continued stability for those hellish regimes is 'good'.

The problem with Close is he prefaces his gloomy remarks by saying we are doing the right thing.

What's wrong with this picture?

His only complaint is that "the right thing" is not and maybe never was feasible.

In what universe then are we doing "the right thing"?

Another thing: Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are potential disaster. But they were that BEFORE 9/11 and Iraq and they will continue to be after Iraq. So they're not relevant. The only reason Iraq has an influence on them is the Shia influence may grow in the region if the Shia end up dominating Iraq for the next twenty years or more.

Afghanistan is a loss. Sooner or later that will collapse and become another warlord vs Taliban civil war. That's inevitable. It's also, along with Iraq, a direct result of over-reaction to 9/11 and neocon agendas.

Iran is a loss because Bush is going to attack it. Cole should be less worried about nukes in Iran than the consequences of a Vietnam two to four times bigger than that Asian mistake. Leave Iran alone and Iran would have to be taken off Cole's list.

The Palestinian situation is a loss until the UN and the US get together and tells Israel to disarm its nuclear arsenal on pain of economic sanctions. Never happen, so forget it. Also, this was true before 9/11 and Iraq and will continue to be true until somebody nukes Tel Aviv - which is a historic inevitability - we just don't know when it will happen.

As for another major terrorist incident, it's inevitable because the US government wants it to be inevitable. They need to stir up the FEAR in the US public again. So they'll let another one happen. The US public being morons - my "moron theory" again - it will result in the shredding of more civil liberties.

This, however, was also true before 9/11 - since 9/11 proved it - and will continue to be true as long as suckers believe the state is set up for their benefit.

"At the moment, a continued large US military presence in Iraq is the most effective barrier to a complete breakdown into civil war."

Close can't prove that statement. Just because a "total" civil war hasn't started (depending on your definition of "civil war") YET doesn't prove the US military is preventing it, or that it can control it if it starts.

"Stated differently, organized governmental authorities must possess a monopoly over the employment of lethal force in the society, or effective governmental authority will never exist."

I'm glad he understands my theory of the state as being the attempt to monopolize coercion over a given region or demographic. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a "natural monopoly" on the use of force. What Close is actually asking for is that the Iraqi government have enough control over its force to require the insurgents to channel their opposition and their use of force in ways that is comparable to the level of crime in any given country. This can't be done in Iraq, as he correctly describes, because the forces able to exert force are diverse, large and in opposition to each other.

"To do the Iraq thing right, either militarily or in terms of economic reconstruction and political institution-building, will take many more years, even under the best possible conditions."

Since we can't even describe what IS "the right thing" - except in platitudes about the strength of the government, democracy, and other content-less buzzwords and slogans - it's pointless to talk about how long it will take.

All of which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the only possible out for the US is to admit its mistakes, pull out and let the chips fall where they may. Stop playing "catch-up" to reality and start dealing with it as it unfolds. Get ahead of the game by taking the initiative instead of trying to follow a course long since doomed to failure.

Close assumes Iraq remains one country. As it's obviously sliding in to civil war, and sectarian "cleansing" of minority populations in villages and towns appears to be well underway, it is possible that Iraq will end up like Yugoslavia - broken up in to multiple pieces.

I think Close is simplistic in saying that the party that wins public support in Iraq will be one vehemently opposed to the U.S. presence. The problem isn't the presence of the U.S. in the country, it's their presence among the population. Pull troops out of the cities (except for the green zone, for now), and put them in desert bases away from the populace. Minimize contact. Rely primarily on air power to support Iraqi government operations and strike insurgent locations (safe houses, weapons caches, etc.).

This would minimize troop contact with the population, which would greatly lessen the political inflammation caused by the occupation. It would force the Shias to negotiate with the Sunnis, rather than being able to simply remain at war with each other thanks to American support of the Shia-run government. It would prevent the insurgents from moving around large amounts of fighters or supplies, so they wouldn't be able to engage in set-piece battles of a traditional type.

Suddenly, you'd have a government more willing to talk, far fewer Iraqi civilians with a reason to hate the occupying troops, and very few American targets for the insurgents to hit - thus making the American public willing to accept several more years of occupying Iraq.

Finally, let's not kid ourselves. A smart President - yeah, I'm playing what-if here on a grand scale - would hedge our bets with the possibility that the situation may decay in to chaos. But with the right energy policy and tax inventives we could push a big reduction in oil consumption, enough to make a serious dent in our need for imported oil. If we can hold the situation together for six or eight years, that is a window of time in which to reduce consumption.

If some serious measures - higher fuel taxes, incentives for hybrids and diesels, research funding, and similar efforts - could reduce our consumption by 10% over that period of time, since about 60% of our oil is imported, you get a 17% reduction in dependence on Middle East oil.

In the same time window, move towards a greater percentage of imports to come from Africa, Russia, and Central and South America. Other countries are doing this - Japan just managed to get the Russians to put in a pipeline handy for their use by providing low cost loans for the construction. China is pursuing deals to spread their oil import sources more broadly across regions, lessening dependence on the Middle East.

From a U.S. viewpoint, let's not forget that Iraq is about oil - otherwise, we would have never gone in, the Bushies knew the WMD stories were fiction before March of 2003. Talking about solving the Iraq problem, from an admittedly selfish U.S. point of view, means placing it in the larger context of oil dependence. Crank down the need for oil from the Middle East, and you crank down the magnitude of the fallout from our mistaken adventure in Iraq. Hold the situation together for several years, well enough to keep it all from boiling over and shutting down the Straits of Hormuz, and you buy time to move towards a better strategic position in the energy sector.

Bo Raxo
--
"Bother," said Pooh as Satan pointed out the small print.

Ellen, I don't know the answer to your question about how Americans will react, but I'm pretty sure that only republicans could turn a predicted disaster that occurred on their watch into a PR bonus for them and a blank check for killing the constitution as well as a free-for-all to attack another country (that had nothing to do with it in the first place).

My question is, "How did they do it?" And secondly, "Could they do it again?"

Jan Knaus

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Well I was wrong about Bush

He didn't go to Camp David to talk about his strategy. He was prepping fo another stunt

President Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Iraq

President expected to be in Baghdad for five hours to discuss the three-year-old war with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. –AP 9:31 a.m. ET

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

The New York Times got suckered too.

White House Hones a Strategy for Post-Zarqawi Era

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

CATCH 22 Basra

The New York Times today carries a report which illustrates why Bush lost the war on Iraq sometime ago. The article is about the near anarchy in militia-controled Basra, Iraq's second city and primary oil hub.

Key paragraph

"So much of the state melted after Saddam fell," an American official said. A primordial soup of political parties, their militias and tribes filled the void. They formed morals patrols at the university, commanded entire units of the flimsy police force, and moved into positions of power in the company that controls the vast oil-processing and transportation network.

Oil Politics and Blood Corrupt Iraq City

The state melted away and the tribes took over. It has been this way in what we now, thanks to the British creation of this Frankenstate, for thousands of years. Social networks replace civic as the society struggles to survive and resist occupation. This is not news, but it is a fundamental and insurmountable barrier to stability as long as the occupation persists - no matter how many sweeps Bush plans - the outcome is not in doubt. He is, as Lind says, "in a hurricane, spitting in the wind".

What if the goal of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld group in Iraq, and Afghanistan for that matter, has very little to do with what type of regime is left behind after the U.S. leaves? The point was not democracy or WMD but fear? After 9/11 there was an assumption that the United States would be attacked again and no amount of effort could prevent all such attacks.

Thus the message to be sent to the Arab and Muslim worlds is that if you come after the United States no amount of distance will prevent us from getting you? Thus chaos in the Middle East might be unfortunate but under this view, based on a Hobbesian view of foreign policy, not significant especially if you presume that all regimes will still sell oil into the market place.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

All the talk about the "rally round the President if we're attacked again" emanates from pundits who want a ready to roll out narrative. The fact is, these guys campaigned on keeping us safe, Cheney basically said elect us or we'll be attacked--how exactly does it make sense to rally around a failure?

The CIA establishment is Hamiltonian - stability keeps the oil flowing, so nightmares are defined by anarchy, not repression.  Iraq on its surface appears to back up their point of view.  However, the Hamiltonians never seem to understand that there is a long-term price to be paid for short-term stability.  Their "wisdom" at the end of the Gulf War led to a far more dysfunctional post-Hussein Iraq in 2003 than there would have been in 1991.   

I'm curious, however, as to why you think that a Fatah or Hamas led Palestine wouldn't be simply a smaller version of the repressive regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that you criticize.If you think the Palestinians deserve better than that, than isn't there a lot more that the US and the world has to do to create a viable Palestinian state then simply pressure Israel to leave?   

Saw a Washington Post column that basically said Al-Maliki should have been furious.

First, it was hardly a "state visit". Bush drops in unannounced even to the head of the country he's visiting.

Said "head" gets summoned to the US Embassy on an excuse, then is presented with Bush in person.

All the conditions for the visit were totally controlled by the US occupation.

This stunt clearly shows to the Iraqi people who REALLY runs Iraq.

And the morons in the US wonder why the Iraqi government can't govern.

Transhuman

Is there ANYTHING Bush has done right in your eyes?

Thus the message to be sent to the Arab and Muslim worlds is that if you

 .  .  .  .  Daniel A. Greenbaum

You still haven't said who the "you" refers to.

If a Hamtramck Muslim commits a terroristic act, would Bush and Cheney nuke the town or maybe, the entire Detroit MSA just to be sure?

I am constantly pushing for energy independence both for economic/environmental reasons and for foreign-policy reasons. But becoming independent of Middle East oil does not mean we have to avoid involvement.

Instead, it should mean we can be involved with greater freedom of action. Not having a dog in that fight makes us more credible when we propose solutions.

Since all our actions around the world revolve, at varying distance, around oil, the independence would increase our choice of options everywhere. So it is not so much an question of engagement vs. isolation, but being hostage to foreign conditions vs. being free agents, which implies freedom to act morally instead of only for state interests.

mhpine,

Yes, I think non-interference is a great strategy. And I don't understand the problem you have with 'Islamist' regimes. As long as they sell oil to us, that takes care of the basics, and there wouldn't be a problem with that (if countries _did_ refuse to sell oil to the US, that's a problem we'd have a right to deal with militarily).

As for the internal practices of Middle Eastern regimes, let's not forget that the Ayatollah, Al Queda, and the Taliban all got critical Western govt funding and other backing. Our and Britain's meddling in Iran backed Khomeini to the hilt cuz we were afraid of the leftist social democrats who would otherwise have been most powerful in that society. I'm sure you know the Al Queda and Taliban stories. The point of the history is that interference caused the repressive Islamism, more interference only seems to bring it more support from a country's nationalists, so... Generally, our policy in the region is a complete failure if its stated goals are taken at face value, so why not try something new, non-interference? It would be a first for the Middle East since oil was discovered there, maybe it's time to give it a try.

As for the Palestine issue, I'm not sure where you're going, but again I'm for noninterference in Palestine internal affairs. In fact, me getting involved in figuring out who is the right guy or party to lead that society, who 'we' can trust and who 'we' can't... all these are just imperialist ways of thinking, which is itself the problem. Let that country go, combined with protecting your own country and not interfering with the internal security of a neighboring one... All it will take is real US commitment to a viable nation of Palestine.