It's tough
It's tough coping with the spin, and our reporters and elected officials are getting spun like tops by our very politicized generals. Here are the points of view I use to try to keep my own head on straight.
First, if we arm Sunnis and encourage them to create their own militias, police forces, etc., as apparently our current general-in-charge is doing, then we are following the Baker-Hamilton report, aligning ourselves with the Saudis, trying to make up for the alleged mistake in disbanding Saddam's army, adhering to the perspective of the current DOD Secretary (and not Rumsfeld's). This tactic isn't a strategy; it is just a means to find, at last, a faction we can support.
Second,
by deciding to arm the Sunnis we are destabilizing Maliki's government, encouraging the de facto and crude partition of Iraq, setting the stage for the overthrow or overhaul of the existing government, and making it more likely that the Shiites will rally together to oppose the new American tactic. In fact, the latter is just what we are now seeing from the Sadrists.
Third, in the history of post-colonial wars, of which this is perhaps one of the last, the typical result is that the occupying Western army stays for many years, at great cost to itself and greater to the indigenous population, and yet eventually cannot resist the rise of the dominant ethnic, political, and religious group in the country in question: Malays in Malaya, the FLN in Algeria, the Viet Cong/NVA in Vietnam, the Catholic South in Ireland. President Bush's plan to stay for decades in Iraq -- he often makes no bones about this -- is based on his analogy not to the history of imperialism but rather to the American occupation of Japan and Germany. Iraq as a construct is an artifact of Western intervention, and was only adventitiously connected to world wars or even clashes of cultures. But accepting the wildly wrong analogy of the Americans in Europe and Japan after the Second World War, where our victory found us eyeball to eyeball with the Soviets, the fact is that the American military stayed in those countries primarily to help the controlling majority defend itself against the Soviet-backed threats next door, while sparing the rest of the West heartburn over the only other choice, which was the Phoenix-like rise of the defeated enemies of the Second World War and the creation of the makings of still another global war.
Of course, reasoning from an anachronistic and inappropriate analogy, the Administration is now in Iraq arming the defeated Saddam supporters and sympathizers. To justify this act, it must see in Iran something like the Germany-Japan axis. This can't be missed; it has been the language of the Bush Administration for years now. What's missing, most obviously, is that America hasn't gone to war with Iran and certainly hasn't defeated it. The analogy should alarm Americans. It may imply the last act of this Administration. Meanwhile, unlike the Germans or Japanese post-1945, the majority in Iraq does not want the Americans to stay and does want to be in the Iranian orbit.
If we have to look for analogies, Iraq today is more like China after the Second World War. It is a country riven by civil war, still suffering from years of dictatorship by a minority faction supported by the West from time to time, and generally tending toward unification under a regime supported by most of its people, but which is anathema to Americans. Of course the Grand Old Party took decades to forget that China wasn't lost to communism, but rather, in the bloodiest of ways, chose it after a prolonged civil war. There was nothing pretty about Mao's regime; he was one of the worst killers in history. But his China, like the Iraq that prefers to be aligned with the Shiites, was never a serious threat to the United Sates and modern China is now, of course, one of our major trading partners. As with Vietnam, the lesson is that war was not a useful answer for the West in these situations, as it is not either necessary or desirable in Iraq today.
Basically, Baker-Hamilton was a subtle plea for a new Sunni, or secular Shiite, strong man to run Iraq. This goal was masked by talk about regional coordination, but that boiled down to embracing de facto partitioning at the family and tribal level, with natural resources centrally governed. That central control of resources, and military power, was the orginal idea behind the Baath Party. It didn't work out once and won't work out a second time, at least for the Iraqis. It might satisfy the Saudis and maybe Houston, but otherwise is a bad idea for America. Oddly, the basic Bush Administration idea of democracy determining the result isn't at all bad, and it's sad to see that is the likely victim of the current new "September" strategy.
Comments (17)
I didn't get those at all from the ISG report. I missed those points.
On Iraq's neighbors: "The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region." The executive summary then went on to mention Iran and Syria, but Saudi Arabia wasn't mentioned. So the suggested alignment comes from SA's ommission?
On Maliki: "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in consultation with the United States, has put forward a set of milestones critical for Iraq. His list is a good start, but it must be expanded to include milestones that can strengthen the government and benefit the Iraqi people." Where's the subtle plea? I can't remember such a plea being in the news at the time, which it would've been.
September 1, 2007 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't think of a single person selected by Bush to do anything who was more than a toady for Bush. Typically such selectees have been utterly incompetent at the job they were chosen to do, and their limited accomplishments were aimed towards increasing Bush's total control over all aspects of the government. So, why should we view Petraeus any differently?
What is happening right now is yet another "report" based on the wishes of the Bush administration, if not of Bush himself, but divorced from any form of reality. So, of course Petraeus's report on Iraq will be diametrically opposed to any reality in Iraq.
I still strongly suspect that the goal of Bush and his handlers is to set up Iraq for US corporations to be able to steal as much of the money generated by the oil in Iraq as is possible, combined with the opportunity to capture as big a portion of the US tax money being spent in Iraq as is possible. Petraeus's report will support that goal.
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 1, 2007 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bush did say he wanted to be the CEO President, and this may be the only thing he has done "right." It is the ultimate achievement of the MBA degree: sycophants and crooks in charge of everything.
September 1, 2007 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that any meaningful "report" on anything ought to include information on progress toward a stated goal. That's basic, isn't it? What is the goal in Iraq? What is the noble cause? Most importantly, what will "victory" look like? Is it an Islamic state aligned with Iran? Another Sunni autocracy? So the "report" will snow us with military minutia and avoid the huge humanitarian crisis that the US has created.
If the goal is a coalition government backed and supported by Iraq's neighbors, as suggested by Baker-Hamilton, where's the diplomacy? The military won't get it, even the generals say that. No, it's not that, Bush backed away from B-H.
So there's not even a real expectation of "victory"--just more of the same, more sectarian violence requiring a continued military presence, more money into the corporate coffers and and more power to Number One while the Dems look on in bafflement and give Bush whatever he asks for.
Well, Iran will change that situation, won't it. If we think it's bad now just wait. Jim Lobe just posted some scary stuff regarding Gingrich and the AEI re: more war. Over at Hugh Hewitt the neocons are setting up the case for Iran, and at DailyKos the usually knee-jerking Dems are remarkably full of deep frustration with Pelosi and Reid. People are posting anti-Dem stuff there and not getting blitzed like they (I) used to.
September 1, 2007 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's "tough coping with the spin" if you have any knowledge about war and the difference between that and revolution, rebellions, insurgencies, insurrections, revolts, protest, dissent.
Clearly this administration is confused. The fact that so many think they are confused returns to the question of their education, intelligence and the bias of the media.
We are not at war with the people of Iraq except that this administration wants us to be.
And that is how it started.
September 1, 2007 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it is hard for me to see it surviving as anything but a shadow, if that.
The Shias as the "dominant religious group" analogous to the Catholics of the South of Ireland are not so likely to be able to easily impose their will on the North I think even if they were fully united themselves.
The Catholics of Vietnam, a significant minority, did not have a regional base equivalent to the Sunnis or Kurds. Ngo Dinh Diem and the Dragon Lady were not able to command even that group's allegiance against the tide of Vietnamese nationalism.
Carping criticism aside, much appreciate an incisive critique of the worthlessness of Baker-Hamilton.
How about we leave Iraq to the Iraqis and get the flock out?
Best, Terry
September 2, 2007 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP line, as articulated explicitly by Bush and by Rove, is the analogy to Vietnam, where they claim we abandoned allies and destruction ensued. Now, that's easy to take apart. It doesn't even rely on fading American memories; it's just a naked plea to shore up the true believers.
But Reed's post gets at a striking problem even with the analogy were the original myth somehow true: challenge these guys to explain who "our allies" are now! Then it was presumably the peace-loving, independent people of South Vietnam and their leaders in the face of the enemy, global communism. (Never mind.) This time, I don't think they even have a party line. They openly complain about the Iraqi government (whose failures could offer a cover for our failure). They have shifting conceptions of who their side is.
Best I can think of is that they depend here on silence, to cover over a vague idea that our side is "the Iraqi people" and their side is "radical Islamic terrorists." They need to be challenged to explain who they think our allies are, again and again.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 2, 2007 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am throughly perplexed about your interpretation of the Baker-Hamilton report as subtly calling for a "new Sunni strong man" to run Iraq. Nor can I find anything like an "arming the Sunnis and encouraging them to form their own militias" step in the list of Baker-Hamilton recommendations; not even is such a step subtly suggested.
The key external and internal recommendations of the report are clustered around its calls for a new diplomatic offensive leading among other things to a regional support group, and the promotion of national reconciliation in Iraq under a broadly representative government. One could argue that the current government is not sufficiently broadly representative. But no one could think that a government led by a strong man from the minority Sunni Arab community could head a broadly representative government.
The parts of the report that address Sunni-related concerns are all focussed on bringing the Sunnis back into the political process by reversing de-Baathification, offering amnesty, holding provincial elections, reviewing and possibly amending the constitution, writing an oil law, etc.
The report very explicitly rejects calls for devolving Iraq into separate sectarian or ethnic conclaves of the sort that would be promoted by arming sectarian militias or local warlords, and instead focuses on strengthening the national government and its security forces. It explicitly calls for a program to "disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate militia members". There is not the slightest hint in Baker-Hamilton that encouraging Sunnis to form their own militias would be a constructive step.
September 2, 2007 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Picky, picky, picky. Cut the man a little slack. Didn't you read the first sentence of the parent post?
"Its tough coping with the spin,...".
September 2, 2007 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of bias in the media...Katie Couric, on the state of Iraq:
Breathtaking, isn't it? A journalist says in one sentence that we're seeing only what the military wants us to see, and yet in the next sentence, makes a ridiculous statement about the situation that we're only getting a onesided view of. Hilarious, if the consequences of such blindness weren't so dire.
September 2, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Katie would have been a star on Soviet TV.
September 2, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Yet in the next sentence, makes a ridiculous statement about the situation that we're only getting a one-sided view of." This week I also saw, on ABC, a report of Bush's giving his most "forceful" rebuttal to critics on Iraq yet. The report did not once either consider the accuracy of his comments or invite an opposing point of view. But the opening frame put it beyond even the usual stenography to the point of propaganda.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 2, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm reliably informed that the new format will have automatic spin control.
September 2, 2007 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, not only that but I was impressed by the clarity and tightness of this essay while avoiding the easy out of spin or rant.
Not only that but he doesn't put in a blatant plug for his book on China!
Good job, Reed. On your way to a career switch to foreign policy? (Maybe I'll buy the book now! See how that works? :-))
September 2, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just prior to this, "journalist" Couric spent a whole minute regurgitating all Petreaus's main talking points, with no other views. "He conceives . . .he thinks . . .he told me . . .he believes . . .he did talk about . . .he thinks . . ."
Who needs Petreaus--Katie could stand in for him when he comes to Washington.
See it on youtube at thinkprogress.org
September 2, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Don Bacon that there is nothing in the ISG report that supports the notion that reinstalling a Sunni strongman was the goal that the group had in mind.
The omission in the summary of naming Saudi Arabia while discussing Syria and Iran distinguishes the Kingdom from states that have been specifically named as opposing U.S policy goals.
But that omission does not lessen the importance of Saudi Arabia's role in the Iraq International Support Group that the report says should have gotten underway by 12/31/06. The report does clearly state the role that SA can/could play as a broker if they saw it in their interest to act as one. Between Recommendations #3 and #4, the report says:
The primary focus of the ISG report is to create a certain environment for political development. When one reads passages like the one quoted above, it becomes obvious that the recent policy initiative of arming Sunni tribes runs counter to the ISG's thinking. In the present circumstances, the Sunni's opposition to al Qaeda does not bolster the government of Iraq.
If you don't believe me, ask Maliki.
September 2, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
More from Katie blogging from Baghdad:
War is so cute! It brings candy to children!
September 2, 2007 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink