Nir Rosen vs. Pollack & O'Hanlon & Petraeus & Bush
George W. Bush may be in Baghdad today, but that won't change the realities on the ground in Iraq.
The next month, the Bush administration is going to try and convince Americans that what most observers see happening in Iraq is not actually happening and that conversely, things are improving -- with no evidence.
Paul Krugman in his piece, "Snow Job in the Desert" fillets Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack for their role in the effort and compares the non-empirical assertions of Colin Powell on WMDs to Petraeus's coming assertions that the surge is working.
A difference I'd suggest to Krugman between Powell and Petraeus is that Powell was lied to by the administration for which he worked and was told that the intel in hand had come from multiple credible sources -- and not just the single, questionable source, later identified as "Curveball." Petraeus, in contrast, is actually a working part of the information collection and marketing operation on the surge.
My New America Foundation/American Strategy Program colleague Nir Rosen framed Iraq realities bluntly in an exchange with CNN's Tom Foreman. I think Rosen's grim read is right:
TOM FOREMAN, CNN ANCHOR, THIS WEEK AT WAR: Nir, let me start with you. Who is running the show in Baghdad? Or is anyone?NIR ROSEN, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Well it depends where you are. As it has been since April 9, 2003, when Baghdad fell to the Americans, militias have been running the show. Whoever has power in the given neighborhoods, whatever local warlord, he's the one running the show. The government is basically a theater. Whatever happens in the green zone doesn't matter. It's always been militia leaders, political leaders at the party level who control the various militias and the ministers, not the prime minister and not the Americans, certainly. it is various militias.
FOREMAN: Nir, based on what you are saying though the problem is there is no credible alternative is there?
ROSEN: There is no government to begin with. It's a collection of militias. And indeed, there is no alternative. The whole focus on the government in Baghdad is the -- problem is that -- in everybody's approach. In Iraq it used to be you could have a coup replace the government and the whole country followed. But now Iraqi is a collection of city states, Baghdad, Tikrit, Kirkuk, Mosul, Basra, Erbil, each one with its own warlords. They don't answer to Baghdad. Baghdad has no control over them. When we overthrew Saddam, we imposed one dictator after another. We didn't like Prime Minister Jaafari so we got rid of him and we put in his close ally, Maliki. And now the occupier is once again upset that the occupied people are not being sufficiently obedient. But it doesn't matter. We are past that stage. Iraq doesn't exist as a state anymore. The government has never existed. It has never brought in any services. Even the most fundamental service the government can provide, a monopoly over the use of violence, it doesn't provide that because it has never controlled the militias and militias are the ones that control the police and the army.
FOREMAN: So Nir, we keep hearing reports, though, nonetheless out of Baghdad. People saying that give us time, we are trying to get this government worked out. We are going to make some progress. Do you see any way that can happen?
ROSEN: No. This has been the case for the past would two years at least. There is no hope. There is no government. Neither side is interested in compromise and why should they? The Shias control Baghdad. They have removed the Sunnis from Baghdad, from Iraq's political future.
FOREMAN: What's going to change that if anything?
ROSEN: Nothing is going to change that. The Shias have actually expelled most of the Sunnis from Baghdad. It went from being a majority Sunni city. Now it is a majority Shia city. The last few pockets of Sunnis are slowly being purged by the police and the Mehdi army. It's now irrevocably a Shia city and Sunnis are just out. Unfortunately, Iraq has been completely remade and it is time to be honest. It is time for the American leaders to be honest and American military to be honest with their people.
There can be no reconciliation. This does -- the latest show we had a few days ago where they brought a few leaders together and pretended like they were going to reconcile, the Sunnis are still out of the government and they remain so and why should they be? They have been expelled from Iraq. The majority of the three million refugees that we have from the region, from Iraq are Sunni. The majority being internally displaced are Sunni. Of course, whatever agreement were to be reached, parliament would never ratify it anyway.
Krugman is right to put us all on alert for a month of "snow jobs" ahead.
Rosen is setting a benchmark for truth-telling in Iraq, and it would be constructive for the administration to either object to what he is sharing or to concede that his observations are closer than Petraeus to the on-the-ground truth.
-- Steve Clemons is Senior Fellow and Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
I find it profoundly fitting and profoundly depressing that Bush has chosen Labor Day to run his latest propaganda operation on the virtues of militarism (hint: I really mean fascism).
September 3, 2007 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not wasting any attention waiting for clear thinking from the WH. They're hostage to their ambitions, now, and can't do much different. I'm betting events in Iraq will make decisions for us.
The only thing to watch would be investigative hearings.
September 3, 2007 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Shias running Iraq are willing to give up most of the profits from Iraq's oil to US oil companies, and allow US companies to receive most of the American money sent to Iraq for rebuilding Iraq, I'm quite sure Bush will become a Shia himself. Then it truly will be "mission accomplished".
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 3, 2007 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is Bush actually in Baghdad?
I've read that he's holding court in the middle of the desert of Western Iraq. And sounds like he summoned his minions from Baghdad to tell them how well the surge is going.
September 3, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I may be wrong, but it looks to me like the GOP/Petraeus media offensive peaked too soon. Media organizations were eager for a new spin in the middle of the summer, and they all went for the "Surge is working" storyline. But it's been two months and now they're tacking back in the other direction: casualties aren't actually down, war enthusiasts and Congresspeople were given bogus tours, the government is a farce, etc. We'll see what happens on Sept. 11 but I think Petraeus will be playing to an increasingly hostile audience.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 3, 2007 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"My New America Foundation/American Strategy Program colleague Nir Rosen"
Steve,
I'm wondering if the following is official position of your New America Foundation:
"NIR ROSEN: What needs to happen at this point is a one-state solution, where Palestinian refugees are allowed to go back to their homes"
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/21/1349252
September 3, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't underestimate their ability to construct an elaborate facade, convincing in every aspect. The thing that would save the most lives would be to allow a face saving way for the administration to declare victory and leave with a measure of "dignity". We must go along with the farce.Otherwise,they will kill untold thousands to prevent another "helicopters leaving Saigon" moment.
September 3, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Bush is willing to give up the money that he expected his followers to make off the Iraq oil and reconstruction contracts, then I agree that it is essential to leave him a way out that is not humiliating for him. And, that way is for all of us to accept the very real fact that we did win in Iraq - we got rid of Saddam and eliminated any wmd he possessed. We have now given the Iraqis a good start on forming a replacement government, a constitution, an elected parliament, and military training for their defense forces. So, we are done there.
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 3, 2007 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't have any wmd's.
So we couldn't have gotten rid of any wmd's he might have possessed.
As for the Iraqi's, what we've given them is a civil war that we've done our best to provoke and inflame.
But what the hell, call it anything you want. Just get out, and don't do it again.
September 3, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem, as Rosen points out, is that the Iraqi government has never been in control as a national government and is coming apart. From the beginning it broke into factions with militias controlling key ministries. It is beyond repair and the country is beyond reconciliation. New elections? I don't think so.
I think Bush realized this after criticizing Maliki. He tried to backtrack on that when Dems and others began grumbling about "regime change." Any attempt to oust Maliki will only make plain that the government is hopeless and there is no way out. Unfortunately, this make a distracting clash with Iran more likely. Bush has little choice but to try and prop up Maliki and the Surge and keep buying time until his term runs out.
September 3, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
I think, at present, that 'W' is not only intent in running out the clock on his debacle in Iraq, but he is also intent on leaving yet another war (with Iran)to be handled by who-ever his successor is.
To me, his photo-op scenes in the desert, made him appear totally lost, somehow diminished, somehow exposed as the farcial character he really is...When he appears in a 'military setting' (which he seems to love), he reminds one and all of his own shunning of military combat when it was 'his' turn.
September 3, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It just occurred to me that a major outcome of two of the last three major American military interventions has been the ethnic cleansing of our enemies people. The result of the Yugoslavian civil war was the expulsion of 150,000 Serbs from Krajina and about half of the Serbs from Kosovo. These were both direct consequences of American support for Croatian and KLA forces respectively.
Now the ethnic cleansing of the Sunni from Baghdad. The Shiite collaborated with the invader and used them as cover to purge the Sunni. Next we will probably see US backed Kurds expelling Arabs and Turcomen from Kirkuk.
In Afghanistan we are fighting the Pashtun tribal people (i.e. called terrorist or Taliban). I wonder when we will begin to hear about mass expulsion of Pashtuns?
Given this record how could the US object if the Israelis finally decide to exercise the transfer option to solve their Palestinian problem?
September 3, 2007 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
William Lind has been referring to Iraq as The Stateless Region of Mesopotamia for some time
No matter.
Bush says we're winning and he might begin to bring a few soldiers home
Hint - He doesn't have an Army left
September 3, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I don't think the eventual withdrawal will be especially dignified, I continue to be amazed of the continuing meme of the helicopters from Saigon.
Operation Frequent Wind, the evacuation from Saigon and other parts of Vietnam, did not involve US military units in established positions, providing security. The evacuation was of US and Vietnamese headquarters personnel, with local security by a just-flown-in Marine unit with light equipment.
The attacking units were essentially regular military under the single command of the North Vietnamese Army, with some South Vietnamese units, especially aircraft, that changed sides. The NVA had as many or more tanks as the SVA, of comparable quality.
In the current situation, other than in the Green Zone -- but in a locations such as Balad/ANACONDA, there are full-strength US military units, ground and air. There is no reason to believe they could not get support from sorties from bases in Kuwait & Qatar, carriers, and long-range aircraft from Diego Garcia and the US.
The various militias have light arms, and are certainly not under a central command. They haven't been given heavy equipment such as tanks, attack helicopters, and fighter-bombers. They don't have a robust and secure tactical communications network.
I've always liked the old Soviet term, "correlation of forces". Is anyone considering that here, or is a well-remembered image from 1975 overpowering everything else?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 3, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
When Bush appointed PetRaeus, I said right here - to more than one howl - that he was chosen for his exceptional self-promotion skills. Like the man who appointed him, Petraeus has failed at every job he has held during this war.
It was obvious last December why Bush chose him and what he would do
September 3, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard:
"There is no reason to believe they could not get support from sorties from bases in Kuwait & Qatar, carriers, and long-range aircraft from Diego Garcia and the US."
Don't forget Incirlik!
September 3, 2007 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush/Rove doesn't choose people based on competence. Those choices are based only on whether or not they will toe the line for Bush. It was a given that Petraeus would produce a report favorable to Bush on any subject he was asked to. And, even with that, Bush will have his staff do the actual writing just be be sure.
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 3, 2007 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 3, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
The withdrawal of British forces from Basra Palace, ahead of an expected full withdrawal from the city as early as next month, marks the beginning of the end of one of the most futile campaigns ever fought by the British Army.
.....
In terms of establishing an orderly government in Basra and a decent life for its people the British failure has been absolute.
Patrick Cockburn: Ignominious End
We can safely predict that while the US occupation will meet a similar fate, Beltway "experts" will make like Energizer bunnies...keep going and going and going
September 3, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an Iconic image Howard. People always conceive the Iconic images of current wars in terms of the Iconic images of past wars.
That's because the Iconic images of the current war take their time developing. And they can't be forced or forged - remember that vaunted 'fall of Saddam's statue' photo op?
I'm sure that there will moments of disaster, degradation and disgrace that symbolize the utter failure of the American adventure.
As for how it ends... hmmm. You want my guess, that Iconic some endless Iraqi boulevard, each light standard dangling the mutilated body of some hapless collaborator abandoned by departing American forces. Perhaps to the musical accompaniment of 'Strange Fruit', and maybe a tank abandoned beside a pile of pizza cases and discarded plastic water-bottles and similar knick knack.
Hell, we've already begun to see them. Abu Ghraib photos anyone?
September 3, 2007 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd put the distinction between the latest snow job and Powell quite differently, and with less concession than Steve might like. Powell wasn't fooled; he just allowed his loyalty to let him buy into and be used by lies. But he's surely right that Petraus, and he ought to add O'Hanlon and Pollock, are actively lying in the interest of agitprop.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 3, 2007 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps finish clearing the Sunnis out of Baghdad and then turn against each other, and each side calls out its respective units in the Iraqi Army and Police, splitting the Government's forces between them, and the members of the Government either abandon it and join their respective faction (as most would) or hunker down in the Green Zone under American protection, and the Green Zone becomes an American fortified island surrounded by hostile territory and resupplied only by helicopter...then at some point the decision will be made to withdraw. That won't look like Saigon in '75; unlike Saigon, in Baghdad, we will leave our erstwhile Iraqi allies behind.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 3, 2007 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't at all disagree that many allies would be left behind, often to a horrible death. A surprising number of Vietnamese eventually rejoined society, the sectarian differences not being remotely as intense as in Iraq. Vietnam is a vibrant country today, with even Nhan Dan, the party journal whose incredibly turgid jargon I had to read during the war, having turned into a vivid website. I am in no way optimistic about an endgame in Iraq.
Nevertheless, I cannot easily conceive of a heavy evacuation column, perhaps retracing in reverse the invasion of Kuwait, moving 24 hours a day with the most difficult areas traversed with night vision gear, that could be seriously hindered if it were under permissive rules of engagement, with the other side not having comparable power. The idea of a line of death on either side of the column is not figurative, and it would become a different sort of icon.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 3, 2007 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the lesson is that when we decide to leave, we should leave fast.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 3, 2007 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the book "Fiasco" last year, in which Petraus is made to be a voice of reason, and the only commander who supposedly understood the nature of the conflict, and the gravity of the deteriorating situation early on. The book also posited that Petraus had brilliantly stabilized the region that he was assigned with (Mosul?), which was then lost by a marine commander.
Because of Fiasco, I was encouraged when Petraus was elevated to his current position. But I was duped, it seems. That's what I get for reading a book.
I have a secret hope that he will lay all his cards down at this upcoming presentation, and just say, "It's over, we need to get out."
September 3, 2007 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
It's always "Three to six months" before "the light at the end of the tunnel"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Iraqi government has failed to take the political and military steps needed to cut sectarian violence, a U.S. congressional report said on Tuesday and a U.S. general said the next months were critical for creating security in the country.
It was "3-6 months" last January..."3-6 months" since 2003
"Fabius Maximus" - DNI
September 4, 2007 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
friedman unit
September 5, 2007 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink