And, of course, as bad as it sounds, the classified version of the NIE is likely to be 10 times worse if not more. I wonder how the Little Prince is going to spin this to make it sound like his "new way forward" is succeeding?

Nigeria is another disgrace on America. The oil companies excuse their supporting of a completely corrupt government with the fact that the billions that Nigerian officials were pocketing were fair market prices.
I’m not so sure that partition would be opposed by most Iraqis. The Sunnis may be afraid of what is going to happen on the road to separation along with losing power and retaliation for past oppression when they ruled. But I think we twisted arms to get a federal coalition government and that is something that can’t be forced.
The natural end to the civil war may be some kind of loose federation that shares in the oil revenues. I’m sure you’re right that Bush’s initial priorities included permanent bases and U.S. oil companies monopolizing the oil, but this thing is such a complete fiasco of historical proportions that any outcome allowing us to wash our hands of the mess would be welcome to Bush now.

I rated your post about nigeria as marginal since, as the other poster noted, Nigeria is another US criminal fiasco. Maybe you were joking?

Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now, did some amazing reporting like:

1:Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria's Oil Dictatorship Wins Project Censored Award, As Chevron Talks of Merging with Texaco [link]

2:As Hundreds Die in an Oil Pipeline Explosion in Lagos, A Look At the Fight Over Nigeria's Natural Resources [link]

3:The Next Gulf: London, Washington & the Oil Conflict in Nigeria [link]

Honestly, maybe you too got sick too when you heard about McCain blaiming Casey for the mess in Iraq, not Bush where the fault clearly lies-- especially as millions are now displaced, injured, killed and defamilied.

I think you misunderstood me. I pointed to Nigeria not as something to be proud of, but as a model that the US is likely to adopt in Iraq. Just because I think that this is a possible outcome doesn't mean I'm in favor of it.

Partition might be acceptable to the Sunnis since it now seems that they are getting financial (and military?) support from the Saudis. Josh Marshall has a discussion on his site. With some ongoing financial support they might be able to build a sustainable enclave for themselves even if they only get a small fraction of the oil revenues.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

J. McCutchen

We might have a chance if someone with the stature of a George Washington was on stage in Iraq, but he does not exists (and no, she ain't even a possibility).

What happened to Ahmed of Arabia (Chalabi)?

The Mahdi Army and other Shiite groupings have a different perspective. Once we understand what it is, we can see that it makes sense for them to avoid a confrontation with the U.S. military if they can. From the Shiite perspective, American forces are in Iraq to fight the Sunnis for them. Our troops are, in effect, the Shiites' unpaid Hessians.

Thus far, we have been willing to play the Shiites' game. Their challenge now is to make sure we continue to do so as Bush's "big push" in Baghdad unfolds. Originally, they wanted U.S. forces to control access to Baghdad, cutting the Sunnis’ lines of communication and reinforcement, while the Shiite militias carried on their successful campaign of ethnic cleansing. With Bush insisting American forces work in Baghdad, the Shiites came up with an alternate plan, one we have seemingly accepted: the Americans will drive out the Sunni insurgents, leaving Sunni neighborhoods defenseless. As the American troops move on, they will be replaced by Iraqi soldiers and police, mostly Shiite militiamen, who will ethnically cleanse the area of Sunnis, just as in plan A. Again, the Americans will have fulfilled their allotted function, fighting the Sunnis on behalf of the Shiites.

Aren't Hessians great?

OOOOOOPSIE!

A new U.S. intelligence estimate on Friday, however, concluded that Iranian and other outside meddling is "not likely" a major cause of the bloodshed in Iraq, and a new McClatchy analysis of U.S. casualties in Iraq found that Sunni Muslim insurgents, not Iranian-backed Shiites, have mounted most - but not all - of the attacks on American forces.

...

"So what do we do?" said one of the officials. "Accuse the Iranians of supporting the same guys we support? That's awkward."

Nigeria's oil production is heading down a dangerous path right now. Billions of dollars of crude/condensate is stolen from their pipelines now, and local 'insurgents' are kidnapping oil workers.

For some further reading regarding Nigeria I would recommend this recent Vanity Fair article that contains this dreadful warning from local 'terrorists':

"Leave our land while you can or die in it," a MEND spokesman warned in an e-mail statement after the attack. "Our aim is to totally destroy the capacity of the Nigerian government to export oil."

Insurgent groups in Iraq have no reason to support a massive investment in the oil infrastructure in the country. They don't want to see Shell, Aramco, or BP come in and pump out $60/barrel oil. The large fields in Iraq and Iran are both in decline and will eventually collapse. Everybody, EVERYBODY knows that Iraq has the most untapped reserves in the area. The longer it stays in the ground, the more it can be sold for in five, ten, fifteen years. If you were a legitimate power player in Iraq there is no reason to pump money from the ground while your neighbors are willing to provide the resources for your fight (on the condition that you will let them work your fields when the war is over). It's a gamble, but this lottery is going to hit BIG for somebody. That's what I think this struggle is really about; the whole Shia/Sunni rift just provides a most excellent cover for this fight.

Close, it's a proxy war for the oil that is being fought by US soldiers and desparate, disenfranchised Iraqis. Saudi Arabia is playing us like a fiddle (as usual), and Iran is using historical circumstances to their advantage. One of them will walk away with political control over the majority of the Middle East untapped crude.

OOOPSIE number 2:

While Jewish communal leaders focus most of their current lobbying efforts on pressing the United States to take a tough line against Iran and its nuclear program, some are privately voicing fears that they will be accused of driving America into a war with the regime in Tehran.

Whatever worries exist about a negative backlash over Israel, they have not deterred Jewish and pro-Israel activists from publicly pressing for tough U.S. action against Tehran or invoking concern for Israel.

So lets see - on one hand they're pressing for a war, on the other hand they don't want to be blamed for the consequences.

LOL!

Immediately following the paragraph on civil war quoted by Larry Johnson is the following:

Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation. • If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution; neighboring countries— invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally—might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; AQI would attempt to use parts of the country—particularly al-Anbar province—to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion.

Does anyone seriously doubt that BOTH statements are accurate despite being official US National Intelligence Estimates.

If not, focus your attention on the second and consider the implications of spending the next two years noisily advocating what you know, your opponents know and the general public will eventually know are measures (rapid withdrawal) that would result in the consequences described.

Omitting that quote indicates that you are in denial about the political situation you are in. You are still talking as though you did not have majority control of both houses and are able to get away with just carping about what a mess Bush has made rather than accepting responsibility for serious policy making.

If you seriously advocate rapid withdrawal then either refute the quote above or explain why you regard those consequences as acceptable.

Ranting about how it's all Bush's fault doesn't cut it. You still have to decide what to do and justify your decision.

Hmmmm...as a candidate for the US Presidency, should I support Americans (aka "rank and file") or Zionists who represent the interests a foreign power? Hmmmmm.......tough call...

With American-Iranian tensions mounting, Democratic presidential contenders are facing a daunting political challenge: how to speak out against Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons (?) in a way that appeals to pro-Israel supporters without alienating the party’s overwhelmingly anti-war rank and file.

The political tightrope has been on prominent display in recent weeks, as liberal insiders denounced former senator
John Edwards, a prominent critic of the war in Iraq, for his hawkish address before an Israeli security forum. At the same time, Jewish communal leaders have criticized
former general Wesley Clark for implying that pro-Israel activists were pushing the Bush administration toward confrontation with Iran.

Hmmm...what would a general like Clark know about it anyway? How dare an American general express an opinion about US military not approved in Israel!

Make up your mind. Is George Mars, Shiva, or Ahuramazda, or Interfaith War God? Frightening if he's the Persian incarnation...

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Foreign Allies have all offered alternate plans to send a significant number of troops to Iraq to do the job correctly, slowly redeploying troops to border areas to contain the violence from spreading, or even rapidly withdrawing. The President (and his supporters) have ignored these plans along with their associated 'justifications'.

Right now, I guess you could say that I'm undecided about the future of the war. If Bush and our allies submitted a serious plan that could provide security to the Iraqis without relying on the flaky Iraq Police, then I might support it. There's nothing I would rather see than a stable, functioning Iraq that provided equitable treatment for all citizens. I suspect that most moderate Republicans and Democrats would rally behind a serious, realistic plan.

Unfortunately, Bush has a plan to rely on the Iraq Police while adding a small pittance of personnel to our strained forces. The current mission in Iraq is a disgrace to the history of the American Military. They deserve a clearly defined mission with the highest level of training and armor possible.

Continuing this mission in its current form is not sustainable for much longer. Those competing for power in Iraq don't need a timeline from Bush or the Democrats. They aren't going anywhere. They are content to wait another year, five years, ten years and then they will overthrow the weak state government. (And then ten years later President Jenna Bush will start Iraq War 3.0 to take out that regime.)

Basically, this all boils down to a Clash song. Should we stay or should we go? If we stay there will be trouble, if we go it will be double. If we stay (AND the Iraqis want us to stay), then it's time for a reboot and send in enough resources to do the job correctly. And if that option isn't on the table, then I don't want to leave our troops there to continue policing a situation that appears to be spiraling into further violence on a daily basis. In that case, withdraw them to the border areas and prevent the violence from spreading into the region.

"Right now, I guess you could say that I'm undecided about the future of the war."
---

Rilly ?

DFX wants a "stable ,functioning Iraq" and I want my own Island Kingdom in the South Pacific but where are the details informing this analysis that Iraq devolves into worse ethnic cleansing as we begin a withdrawal? Why is this meme so broadly accepted?

Lets pretend for a moment that Bush was a secret Iranian operative.He re-arms the "Iraqi" Shiite army, drives up the price of oil, destroys the US credibility and gets the whole world asking questions not only about legitimate US interests, but also Israeli! Mission accomplished!

I'd like my own island in the South Pacific, too.

Are you proposing that we could rapidly withdraw from Iraq and the sectarian violence would cease escalating? I don't buy it. I really don't. I suspect that the violence would increase and other regional interests would attempt to gain control of the failed state's territory. I think that's much more realistic than seeing the country quickly unite after a rapid withdrawal. I haven't seen a single person propose that scenario.

Bush’s fault! Bush’s fault! Okay, okay (but, hey, it is Bush’s fault).

Of course, the NIE is like the elephant created by committee or the camel described by blind men or some such analogy- a tortured collage of various analyses with predictions grounded in the status quo and a strictly Ameri-centric perspective. I have a feeling that the intelligence community, burnt by political manipulation in the selling of this war, is trying to appear objective in their conclusions while still toeing the company line.

But one conclusion is inescapable: Iraq is in a state of civil war. Pandora’s box has been opened (Bring it on!) and no new plan can close it. Withdrawal means recognizing that fact. Our presence can, at best, only keep a loose lid on the sectarian strife, which is offset by the violence our occupation engenders (and this is on top of the never-mentioned fact that the great U.S. military has performed dismally in this war).

No one has called for us to pull out as fast as we went in. Immediate or rapid withdrawal doesn’t mean getting our troops out as fast as possible. It means recognizing of the reality of the situation and making the decision to withdraw immediately. Mr. Dent, you paint a scary worst-case scenario of possibilities if we return Iraq to the Iraqis. I’m curious what your take was on the bad scenarios predicted by opponents of invading Iraq to begin with.

The "total anarchy" of the oil regions of Nigeria do not have competing well-funded groups shipping money and weapons in to increase the amount of combat. Also the oil-rich parts of Nigeria are a lot more swampy than in Iraq. Iraq is more amenable to combat operations by militias with relatively little in the way of equipment.

Chalabi was running the committee on de-Baathification. Now he is in charge of vetting previous member so the Baath Party who were not war criminals so they can take back the jobs no one else knows how to do.

For some odd reason, not many prior Baathists are getting through his "screens."

I should remind you that Jerry Bremer gave the archives of the old Hussein secret police to Chalabi. You know the ones. They tell who all the snitches were under the Saddam regime.

I fully agree that immediate or rapid withdrawal should be understood as being an orderly withdrawal rather than a panic stricken rout. Assume for the sake of argument that it could be done smoothly over say 6 to 12 months from the decision being taken (though 18 months would be more realistic).

I doubt that anyone would seriously argue that withdrawal should not begin because of how messy it would be (even though it probably would be messy). The real argument is about the consequences of successfully (or messily) completing the withdrawal before the ISF are able to cope without the US troops currently supporting them.

The quotes are not my "scary worst case scenario". They are a rather mild official estimate breaking the news gently and are very similar to the bipartisan conclusions of the Baker commission ("catastrophe").

Try this one if you are into scary worst case scenarios

As to my take on the bad scenarios predicted by opponents of invading Iraq to begin with I thought the whole debate was totally nonsensical since both sides were pretending it was about WMDs, "disarming Sadaam" and "regime change". The Bushies could not admit their intention was actually to overturn Sunni domination by holding free elections with the aim of destabilizing the whole region since that would obviously result in a long and costly war that Congress would never have authorized. Nor could they admit that an inevitable requirement would be Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders since no credible policy of "region change" can be maintained while backing Israeli domination of the Palestinians.

Opponents thought that the expected attempt to establish another more moderate Sunni autocracy like say Jordan was risky and pointless and that stirring up the region would obviously make Israel's position untenable. I thought the US could not be planning any such thing since it would indeed be pointless and that Israel's position has been untenable for decades.

The US government has committed itself to democracy in Iraq (and the whole region, including Palestine) without having first explained this policy and mobilized support for expending the blood and treasure required. Hence the continuing confusion as the real costs unfold.

Those costs are actually quite minor compared with a single day (9/11) of the blowback from the old policies of maintaining support for corrupt autocracies, let alone the ongoing costs of continuing that idiocy for more decades.

But the news is still being broken gradually. Even now public debate is still focussed on nonsense about Iran being the enemy when it is perfectly obvious the US has neither the capacity nor the intention of going to war with Iran but uses that as a convenient distraction for both Israel and its "moderate Arab allies" while being allied with an Iraqi government that has friendly relations with Iran.

The real problem is the inability of US "opinion leaders" to grasp the fact that Iraq can only be governed by Iraqis. The US Government knows that and wants to be allied with them. The "great US military" is indeed performing dismally against a small minority trying to restore its domination over the majority. There never was any possibility of the US military taking on a war against the people of Iraq in the light of what happened in Vietnam.

Returning Iraq to the Iraqis is precisely what the US is doing by standing with the elected government against its fascist opponents.

Returning Iraq and the whole region to stagnation under "strong" autocracies is what the US would be doing by withdrawing.

I'm not saying you are suggesting it is such, but many people have an image of the 1975 evacuation from Vietnam, Operation Frequent Winds. That was a mess, but it should be realized that:

1. South Vietnam was defending, poorly, against a major conventional attack


2. The US had no combat forces in-country, after "Vietnamization", to establish safe evacuation areas. Limited forces landed to secure the helicopter zones proper and to assist in destroying facilities.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Does any existing plan include allowing the Iraqi military to use what little armor they have, or giving them any air power?

We never see Iraqi armor being used, and AFAIK Iraqi air power is non-existent.

The reason for this is that we rightly fear that the tanks and aircraft would be turned against us, but OTOH how is Iraq to provide its own security without these systems? When is this Gordian know scheduled to be cut?

Until it is, we will be there.

If not, it perhaps should be...and maybe this should be scalar...the more disastrous, the more "o"s.  And, because I don't much like typing w's, I think oopsy might be preferred.

• Normal human error = oopsie
• Blunder of the month = ooopsie
• Blunder of the year = oooopsie
• Blunder of the century = ooooopsie
• Bush level blunder = oooooooooooooooooooooooooopsie

I freely plagiarized from Duncan Black's Friedman Unit (FU) (The link is to the Wikipedia entry... it really is pretty wonderful...30 examples and counting)

aMike

From Arthur Dent's homepage listed on his bio:

why we believe that knee-jerk opposition to US imperialism can't be the basis for being left-wing and progressive. The US under Bush is trying to 'drain the swamps' of the Middle East - that is, undermine and overthrow the dicatators it has propped up for 60 years - and we should be supporting them, and demanding they do more and go faster. Egypt and Palestine are two important places to watch......The pseudo-left opposes modernity, development, globalization, technology and progress.

..and opposes killing hundreds of thousands of people and destroying millions of lives?

A lot of 'left-wingers' don't think Bush has any plan or any f***ing idea what he is doing. He thought the war was over in May, 2003.

According to Dent, the Iraq war is like pumping a septic tank, except it costs a lot more, kills tens of thousands, and the shit builds up so fast it overwhelms the pump, plus the guy running the thing gets shot at while performing his 'swamp-draining' services.

The Iraqi government has been complaining about this and saying it would need substantially less US troops within 3-6 months if provided with adequate armour etc.

These have been deliberately witheld (in fact Iraqi government command over its own armed forces has only been transferred recently ) and Iraq still relies entirely on US support for logistics as well as an ongoing very large part of command control communications and intelligence, not to mention heavy firepower as well armour and air power.

The ISF is still basically light infantry.

The fear is not that tanks etc would be used against the US forces but that they would be used either by the ISF or passed on to militias to "do unto the Sunnis as they did unto the Shia". Crushing Sunni cities towns and villages flatter than Fallujah and driving the Sunnis out of the Sunni triangle and out of Iraq would not be conducive to positive democratic region change in a region where the majority are Sunnis.

The Sunni insurgency is already facing defeat (as demonstrated by jihadis resorting to mass murder of Shia civilians).

But whether Iraq becomes a Shia dictatorship like Iran or a democracy depends very much on whether the mopping up is done by extremist Shia militia ethnically cleansing the Sunnis or more gently with a road to national unity due to US support making it less of a life of death struggle.

The threat of "unleashing the Shia" is of course still there to encourage the Sunni tribal leadership to abandon the insurgency, just as the threat of "withdrawing US support" is still there to encourage the Shia islamists parties dominating the government to be more accommodating to Sunni participation.

Much of what is being mistaken for US public debate about alternative plans is actually aimed at creating an impression in Iraq and elsewhere. The US public still doesn't have a clue what the war is actually about and therefore cannot meaningfully discuss alternative plans.

Assuming there is some US presence, the armor argument has a fairly simple answer. Give the Iraqis decent weapons, including armor, which can meet any urban combat need, or light maneuvering in open terrain. The range of weapons used by US forces is such that there are quite adequate light weapons that the Iraqis can use, but, if there is ever misuse, the same weapons are essentially defenseless against US heavy weapons.

Ironically, the standard US Army tank (M1A2 Abrams) and even Bradley infantry fighting vehicle are often too large to operate in Iraqi streets. Partially for this reason, the Stryker wheeled armored fighting vehicle was deployed.

A Stryker can resist light weapons, and improvements are making it more and more resistant to the sort of antitank weapons that men can carry. Most Iraqi internal needs would be quite well met by the Stryker family.

OTOH, a Stryker, facing heavy anti-armor weapons such as those on the Abrams, Bradley, or antitank helicopters, is basically dead as soon as the sights lock onto it. The Strykers given to the Iraqis should have enough direct fire (think, loosely, light cannon) to take out any bunker or unarmored vehicle, but nothing that can seriously annoy anything heavier than a Stryker.

It's not all that clear why the Iraqis would need heavy artillery. Counterfire against rocket launchers probably is the best approach. Again, provide them with the lighter US equipment, which will work for their needs but can't fight US forces. In this case, M198 towed howitzers rather than M109 armored self-propelled howitzers.

Logistics should be OK to transfer. Intelligence is problematic, not so much providing the Iraqis with the output of the process, but the question of what classified collection and analysis techniques can be shared with them and not leak elsewhere, including Iraqi factions.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

We go back to Gulliver's Travels to the flappers, aides that would have a VIP listen only if the flapper thought the information was important and the VIP wanted to hear. Here, we have the origin, and problem, of modern staff.

Eisenhower insisted on getting multiple staff recommendations on documents, and wanted three or so that clearly represented different alternatives. Obviously, he was perhaps the most experienced of all Presidents in managing a staff.

Declassification by blurting isn't unique to GWB. The SR-71 is a great airplane, but it was the RS-71 before LBJ blurted it out incorrectly and the Air Force hurriedly changed it to avoid embarrassing him.

On a slightly lower level, toward the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Director of NSA called the National Security Advisor to inquire when he would send over the several hundred thousand dollars to change all the document markings, rubber stamps, etc., that had to change under security rules. An authorized news photographer took a picture of the Advisor holding a document that should have been in the safe, as the classification marking was visible: TOP SECRET DINAR. At the time, DINAR was the classified codeword for the most sensitive category of communications intelligence. Thankfully, we have vastly reduced the incidence of classified codewords for broad categories.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

LOL...I don't know if I would elevate George to "God" status Howard.  He probably isn't the deity, just the vehicle for the diety...if a person looks at it in a deeply supernatural way that is.  In a way he reminds me of the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man destroyer of "Ghostbusters" lore...but in a very real, depravedly twisted and very unfunny kinda way.

But bottom line is he has brought war, misery and death to millions of people of the world and is poised (and apparently determined) to expand on his efforts.  I guess he must think his time is short and there is more wanton destruction and killing to do before he leaves...

I wouldn't have thought you suffered from Jack Portnoy's complaint, but then, what would I know.

Condi was too busy buying shoes, playing the piano and making goo goo eyes at W to have time to read the appendices to the WMD NIEs.

Tom

You and Powell raise very serious ethical questions. At the same time, we have to look at what resources we can actually apply to the problem, as well as in Afghanistan and for contingencies unknown. As in emergency medicine, triage sometimes has to be applied, and, in the interest of the greatest good for the greatest number, it's possible that regions may have to be abandoned with no good prospects.

One of the most frustrating things about GWB's concept of a "GWOT" is his not treating it properly as a war with multiple theaters and multiple campaigns within it, but overfocusing on one campaign, which Iraq is, at a time. There is a military axiom that works fairly well: command one level down and track two levels down. At the level of the President/National Command Authority, it means give orders to theater commanders (e.g., Central, Pacific) and let the theater (combatant commander in Newspeak) select the campaigns. GWB pushed Tommy Franks, CENTCOM during Afghanistan, to divert his attention to Iraq before Afghanistan was more stable.

The public, and many policymakers, also fail to grasp that, in the global and national concern with terror, Iraq is one campaign. His intransigence in working with regional powers, as recommended by the ISG, is marginally getting into micromanagement. I wonder, incidentally, if Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon meets his preconditions for talks, or is Assad going to have to go hat in hand and say "Please, sir, we've done what you asked. Might we have some crusts of bread for the talks?"

If, as I hope, we form Africa Command, that may be able to better prevent problems, and work cooperatively, early in the process. Nigeria may be waiting for chaos, and chaos there is far more significant than in Somalia. Ironically, Nigeria provides the bulk of ECOMOG peacekeepers in Sierra Leone, but may soon need them at home.

There have been major withdrawals in other wars, such as the British on the Gallipoli Peninsula or at Dunkirk, but those did not involve civilian populations. In Vietnam by 1975, the US was in no position to do anything for the South Vietnamese government, which long hadn't done the things it needed to do to save itself.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

This is actually the only time I've ever admitted to being wrong about anything in my entire year and a half in the Cafe.

Tom

I defer to your expertise on military matters, as I have none. But I think it’s easy to fall into the trap of considering Iraq part of our fight with terrorism because it has been sold so well as a campaign in the GWOT. Al Qaeda is our only terrorist enemy- not former Baathists or the Mahdi Army or Hizbollah or any other Muslim group (or Muslims as a group).

We invaded Iraq and deposed the one leader in the Middle East who wouldn’t countenance the jihadists. At the same time we redefined another country that was really helping us against al Qaeda, Iran, as a mortal enemy (ditto with Syria).

I’ve watched this WOT PR campaign since it began on 9/11/2001. Well into the Iraq war, I’ve been utterly amazed as Generals and most of the troops there professed the belief we were fighting the terrorists (al Qaeda) there. Of course, we allowed al Zarqawi to live and help grow an insurgency and foreign fighters have come but that is in response to our occupation.

We are now told that we must stay the course or escalate because if we cut and run Iraq will become a harbor for global terrorists. What’s left of al Qaeda would be foolish to try and make a base there if even we pulled out entirely, which we won’t do anyway. The groups that will likely control regions of Iraq be it Shia, Kurd, or Sunni would not accede anything to al Qaeda. "Fight 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here" is total crap.

I do look at the war on Islamic fundamentalist terror as truly global, although not always aimed at the US. Australia was the primary target in Bali and Djakarta. Recent terror in Thailand, a strong American ally, have been aimed at majority Buddhism there. Terror in the Phillipines both aims at gaining Muslim control there, as well as successfully knocking Filipino forces out of the Iraqi coalition.

Some of these operations probably were al-Qaeda supported, where others may be fellow travelers. Al-Qaeda is not a Pentagon hiding out in South Wazaristan, but apparently more of a coordinating and financing body. There are a half-dozen extreme Islamist groups operating in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir, often cooperating but still separate.

In other words, even if al-Qaeda went gently into that good night, Islamic terrorism, and the generation of Islamic terrorism, would remain a problem. While al-Qaeda's signature was all over the 1998 US Embassy bombings in East Africa, Khobar Towers and multiple attacks in Saudi Arabia, and the USS Cole, I'm not certain the Nigerian extremists aren't essentially home-grown.

No, I don't think Iraq will become a haven, although perhaps a flophouse, for global terrorists. Just as the US constantly sought to destroy the Central Office for South Vietnam (COSVN), the main headquarters that may not even have existed as other than a mobile group and certainly was not a Pentagon-in-the-Jungle, there is no one place where Islamic terrorism will be solved. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains an irritant and symbol, but there are any number of other cultural clashes. I don't agree with Samuel Huntington's theory that there is an inherent clash of civilizations, but there is a series of cultural conflicts that will take time and wisdom to reduce. While the most deadly terrorists often have been middle class, poverty makes for foot soldiers, often with nothing to lose.

Yes, "Fight 'em there" is indeed total crap. It is especially smelly crap because it overemphasizes Iraq and underemphasizes issues all over the world.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

We should not be fighting, militarily, every such group in the world. When a friendly nation, such as Thailand, has such a problem, however, I see no problem with law enforcement cooperation, intelligence sharing, military technical assistance and equipment sales, and intelligence sharing. Hopefully, you recognize that by intelligence sharing, I don't mean extraordinary rendition, but the exchange of credible information. Sometimes, it will not be possible to give the exact source of that information, and the recipient has to make a judgment call on its plausibility.

I believe the Afghanistan operation was appropriate, other than the premature diversion of CENTCOM into Iraq planning. While a relatively small event, I both understand some reasoning for believing that al-Qaeda were in Sudan (they were ousted, according to the 9/11 commission and other evidence, in 1998), some questionable but not completely groundless assumptions about the pharmaceutical plant (which it was), and poor choices in the means of military attack.

There will be exceptional cases, in the future, where military rather than law enforcement operations are appropriate. In general, such military operations will be small in terms of the actual engagement, although they may need very significant support in getting to the target: it may take a carrier task force to get a Delta Force squadron into range, while maintaining operational cover.

I don't rule out conventional invasions, but I would consider that an extremely exceptional case that needs independent review and approval by Congress. Given the multitude of ways we can approach a target, as well as misdirect the opposition, the value and impact of a declaration of war may be worth the cost of strategic surprise. We never expected to have strategic surprise with the Soviets or them with us, but tactical surprise remained a possibility.

Large-scale military operations that are disproportionate, such as Israeli operations against Lebanon and Hizbollah, are as unwise for the US as for Israel. Blind support of Israel remains a problem, and opening our eyes doesn't mean decreeing the destruction of Israel.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yes, strangely enough the government does contain its own fascist opponents (eg some of the Sadrists).

Strangely enough the Iraqi legislature includes opposition leaders with connections to the fascist led Sunni insurgency. They also publish newspapers and radio and TV stations. It is a lot stranger than the relations between Sinn Fein and the IRA and between "Loyalist" militias and the Ulster Unionists in government considering the open resort to mass murder rather than the much milder sort of "terrorism" the IRA and its opponents were engaged in.

Strangely enough negotiations are going on to bring some of the Sunni leaders with connections with the insurgency into the government as part of a realignment that can establish a government of nationl unity able to stop the sectarian killings on both sides.

We can predict the result of withdrawing under these circumstances. Obviously the sectarian killings would intensify and drag in the neighbours to a regional war. Not even a chorus of every single lying intelligence agency or US politicians loudly saying that 2+2=4 could convince me that it ain't so.

Nor do you believe it ain't so.

Where we differ is that you don't want to think about the fact that it is so and what should be done about it.

Larry Johnson made it utterly clear by omitting the important quote I drew attention immediately after the quote he did provide. He wants to talk about how it's all Bush's fault and does not have any idea at all about what to do.

Plans? They don’t need no stinking plans.

Isn't that EXACTLY the position here?

You know perfectly well that the Democrats are NOT going to cut off funds for the war and do NOT have an alternative plan.

But you ARE going to keep carping about it for the next 2 years and STILL not have a plan then.

I agree with you that we really can't go to war with Iran, but that doesn't keep the Neocons from pushing the case.

I genuinely believe that we are in agreement there. Furthermore I genuinely believe there is an overwhelming consensus of opinion not just at this web site but much wider both that the US really can't go to war with Iran and that this doesn't keep the Neocons from pushing the case

So why not take those facts which are obvious to you and to most other people as a starting point and analyse from there. Instead of being fixated on some "danger" that the US might do something it cannot do, because the President might be certifiably insane and writing passionate denunciations and warnings against this, why not just take it for granted that a lot of bullshit floats around and you have to disregard what people are saying and look at what they are doing.

The fact is the US is allied with an Iraqi government that has friendly relations with Iran and is dominated by Shia islamist parties that sided with Iran in the war between Iraq and Iran.

The Baathists describe the war they are fighting as being against a US-Iranian occupation and are allied with jihadis whose hatred of Shia exceeds their hatred of other infidels.

The basic goal of the insurgency is to restore Sunni minority domination over Iraq so it has to paint the Shia majority as aliens - Safavids or Persians. This is an absolutely central theme.

In that situation it would only help give that propaganda credibility if the US had more friendly relations with Iran. So of course what is the "clueless" Bush administration told to do by its oh so clever opponents - why of course! We know what to do, we have a plan, lets be more friendly to Iran!!!!

Likewise the US has a major problem that Israel and its occupation of the Palestinians is a strategic liability that completely discredits US pressure for democratic changes in the region. How could any Arab or Muslim take it seriously when it openly supports the complete denial of any national and democratic rights to the Palestinians.

The US needs Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and it is much easier to do that if the Israelis are expressing their paranoia about Iran which has no common border rather than about Palestinians who they need to make peace with.

So there are two obvious reasons why the neocons would be "pushing the case" for war with Iran, even though they know, just as you know, that it simply isn't possible. (Internal democratic regime change overthrowing the government of Iran is both possible, necessary and inevitable and would be hindered by better US relations with the regime but that is another matter entirely from the question of war and threats of war).

A lot of really hard work has to be done to convince people that you are threatening to do something you cannot possibly do. Others may have better explanations for why US propaganda has been doing that in the case of war with Iran than my explanation.

But if they do they are keeping quiet about it. My personal opinion is that people here are not even THINKING about it. You just don't seem to think about why people say the things they say in official propaganda and op-eds etc but just blindly react to it.

Then you come up with really stupid theories about what they might really be up to and since those theories make no sense you conclude that the US government really is incredibly stupid and/or insane.

If their original objective was to destabilize the region and return the Shia to domination then they should be ready to leave; mission accomplished.

So, you have proved to my satisfaction and yours that the objective is not to "return the Shia to domination" since they are obviously not ready to leave, mission accomplished.

Why not move on and actually try to figure out what the objective is?

Is there some mental block here that just gets people stuck?

Each time you either hear an official explanation or come up yourself with a theory that makes no sense whatever, why not say to yourself, "Ok that's not it" instead of saying to yourself "there you are nothing makes sense so Bush is stupid/crazy".

First just accept as a fact rather than a point of controvery that US statements and op-eds by various analysts are propaganda that does not make sense. Get over it and do your own analysis instead of remaining stuck on reacting to it.

BTW it does not logically follow that because a government is lying about its war aims and policies therefore the war should be opposed.

For example Lincoln pretended his aim was to restore the status quo in the Union and not to abolish slavery in the South. The war was still worth supporting and it still did end up abolishing slavery.

My point is that, like in Czechoslovakia, anyone who was blackmailed into squealing to the secret police on their neighbors (or squealed just to cause trouble for a neighbor) can now be blackmailed by Chalabi. It was supposed to give him enough power in the Country so that with his in-country supporters and the out-of-the-country INC he could take control of Iraq and sell it out to the oil companies while starting trade with Israel.

As we know now, those in-country supporters did not exist, and the Shiites generally did not like Chalabi. Except for being appointed to head the DeBaathification Committee (by Jerryb Brener) the best he has done has been to remain in the government. Another failed scheme by the NeoCons. But Chalabi still has the power of those secret files. And perhaps his Iranian paymasters.

Agreed. Occasionally I think I may have seen people here make passing remarks suggesting that the presence of US troops is the ultimate cause of the violence and implying that it would therefore subside if the US withdrew.

But I haven't noticed anyone arguing that scenario as though they expected to be taken seriously.

The closest I have noticed is some people arguing that Iraq could/should be divided into 3 and this would be a better outcome that would prevent regional war rather than being a possible outcome of regional war. I regard that proposal as just as ludicrous and it seems to have faded away a bit recently but I wouldn't say that I have never noticed anyone suggesting it seriously (eg Joe Biden seemed to be serious about it).

Anyway lets start from the assumptions that:

1) Nobody seriously disputes the NIE estimate of the consequences of withdrawal.

2) Nobody seriously expects the Democrats in Congress to cut off the funds or impeach Bush and Cheney etc.

3) Therefore the war is going to continue for the next 2 years and the subsequent administration is going to have to come up with a policy.

Larry Johnson't post initiating this topic tells me he does not want to think about 1) but wants to keep his mind busy by just endlessly repeating that it is all Bush's fault.

Arthur, with all due respect, may I suggest that it might save you a great deal of typing if, when you think an American doesn't understand something as well as you do, you ask a clarifying question about what the American poster had in mind?

I have had formal psychoanalysis. While there were some benefits, the most significant thing I remember was all the details of the textured ceiling directly above the analyst's couch. Since I have no couch or ceiling online, can we avoid the psychoanalysis, or do I need to go all Freudian? Admittedly, my analyst described his technique as a transactional-interpersonal variant on classic analysis. Still, I recommend Freud's concept of the "flight into health", when the analysis becomes so threatening that the patient will cease all symptoms as an excuse to stop the analysis. Damn fool, getting well, eh?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The discussion between hcberkowitz and Don Key following Wordie's remarks seems to confirm my theory that people here just don't want to face up to their responsibilities in the light of the actual realistic expectation that (an orderly) withdrawal from Iraq within the next couple of years can reasonably be expected to result in a regional catastrophe.

Wordie has a genuine dilemma:

Despite all the talk about the Iraqis ultimately being responsible for what happens, I believe we are responsible, because we invaded. I can't help thinking of Colin Powell's words, "you broke it, you own it." I also can't help but think of the neocons stated goal, long before the invasion, of bringing chaos to the middle east. On the other hand, staying, if there is little chance that our presence brings any positive contribution to the situation, as many analysts say, makes little sense either.

My response is that the minimum positive contribution is that it allows Iraqis to solve their own problems without the factions turning to support from the neighbours and thus triggering a regional war.

That is sufficient but I believe the US also has a responsibility to end the sectarian ethnic cleansing in Bhagdad.

If instead the Democratic majority in Congress were to compel the Bush administration to leave Iraqi in chaos they would be held responsible by the rest of the world as well as by the American people - and it would be criminal responsibility.

So I don't believe they will do that.

Wordie also wrote:

Whether we should stay or go is still unclear to me at the moment. Could it be that the plan to stay in Iraq is the very worst possible plan, except the plan to leave Iraq?

At the moment, more than anything, I'm painfully aware how Bush has stuck us in a very nasty no-win situation.

This also makes some kind of sense, at least as preliminary clearing of the throat before getting down to accepting that the US is not going to withdraw until doing so would not leave Iraq in chaos.

But it already introduces a note of unreality by saying "Whether we should stay or go is still unclear to me at the moment".

If it is clear that Bush has stuck you in a very nasty situation that you would much rather not be in but you actually do understand that you are stuck in it then there is absolutely no point in ruminating about whether you ought to not be stuck in it. You are. There is no option of leaving. Bush isn't going to do it and Congress isn't going to cut off funds. Get over it.

From there the discussion goes downhill.

Howard starts off acknowledging the "very serious ethical questions" raised by Wordie and deals with it by sayingt

As in emergency medicine, triage sometimes has to be applied, and, in the interest of the greatest good for the greatest number, it's possible that regions may have to be abandoned with no good prospects.

Instead of proceeding to face the question of whether the region has to be abandoned with no prospects, he leaves it dangling with no answer. The point is he knows it cannot be and will not be, so he turns away from that and moves on to musings about grand strategy in a Global War On Terror.

The mental space he is occupying in such musings can be understood from the final sentence:

In Vietnam by 1975, the US was in no position to do anything for the South Vietnamese government, which long hadn't done the things it needed to do to save itself.

In fact the US withdrew leaving its puppet regime to its fate 2 years earlier just so it could leave people like Howard saying to themselves that "the South Vietnamese government" was defeated because it "long hadn't done the things it needed to do to save itself".

That isn't going to work in Iraq. The Iraqi government is not a puppet regime and it is not facing a people's war against it by the people of Iraq. If the US withdraws it will be forced to take whatever measures are necessary to suppress the Sunni minority insurgency, including driving the entire Sunni population out of Iraq if necessary. Only a minority within that government and its mass base actually want that outcome. They would much rather reach a more democratic solution in which the minority takes its place within Iraqi society rather than ruling over it or excluded from it.

The US has a real stake in that because it affects the whole region.

The context is not a mythical "Global War On Terror" against Al Queda but a long term solution to the social conditions that produce jihadis - a stagnant swamp of autocratic regimes that produce fanatacism and despair. Changing from a Sunni dominated autocratic regime to a Shia dominated autocratic regime might be an improvement but would not contribute much to ending the despair that breeds jihadis. In fact you could expect a lot more jihadis to be produced from the Sunni refugees in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc even if those countries did not become embroiled in a regional war over Iraq (which they would lose to the Iraqis and Iranians).

The discussion proceeds to disintegrate from there into more speculations between Howard and Don Key about how best to fight the current crop of jihadis in various theatres.

This is really odd since both of them are apparantly fully aware (and in fact both mention during their discussion) that the US did not invade Iraq in pursuit of Al Queda or jihadis and that hints of implications that it did were just war propaganda (eg a majority of Americans believed Sadaam had something to do with 9/11 simply because Bush kept talking about them in the same breath, but nobody seriously pretends that he did).

If you do favour the US leaving Iraq as a mess, what is your long term program for dealing with the fact that the region has in the past and will continue to be in the future a stagnant swamp breeding jihadis that will produce more events like 9/11?

There is currently just one government in the region which is both genuinely elected and welcomes support from the US.

Wouldn't it be just so strategically brilliant to abandon it and mournfully say it didn't do enough to help itself!!!

Seriously Howard, do you respond to this kind of stuff? Or do you ignore it too?

J. McCutchen

I'd look for the De-authorization Drive to pick up serious steam over the next weeks. Howard Fineman, on Freiday, reported increasing interest in the Senate, now this

A man who says that no patriot should attack the war until it is over...is saying no good son should warn his mother of a cliff until she has fallen.

Now that you mention it, it is you that I am ignoring, until you begin to discuss things with minimum courtesy. That includes not assuming what other people are thinking, when you could find out with a simple question. That includes condescending responses, some containing substantive information, and others, like this one, merely condescending.

As I have mentioned, you have very substantial knowledge, and, when not apparently trying to emulate the Witchee-Watchee bird [Note], can make interesting and informative posts. At the moment, at least in the context of Iraq, you seem to prefer to be combative. I certainly make long posts, but I try to present information that can be judged on its own, and clearly identify my opinion as opposed to fact. I hope that I have avoided condescending, as I believe that being informative, in a courteous manner, is the best way for all to learn.



[Note] The legendary Witchee-Watchee bird always flew backwards, so he could see where he had been and complain about its shortcomings. One day, he injured a wing, causing him to fly in ever-decreasing circles, until, shrieking imprecations at all, he flew up his own cloaca and disappeared.

No, that isn't condescension. It's something else. God is an iron.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

May I summarize the NIE plus the discussion both Democratic and rePublican?

We went there with no legitimate purpose.  We have made an unholy mess.  Many more deaths are expected. Our goal now is to get out with only a minimum of dishonor.

----------------

When we left Vietnam, we found we had to allow many refugees, mainly those who had become too closely associated with us in the first place.  When (not if) we leave Iraq, unless we have become a much crueler country, we will have to do the same.

When we left Vietnam, the victors killed some and reeducated others. When we leave Iraq, the same will happen.

Losers of wars do not dictate the conditions.  The Bush-McCain war is lost.  Sending more troops to get killed is cruel to our own citizens. 

J. McCutchen

Howdy Duty and the Greatest Military Force in Human History.....

Corners cut in rush to add troops
Shorter training time, lack of equipment hurt readiness, experts say

"It's happening just about to all the units now," said Lawrence Korb, who oversaw military manpower and logistics as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "No unit is completely combat ready...." The lack of overall preparedness, in terms of both training and key equipment, is underscored by a recent Pentagon survey, statements by military leaders and interviews with defense experts.
"A typical soldier shows up in Iraq without the knowledge of the language, without the knowledge of the people," said Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a centrist think tank in Arlington, Va. "If he also isn't experienced with his unit or with his weapon, that maximizes the potential for disaster."

Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ... Not ready for duty, sir. George W. Bush, Acceptance Speech August 2000

Sincere thanks. I do look forward to reasoned discourse.

Indeed, I have taken something of a special interest both in the US involvement in Vietnam, and the fascinating relevant history going back to the First Century. I'm even a moderately good Vietnamese cook.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Point taken.

Not that the present situation isn't full of conflicts, one particular one comes to mind. From a western perspective, even with flaws, the fact that there is a somewhat democratically elected government confers legitimacy. To those Iraqis that participated in the process, they implicitly confirmed an association between democracy and legitimacy.

A significant number of the insurgents, however, consider that irrelevant, because they feel a legitimate government is theocratic rather than democratic. I don't know where to start resolving this.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Howard: Isn't it really the other way around? I thought the former Baathists, who I understand form a significant portion of the current insurgency, are for the most part secular, as Sadam was. 

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Let me start with the WOT. Actually, once the most major threats are managed, I really think of it as less a military or law enforcement than a public health problem. I've started some threads on this in the past.

Using the meaning from infectious disease epidemiology, only one disease has ever been eradicated (i.e., completely gone from the wild): smallpox. There is a good chance polio might be the next, in a few years. In both cases, Somalia was the last reserve -- why am I not surprised?

But atherosclerotis, influenza, diabetes, assorted wound and soft tissue infections, traffic accidents, and major gastrointestinal infections (cholera, norovirus) will be with us in the foreseeable future. The first goal is to reduce how often they occur (incidence), variously by improved diet, maintenance medication, immunization, and water purification. The second goal is to minimize the damage when they occur (virulence), through appropriate drug treatment, oral rehydration, safety features in cars, etc.

I see terrorism as a similar problem. Intelligence, law enforcement, and appropriate military action can reduce the incidence, along with appropriate public reporting that does not turn the world into a population of informers. Emergency services, hardening critical infrastructure, stockpiling relief supplies, and educating the public all will reduce virulence.

This analysis, however, hinges on the ability of our military to actually make a positive difference, on Bush's ability to make reasonable decisions that actually move us in the right directions (and I know that's unlikely), and on the Iraqis actually having the will and ability to take the difficult steps to form such a government.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Howard: What causes me to worry is that I'm not so certain it's a question of subfactions so much as overlapping categories. I've read reports that suggest that in the minds of many Iraqis, your categories 1 and 3 are indistinguishable. How accurate those reports are, and the percentage of Iraqis who see it that way, I just don't know...

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery