The Exit Signs are Flashing, Dead Ends They Won’t Come to Life Anymore
Uncategorized - - Posted on July, 26 at 1:47 am by Eric Martin
Documents captured after 9/11 showed that bin Laden hoped to provoke the United States into an invasion and occupation that would entail all the complications that have arisen in Iraq. His only error was to think that the place where Americans would get stuck would be Afghanistan.
Bin Laden also hoped that such an entrapment would drain the United States financially. Many al-Qaeda documents refer to the importance of sapping American economic strength as a step toward reducing America’s ability to throw its weight around in the Middle East. - James Fallows, The Atlantic
“[T]here is more respect to be won in the opinion of the world by a resolute and courageous liquidation of unsound positions than by the most stubborn pursuit of extravagant and unpromising objectives.” - George Kennan, testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1966
To Mute Nero
While President Bush fiddles with the “extravagant” and the “unpromising,” Baghdad burns. Caught in that inferno are millions of Iraqis, over a hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers and tens of thousands of other foreign and domestic personnel. Sacrificed on that pyre are this nation’s treasured resources and good standing - costs so staggering that they defy an accurate accounting.
Some point to the ongoing tragedy and potential for further bloodshed as reasons why we can’t disengage, but these concerns - while perhaps well intentioned - fail to comprehend the limitations of our power to rectify the damage we have wrought. We cannot, through force of will or arms, save Iraq from the conflicts embroiling it. The past four-plus years should serve as a useful instructive to anyone that has yet to appreciate this lesson (though history has myriad examples with which to tutor the nonbeliever as well). The political agendas of the various competing Iraqi factions are separate and opposed to our own in many respects. Other than opportunistic marriages of convenience, we have no allies in Iraq, nor can we force any groups to align with us. For the foreseeable future, the civil wars will play out until the various sides are exhausted enough to view the adoption of political means as preferable, and concession and compromise as necessary. We cannot make that choice for them - and are in fact stoking the violence ourselves.
While we can’t save Iraq by staying, we may be able to help by withdrawing. At the very least, we can stop the hemorrhaging of COW assets and blood. Therefore, it is our moral responsibility to begin exploring and crafting a sound policy for military disengagement. I am not operating under any illusions with respect to President Bush’s or John Howard’s willingness to adopt such a plan. Still, a detailed plan for withdrawal will be a necessary and useful adjunct to the political pressure that is mounting - and a useful response to an all-too-frequently shallow press corp intent on depicting the war’s opposition as rudderless and unserious. A viable plan will give us a road map to go along with a slogan.
If we build it, they will come. Home.
The Quick and the Dead
Former Army Officer Phil Carter laid out one of the more intriguing plans for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. According to Carter, the bulk of this feat could be accomplished in a mere matter of weeks – spearheaded by an “invasion in reverse” whereby our troops would follow the same path south that was taken northward during the initial invasion (fighting all the way if necessary, and abandoning/sabotaging what assets couldn’t make the journey). While Carter’s plan has a certain neatness and pace that is appealing, a slower, more deliberate withdrawal would better serve our long-term interests. Such a gradual approach could motivate the various Iraqi groups to make a last-ditch effort to establish a less destructive modus vivendi, while giving us an opportunity to help out many of the Iraqis caught in the crossfire. Therefore, we should follow a timeline that will see all COW forces withdrawn from Iraq over the course of 10-14 months, while we hew to the road map set forth below.
The first step should be to encourage a new round of provincial elections. In the last local elections held in January 2005, the Sunni parties boycotted in protest. Thus, many predominately Sunni areas now have Shiite’s in charge of local government. It is important to reverse this dynamic and give Sunnis a greater sense of empowerment. These elections would help to establish a more widespread Sunni political representation that can begin to craft a unified voice with Sunni insurgents - who have, promisingly, begun forming a new political front. Such an alignment of political and armed wings is one of the requirements for eventually forging viable power-sharing arrangements (excluding the al-Qaeda inspired/affiliated combatants).
The next step should be to offer our assistance to any internally displaced Iraqis that wish to move to less hostile environs within Iraq. While some may view this proposal as encouraging ethnic cleansing, the fact is that violent ethnic cleansing is currently taking place in Iraq regardless. While we haven’t been able to prevent that, our assistance to Iraqis who wish to move voluntarily could provide a safe and organized evacuation as an alternative to the current haphazard flight under threat of violence – with Iraqis forced to abandon valuables and pay exorbitant amounts of money for transportation and resettlement.
Next, we must offer asylum to those courageous Iraqis who risked their lives, and the lives of their families, in order to cooperate with coalition authorities. Currently, the Bush administration is offering a paltry handful of visas to these imperiled Iraqi citizens. Instead, we should offer visas to the thousands of Iraqis who will be increasingly vulnerable post-withdrawal due to the stigma they carry as “collaborators.”
While the extent to which Iraq’s neighbors are interfering in Iraq to foster instability and violence is a matter of much debate, there is less controversy surrounding the notion that neighboring regimes could play a very constructive role in terms of preventing a spread of the violence from Iraq, and encouraging the various warring groups to find a sustainable model for conflict resolution. The prospects for coordinating and marshaling such a regional framework are not exactly promising, but we may enjoy a few advantages.
Even troublemakers like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran have an interest in keeping an Iraqi civil war from erupting into a regional war that would likely suck each party in at staggering costs in terms of lives lost and economic resources chewed up. Those can be powerful motivators - especially when the competing interest of seeing us drained of resources and weakened becomes moot due to our imminent withdrawal. We should try to capitalize on the insecurity and fear that our withdrawal could instill by encouraging the cooperation of interested parties. The ability to use this final bit of leverage is part of why withdrawing in a deliberate fashion is preferable to the lightning approach outlined by Phil Carter.
Of course, obtaining the cooperation of nations like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia will come at a cost above and beyond what each would perceive as the benefit of containing the neighboring conflict. Iran might seek non-aggression assurances, normalization of relations and possibly some sort of concession on their nuclear program.Syria would also likely push for normalization, an end to the UN tribunal investigating the assassination of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon and possibly the return of all or some of the Golan Heights. These demands may prove to be too bitter a pill to swallow for this or a subsequent administration (Israel as well in terms of Golan), but if the results of regional war following our withdrawal from Iraq are as dire as predicted, then it might be time to hold our noses on at least some of those demands.
As a necessary counterpart to the regional framework, the U.S. should court the United Nations and other capable NGOs in order to enlist their support in handling the potential refugee crises (setting up catch-basins along Iraq’s borders), and as possible contributors to peacekeeping missions down the road when a defensible peace materializes.
Regardless, and in tandem, we must re-dedicate ourselves to restarting the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. This is a lynchpin to so many of our efforts in the region including, but by no means limited to, gaining the support of Iraq’s neighbors. Progress on this front would also help to lessen the impact of the propaganda victory claimed by al-Qaeda upon our departure. Positive momentum in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would diminish one of al-Qaeda’s most powerful recruitment tools, and help to lower the temperature in the region generally speaking at a time when widespread escalation of conflict is a paramount strategic concern.
Ain’t No Half-Steppin’
Now that we’ve looked at some measures that should be taken, let’s turn to the “what not to do” list. First and foremost, we should not leave troops behind to continue to train Iraqi forces. The Iraqi military and police forces are organs of the Iraqi government, which itself is dominated by combatants in Iraq’s civil war. There isn’t any substantial Iraqi military or police force that is fighting for the exalted concept of “Iraq the nation,” nor can we train them to espouse such an outlook. Thus, we would be training and equipping soldiers who would be engaged in the very civil war that we are trying to end, and at enormous cost, for we would need to leave behind a large presence of troops to support and protect the trainers.
Proponents of leaving behind a residual force in Iraq also claim that these troops could defend Iraq from incursions by its neighbors. This argument is transparently weak. Which of Iraq’s neighbors would we supposedly be deterring? Most of the perimeter nations (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria) do not possess a military capable of seizing foreign territory - or an economy that could handle conquest. And in case any one failed to notice, the Iraqis don’t seem to take to kindly to foreign interlopers. Are we really to believe that where the US military has failed in terms of establishing a sustainable presence in Iraq, the Jordanian or Syrian army will succeed?
One possible rejoinder would be that Iran could attempt such an aggressive annexation, and that it’s military might have the muscle to succeed. Aside from the fact that a cash-strapped Iran could ill-afford the expense (and will have influence/access through its Shiite allies regardless), we can dissuade such an act by sending a very clear message that any foreign power (other than us) that tries to infringe upon Iraq’s territorial integrity would receive a healthy dose of shock and awe.
The only other credible military threat would be the Turks, who might feel pressed to cross Iraq’s northern border to take on the Kurds more than the current round of shelling. However, our presence is not preventing the Turks from encroaching on Kurdistan today, so there’s no reason to believe we will serve as such a deterrent in the future. In response, some have suggested putting a residual force of troops in Iraqi Kurdistan itself. This, however, would put us in a lose-lose position where we would get further entangled in intractable, unwinnable local conflicts of dubious strategic importance to us.
This same cost-benefit analysis should also be applied to plans to leave behind a large embassy staff and/or al-Qaeda hunting teams. In each case, the active forces would need re-supply, support and protection troops. Thus, missions that would only require small units to handle discrete objectives would end up requiring tens of thousands of troops in ancillary roles, thus ensuring that our overall troops presence would remain at unsustainable levels. A better proposal would be to work with neighbors like Jordan that may allow us to house clandestine garrisons that could partake in limited anti-al-Qaeda activities when needed, and keep the bulk of forces over the horizon. As for the embassy, manning that post will have to wait for a time when protecting it will not require such a muscular presence in a country where exactly such a presence has been the source of much pain to us and the Iraqis alike. Beware of any and all plans that call for a continued military presence in Iraq.
Finally, some observers have put forth plans for partitioning Iraq (including soft partitions) which would entail separating Iraq into three separate countries divided along ethnic/sectarian lines with Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions (or three distinct regions with a very weak central government in the case of a “soft partition”). The benefits of such a plan remain doubtful at best due to the fact that the scarcity of resources, and the respective claims to dominion over all of “Iraq” which are adding fuel to the civil wars, would not be remedied by such a partition (with the relatively oil-poor western region going to the already aggrieved Sunnis). A formal partition could actually harden attitudes and set up future wars, with states fighting for the same limited resources being vied for in the current civil wars.Not to mention that, regardless of the merits, such a major decision should be left to the Iraqis and not be imposed by an outside occupier. If the Iraqis so decide, we should provide assistance.
I Grow Weary of the End
These are not perfect solutions to the Iraq quagmire, but there are none out there. All options will lead to violence and suffering for the already beleaguered Iraqi people, and negatively impact our interests - even and especially escalation or simply remaining in Iraq. Some would point to the above suggestions and argue that withdrawal will not compel Iraq’s warring factions to pursue peaceful resolution, or get Iraq’s neighbors to contribute positively. To the extent those arguments have merit, though, they would apply even if we keep troops in Iraq for the next decade (which could cost upwards of $5-10 trillion dollars and 10,000 more lives). Even if this last gambit fails, we can avoid the economic costs of remaining in Iraq and the enormous strain on our all volunteer army (not to mention the diplomatic costs, blight on our image and distraction from other important foreign and domestic exigencies).
We must confront the fact that we lack the lever with which to pry victory from the clenched jaws of defeat. With this in mind, we must not make the perfect the enemy of the less calamitous. It is better, in the end, to liquidate our unsound position than to cling to any remnant of this failure for fear of acknowledging what it is.
Posted in Uncategorized |
July 26th, 2007 at 4:52 am
An effective piece Eric that outlines some of the problematics w/ a continuance of the occupation & gives a decent overview of the complexities involved in a troop withdrawal whilst offering some plausible options if that decision is eventually made.
I would like to see Bill Clinton involved in the diplomatic discussions w/ Iraq’s neighbours. I believe he has the bona-fides due to his involvement in a conflict wherein American troops under his Supreme Command prevented a possible genocide of Moslems in Kosova…& his attempts to broker a deal between Palestinians & Israelis.
I do worry about the general public’s response to providing sanctuary for persecuted Iraqis considering the heightened tensions between the Christian & Islamic communities that already exists in COW nations…perhaps some kind of refugee exchange programme could be brokered w/ Nations not involved in the Fiasco. And obviously some form of local televised Summits will have to be held inviting various influential political, social & religious groups & Leaders, including Moderate Islamics, in order to get substantial feedback regarding methods to help integrate those Iraqi Moslems & others of Faith who cannot find alternative destinations. The public’s fears must be allayed. Not mine however…:)
If the Extremist’s focus is taken off Iraq due to the exodus of American troops, is it not likely that Jordan could become a ‘hot spot’ emanating from its Palestinian population if it was discovered that the authorities were permitting American clandestine bases?
Would it not be better to use bases in Qatar etc. that are already available?
As for Turkey. I imagine the EU & America could use certain carrots in order to deter a furtherance of the conflict w/ the Kurds. Particularly as more money would become available once the military venture was reduced. Of course reintroduction of troops into civilian life & ongoing healthcare & other issues for Veterans will be expensive…but surely some moneys could be retrieved from Corporations that misappropriated & abused funds provided for reconstruction, catering for workers etc.
As for the Kurdish territory, why not reinstitute some kind of ‘no-fly zone’. Make it a protectorate or such.
Tho w/ American Neo-Cons prepared to bomb the crap out of Iran & expand the theatre of the War like these:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm
it’s hard to believe that any kind of withdrawal will occur in the near future. Let’s hope enuff Americans have as much determination & common-sense as you Eric so the Busheviks plans can be derailed. Or they can be convinced to take a less antagonistic approach.
Gawd forbid if they stirred up the Hornet’s Nests in Iran & Pakistan. I think it would be good night & farewell to the Human Race…or at least a century of comflict.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:24 am
I would like to see Bill Clinton involved in the diplomatic discussions w/ Iraq’s neighbours. I believe he has the bona-fides due to his involvement in a conflict wherein American troops under his Supreme Command prevented a possible genocide of Moslems in Kosova…& his attempts to broker a deal between Palestinians & Israelis.
That’s a fine idea. I love it.
I do worry about the general public’s response to providing sanctuary for persecuted Iraqis considering the heightened tensions between the Christian & Islamic communities that already exists in COW nations
So do I. But you know, Iraqis tend to be pretty secular - especially the ones working with/for COW forces.
If the Extremist’s focus is taken off Iraq due to the exodus of American troops, is it not likely that Jordan could become a ‘hot spot’ emanating from its Palestinian population if it was discovered that the authorities were permitting American clandestine bases?
Would it not be better to use bases in Qatar etc. that are already available?
Perhaps, but Qatar is not contiguous, so it rules out the use of certain ground based equipment. Proximity is also less ideal.
As for Turkey. I imagine the EU & America could use certain carrots in order to deter a furtherance of the conflict w/ the Kurds.
I’m not so confident. The PKK is killing Turks, and money isn’t what Turkey’s after here. Same with the PKK.
Gawd forbid if they stirred up the Hornet’s Nests in Iran & Pakistan. I think it would be good night & farewell to the Human Race…or at least a century of comflict.
Sadly, this is pretty close to true I fear.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Eric, have a listen to this satellite interview with Michael Yon on the ground in Iraq.
http://politicscentral.com/2007/07/23/the_glenn_and_helen_show_micha_4.php
He doesn’t guild the lily, referring to past mistakes in Iraq ie not enough troops, but there is hope that under Petraeus and the hard lessons learned, that progress is being made. Perhaps here also it has taken time for the horrors of AQ to turn the local populace against them. Whatever your initial stance on Iraq, I think you’ll agree after listening to a true voice like Yon, that the decision to withdraw now lies with Petraeus and not the politicians. That is of course Bush’s stance and ultimately Howard’s now. Petraeus will not flog dead horses for any political master now.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Also, withdrawal from Iraq would be a recipe for withdrawal from Afghanistan, as AQ and the various Jihadist groups swing their attention there. (at present they are pinned down in Iraq)That is the clear dilemma for a Rudd Govt in what you propose now.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Obs al Qaeda isn’t a transnational military force deploying troops from one region to another like a nation state. The vast majority of people fighting in Iraq are Iraqis. The biggest group of foreigners are Saudi suicide bombers. The only people ‘pinned down’ anywhere are the hordes of American hangers-on in the Baghdad green zone.
This should all be old news to anyone who takes an informed interest in what is actually occurring, as opposed to swallowing the bullshit spouted by Joe Lieberman, Tony Snow, Dick Cheney, Bill O’Reilly and whichever other Bush apologists you read.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
I know you can’t change history, but it baffles me as to why the CoW really went into Iraq. Incompetance can be the only certain reason.
Can anyone remind me of a conflict where a nation started a war and actually won it in the longer term? I can’t think of one.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Ken, change ‘at present they are pinned down in Iraq’ to mean ‘at present they are concentrated on Iraq’
July 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
So what did you make of Michael Yon’s report? I thought his conclusion was it’s Petraeus’ call.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
“I know you can’t change history, but it baffles me as to why the CoW really went into Iraq”
If you read Blair in particular, post 9/11, it was all about creating a beacon of light in the ME. After the end of the Cold War, coupled with 9/11,he and Bush saw the ME as the great threat to world peace. They also had a problem with a recalcitrant dictator with an intransigent record and probably knew sanctions were failing. Also as far as a BOL, Iraq was supposedly a secular state, with a reasonably educated elite and oil to fund their new creation. You might say naive now under the circumstances, but it’s all water under the bridge. The Default Plan B, or worst case scenario, which surely would have been canvassed, was that it may leave the Sunnis and Shia to face off in the ME to work out which was the ‘true’ Islam. Either that or they exhaust themselves like Catholics and Protestants in NI. That would certainly split AQ and the Jihadists allegiance. Machiavellian pragmatism of course, but it may be our best hope now. I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, if not for Iraq as a focus for the Jihadists, would Afghanistan be exactly where Iraq is now. I believe the answer to that is a resounding yes.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Which obviously begs the question. If you believe in pulling out odf Iraq, why not Afghanisatn at the same time? That will be the Rudd’s dilemma.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
You’re assuming that the US PR in relation to Iraq has at least a minimal connection to their real intentions. It doesn’t. They’re NOT leaving Iraq. Period. They fully intend to attack Iran, likely this year. All the other stuff — al Qaeda in Iraq, benchmarks, reporting in Sep, blather, blather, blather… that’s all for the rubes. Peace proposals of the type Tim outlines are irrelevant. The real motives of these guys are something else altogether. Their contempt for the public, the US Congress, the people of Iraq, the wider world - everybody - is unlimited. All the talk in the world is wasted. They’re running their own show and they don’t give a flying ****. They are NOT leaving!
Jeff Huber is good — http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/
July 26th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
“If you read Blair in particular, post 9/11, it was all about creating a beacon of light in the ME. After the end of the Cold War, coupled with 9/11,he and Bush saw the ME as the great threat to world peace. They also had a problem with a recalcitrant dictator with an intransigent record and probably knew sanctions were failing. Also as far as a BOL, Iraq was supposedly a secular state, with a reasonably educated elite and oil to fund their new creation. You might say naive now under the circumstances, but it’s all water under the bridge. The Default Plan B, or worst case scenario, which surely would have been canvassed, was that it may leave the Sunnis and Shia to face off in the ME to work out which was the ‘true’ Islam. Either that or they exhaust themselves like Catholics and Protestants in NI”
Right wingers do say the darndast things! Obs Blairs only thought process in Britains involvement in Iraq was he was told to go by his masters in Washington.Poms like to strut the world stage like it’s the “Battle of Britain” all over again,maybe it was some sought after redemption from the total balls up and humiliation after the Suez crisis.Maybe it was a latent apology for not helping their cousins to fuck up Viet Nam.
So Bush saw the M.E. as the biggest threat to world peace did he? You are delusional if you think for a nano second Bush pre 9/11, knew where the M.E. was on a map.This man is the biggest threat to world peace,and as we all navel gaze about Iraq they are on course to gin up another crises in Iran.If the Iraq war and its aftermath had gone to plan, the bombs would be no doubt streaming down on Iran.God forbid it may still be on the cards.
So they knew sanctions wern’t working! You must be joking they were working beyond their wildest dreams,you saw it first hand with the amount of children dieing from lack of medicines and other necessities of life. What unmitigated, unadulterated fucking rubbish.Bush Blair et al should be in the Hague for what they have done to Iraq.
So the Catholics aka I.R.A. were exausting themselves in N.I.? If I told my Irish Granny that she would piss herself laughing.Now if you had of said the Brits were exausting themselves well Obs you would have a point.
Iraq will go the way of Viet Nam,the helicopters will come in to scoop up the last of the long suffering soldiers from the green zone,reminesent of the embassy in Saigon.Then the new crop of Rony Kovacs of the war will suffer the recurring night mares of this whole fiasco.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Observa you keep saying the pulling out of troops is a problem for Rudd, why is it a problem for Rudd?
Let’s get real here (from reading you idealistic rhetoric it might be hard for you), Australia has a piddling military presence on the ground in Iraq and even less in Afghanistan. They could pull out completely in 24 hours and would not be missed. The fact is just to keep our troops there to make him look strong on security, since before the last election Howard has been making up things for them to do and finding them employment even where it was necessary or wanted.
What Rudd proposes in redirecting efforts towards Afghanistan and implementing better targeted aid and reconstruction efforts there, is a far more practical and constructive use of our resources than the pottering around Howard keeps indulging in for the purely political purpose of self aggrandisement and wedging.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Nasking, the US does not have the forces to send to Kurdistan. Besides, who’s side are they going to be on? If they back the Kurds they cross Turkey. If they publicly back Turkey they are crossing one of their major allies in Baghdad. It’s a total loser. You also should note in the current climate of Iran-demonization that Iran has been shipping weapons to Syria with the help of Turkey. Late in May the Kurdish PKK derailed one of these trains. Eight or nine of the cars were carrying weapons, including mortars, rockets, and sniper rifles, along with other military equipment. Now, Iran, they’re the bad guys, right? And Turkey?- they’re a major NATO ally, they’re on our side, right? So of course they’re going to work hand in hand with Iran. What the ****?! So unless the US decides to start shipping some Turkish generals to Gitmo (which they won’t do because they all work together so well on the American Turkish Council endorsing illicit arms deals funded by drug trafficking) then the Kurdistan-Turkey conflict is going to be left to work itself out. The Kurds are going to lose. Again.
link link
July 26th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Sorry, that is “wasn’t necessary or wanted” at the bottom of the second paragraph.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
“..you keep saying the pulling out of troops is a problem for Rudd, why is it a problem for Rudd?”
MD, I agree generally that Oz has such a piddling part in both theatres that we could pull out of them both at any time. The only problem for Rudd pulling unilaterally out of Afghanistan is the loss of face, when he has supported this ‘good’ war. Well, unless he wants to take the opportunity of pulling out of Iraq and afgh at the same time, taking the line to allies that we have important work for them to do close to home. That would be the consistent approach, but do you really think he’ll do that? My take is, if he doesn’t, he’ll eventually get caught up with the same quagmire in Afghanistan, as the fundies switch their attention there. He could well face the farcical situation of a 2010 election of supporting an unpopular war himself with the Lib Opposition calling for the troops home by Xmas. A week’s a long time in politics as they say.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I might add you’ve got to remember I’ve been around politics long enough to watch a Labor Govt float the dollar and free up the economy while the Libs scratch their heads and now the demise of the ATSIC Dreamtimers and support for putting the troops into aboriginal lands. Rollback or protecting more Tas old growth forests anyone? Get the picture?
July 26th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Let me put it to you another way MD. Suppose Howard does a Sheeds and stands down and Costello takes over. He announces that Australia will be pulling its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan at the end of September, in order to concentrate on problems close to home. How would you like to be the Rudd Opposition saying we should pull out of Iraq but stay the course in Afghanistan folks? Who do you reckon the punters would go with?
Leave a Reply
July 26th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
How’s the flu obs? Time to head back to the office soon I hope?
July 27th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Whatever your initial stance on Iraq, I think you’ll agree after listening to a true voice like Yon, that the decision to withdraw now lies with Petraeus and not the politicians.
No. Petraeus is a general. In America, civilians control the military, not the other way around. Further, generals typically are confident, determined and believe they can achieve most any mission. That’s how I want my generals to be. I don’t want them to change. Of course, we civilians must then apply reason and analysis to the “can-do” attitude of our generals.
No matter how optimistic Yon or Petraeus is, the underlying dynamic is more powerful than Petraeus’s intentions, and he lacks the troops to achieve his goals. We know this because it says that he lacks the troops in the same COIN manual that he helped author!
That is of course Bush’s stance and ultimately Howard’s now.
Bush fired the generals that began to express doubt and oppose escalation. He then appointed a general that believed he could succeed. That Bush is backing a general that espouses Bush’s view is a circular justification.
Also, withdrawal from Iraq would be a recipe for withdrawal from Afghanistan, as AQ and the various Jihadist groups swing their attention there.
First of all, al-Qaeda is in the Pakistan/Afghanistan region right now causing trouble. The number of foreign fighters that are in Iraq that would move to Afghanistan is not going to swing the conflict one way or the other. Withdrawal from Iraq would, however, free up thousands of badly needed soldiers to help out the flagging mission in Afghanistan. A mission that has always been under-resourced to the exigencies of Iraq.
Withdrawing from Iraq would be a recipe for succeeding in Afghanistan!
July 27th, 2007 at 1:59 am
They also had a problem with a recalcitrant dictator with an intransigent record and probably knew sanctions were failing.
Sanctions were being violated in terms of money for oil, but they were extremely effective at keeping Saddam weaponless. It would have been far easier to repair/smarten the sanctions than to invade, depose the regime and build a new, unified, peaceful, stable, friendly Iraq in the aftermath.
I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, if not for Iraq as a focus for the Jihadists, would Afghanistan be exactly where Iraq is now. I believe the answer to that is a resounding yes.
No. The “jihadists” haven’t wrecked Iraq. Again, the number of foreign fighters in Iraq is, and has always been, negligible. Iraq is beset by civil wars fueled by competition for money and power.
Further, Iran has cooperated with US forces in Afghanistan (very supportive of Karzai, since the Taliban were their enemies), whereas in Iraq, neighboring states have had less incentive.
My take is, if he doesn’t, he’ll eventually get caught up with the same quagmire in Afghanistan, as the fundies switch their attention there.
You also have to understand that public opposition to the invasion of Iraq was much, much stronger in the Muslim world than to the invasion of Afghanistan. Many, even tacitly, acknowledged that we had valid justification to invade Afghanistan given the events of 9/11.
There was, however, no justification to attack Iraq. Even under the most charitable of readings concerning our motives, we invaded Iraq and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis to perform a grandiose political/economic experiment.
And that’s the most charitable reading - which we are unlikely to get regardless (not that it would help us much).
July 27th, 2007 at 4:02 am
I’m thinking more of using NATO forces w/in a ‘no-fly zone’ structure…the autonomy of Kurdistan was previously assisted by this strategy. See it more as a deterrent for any mass action by the Iranians. As for the PKK, i wonder if there are lessons that could be learnt from the Spanish Government’s approaches to dealing w/ ETA?
July 27th, 2007 at 4:26 am
Come on Obs!…you & I both know there is more happenin’ than meets the eye…or hits the front page of ‘The Australian’. Thousands deployed into that Afghan/Iraq/Gulf theatre…& of course, the SAS numbers we tend to keep to ourselves…& what’s w/ all the private security/mercenary types over there?
And us takin’ on the yank’s job in the Phillipines?…and the intriguing visit by Cheney?…& the Kitty Hawk…?…and the not so subtle recruitment drive?…
and the uranium to be sent to India just minutes before the meltdown in Pakistan?…which surely will spread into the neighbour’s territory.
And simultaneously the line between the AFP (Australian Federal Police) & the army being intentionally blurred, including 1200 to be turned into some kind of Paramilitary force (which did make the Aussie papers:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22134638-31477,00.html)
& for what purposes? Obviously not to take on every anglo-european uni-graduated Tom Courtenay wannabe…so what gives?
I reckon yer lads need to fess up to the citizenry real soon or loyalty to this Nation is gonna fall to the wayside big time.
Loyalty & patriotism are earnt.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:48 am
July 27th, 2007 at 4:51 am
July 27th, 2007 at 4:54 am
The new power organisations are destroying the forests of the world at headlong speed, ploughing great grazing areas into deserts, exhausting mineral resources, killing off whales, seals and a multitude of rare and beautiful species, destroying the morale of every social type and devastating the planet. The institutions of the private appropriation of land and natural resources generally, and of private enterprise for profit, which did produce a fairly tolerable, stable and “civilised” social life for all but the most impoverished, in Europe, America and East, for some centuries, have been expanded to a monstrous destructiveness by the new opportunities. The patient, nibbling, enterprising profit-seeker of the past, magnified and equipped now with the huge claws and teeth the change of scale has provided for him, has torn the old economic order to rags. Quite apart from war, our planet is being wasted and disorganised. Yet the process goes on, without any general control, more monstrously destructive even than the continually enhanced terrors of modern warfare.
This war storm which is breaking upon us now, due to the continued fragmentation of human government among a patchwork of sovereign states, is only one aspect of the general need for a rational consolidation of human affairs. The independent sovereign state with its perpetual war threat, armed with the resources of modern mechanical frightfulness, is only the most blatant and terrifying aspect of that same want of a coherent general control that makes overgrown, independent, sovereign, private business organisations and combinations, socially destructive. We should still be at the mercy of the “Napoleons” of commerce and the “Attilas” of finance, if there was not a gun or a battleship or a tank or a military uniform in the world. We should still be sold up and dispossessed.
Political federation, we have to realise, without a concurrent economic collectivisation, is bound to fail. The task of the peace-maker who really desires peace in a new world, involves not merely a political but a profound social revolution, profounder even than the revolution attempted by the Communists in Russia. The Russian Revolution failed not by its extremism but through the impatience, violence and intolerance of its onset, through lack of foresight and intellectual insufficiency. The cosmopolitan revolution to a world collectivism, which is the only alternative to chaos and degeneration before mankind, has to go much further than the Russian; it has to be more thorough and better conceived and its achievement demands a much more heroic and more steadfast thrust.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:59 am
excerpts from:
H. G. WELLS
THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Whether it is attainable, how it can be attained, and what sort of world a world at peace will have to be.
First Published . . January 1940.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/new_world_order_hgwells.htm
and so, in the fog…we hear the thunder…of THE GATHERING STORM.
no LIGHT…no LIGHT.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:04 am
unless…
the answers are in the many blog pages…& the voices of the blogosphere, both living & dead…& in the heart of the constructor & his blood…& the the so called ‘common enemy’…those who should no better by now.
N’
July 27th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
George Bush, in his 4th July speech, declared: “we must defeat al Qaeda in Iraq.”
With that statement, one would expect a formidable foe. Yet US and international agencies agree there are 20-30,000 insurgents in Iraq only 2-5% of which are foreign fighters. That’s only 400 - 1500 foreign fighters in all of Iraq - most of whom are not connected to al Qaeda at all. The rest are Iraqis.
The Arabic speaking CENTCOM Commander, Gen. John Abizaid, puts the figure of foreign fighters in Iraq at only 5,000 - which would mean an al Qaeda component of, at best, a few hundred throughout the country. Most of these are al Qaeda in ideology only with little or no connection to bin Laden operatives.
So why is Bush scaring the West about a few hundred al Qaeda fighters in Iraq, most of whom are hated by the Iraqis anyway? Our media is uncritically cooperating with this misrepresentation of the Iraq conflict as a jihadist struggle. In reality, it is a local resistance to an illegal occupation.
July 27th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
So why is Bush scaring the West about a few hundred al Qaeda fighters in Iraq, most of whom are hated by the Iraqis anyway? Our media is uncritically cooperating with this misrepresentation of the Iraq conflict as a jihadist struggle. In reality, it is a local resistance to an illegal occupation.
Bush is is fully aware, as well as was Blair this war was a total cock up.Bush has been fortunate thus far,it cost Blair his job, now they have come this far they have to keep finding reasons to justify remaining.In my opinion they will have to pull out,however I am not surprised they are taking their own sweet time about it.
Anyone who remembers the Viet Nam conflict would remember that the U.S. went through its greatest period of violent dissent,in its history.The public were close to storming the White House.I was a serving member of the Army at the time of the Viet Nam conflict,and its whole culture was geared up for its prosecution.
And right to the end,the bullshit was layed on thick as mash spud.No history about the conflict!just it was about the communists.
To give you an idea of how low the media will stoop in its propaganda.My brother was serving in Viet Nam during 1971/72 he was on the beach near Vung Tau,he was approached by channel nine to see if he would like to send a message home and be on the tele.Well the upshot was they put a set of water ski’s under his arm, and then proceeded to give him the answers to the stock questions.To add insult to injury my brother had never been water sking in his fucking life.
Still, then as now there are as many fuck wits defending both wars as the “War of the white race” against the hordes.Only fuck heads as thick as two short planks defend any of it.
July 27th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
It’s worse, Phill. Most of the foreign fighters are Saudis, our supposed “ally” in the War on Terror. 90% of US servicemen who have been killed in Iraq have died in Sunni controlled areas that have been backed by Saudi Arabia. 45% of all foreign fighters targeting coalition troops and Iraqi civilians are from Saudi Arabia.
25,000 Saudi nationals attended jihadist or al Qaeda training camps in the years prior to 9/11. 95% of young Saudi men surveyed after 9/11 approved of bin Laden and his attacks. Of the 9/11 hijackers, 15 of the 19 were Saudis.
The US Congress held hearings in June 2006 that explored the sources of funding for Islamic terrorism. It was headed by Senators Jon Kyl and Chuck Schumer. The FBI’s assistant director for Counter Terrorism called Saudi Arabia the very “epicenter” of terror funding and confirmed explicitly that such funding included al Qaeda. These are our supposed allies in the War On Terror. The US almost certainly knows the names of people assisting al Qaeda in this way, but refuses to prosecute them.
Instead, we get straight out lies about how Iran is helping al Qaeda in Afghanistan. There’s a minor difficulty in that they hate each others guts but, hey, why let a few facts stand in the way of a good reason for attacking Iran.
Until recently, the US leadership has been backing the Shiaa in Iraq against the Sunni. But Cheney went to Saudi Arabia a few months ago and they told him “lay off our guys” or…[mutterings about oil etc]. So Bush and Cheney are switching sides in mid stream. Seymour Hersh explains it all here. It has nothing to do with peace in Iraq. The US wants to stay in Iraq and control the oil. They will back anybody who will bring them that outcome.
And our press mentions NONE of this.
July 27th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
kenj, i agree w/ you…much of the corporate media is pushing the Al-Qaeda bogeymen line Ad-nauseum…ignoring the facts on the ground…they have at their disposal an easily identifiable common-enemy constructed for the purpose to put fear & angst into the public & to grab attention, even ‘hook’ them into the next topic or show…it provides the media w/ high ratings, plenty of accompanying advertising dollars, ensuring a connection w/ 9/11, focusing the people’s eyes on Al-Qaeda promotional videos that are either old, or bogus, or seem to pop up at the most convenient of times diversion-wise for the Neo-Cons & their advisors.
And in turn, hoping the public don’t demand to know what the REAL GRIPES & VIEWS of the ‘insurgents’ & fighting groups are.
That WE don’t look under the carpet…or try to get to the ROOTS of the conflict.
(from: Al Qaeda’s Best Publicist: George W. Bush By: Nicole Belle on Thursday, July 26th, 2007 at 3:45 PM)
Yes, i imagine Bush & Co. have recognised that repetitious utterances of the Bogeyman’s name & his group of monster fanatics did wonders for early recruitment drives & convincing soldiers to re-enlist…tho even Goebbel’s reckoned that if you repeat something too often the desired effect wears off…now GW is starting to sound like a kooky parrot desperate for food.
You see, H.G. Wells got it…the writer of ‘War of the Worlds’ was more than a sci-fi writer, he analysed History…observed the build up to Wars & Depression & wrote down his opinion, valuable opinion. He knew that the only way to prevent War…or the escalation of such, was to ensure that the People spoke out, the Observers got their day thru Free Speech (as is happening on this very blog, this brilliant thread by Eric)…he had become totally aware of the addiction to armaments & profits that were going on in some circles…how the pursuit of resources, combined w/ zealotry & arrogance of the influential & Powerful tended to lead to these Horrors time & time again. And if only a CHOSEN FEW influential characters were allowed to DEFINE the issue, we would find ourselves in War, over & over again, as his World was when he wrote the above in 1940…w/ Europe battling against Fascism/Nazism & America on the verge of jumping in.
Wells recognised that by gagging the storytellers, educators, historians, philosophers, philanthropists, wise ones, diplomats & so on…these MEN of INFLUENCE, these RULING CLASSES, these “NAPOLEONS of COMMERCE” would end up assisting the construction & propping up horrendous regimes for profit-seeking purposes…regimes that would eventually EXPLODE outwards.
Interestingly, he saw the answer, like Gene Roddenberry of Star Trek in a New World Order.
Little did he know that his positive ideas, combined w/ others of like mind, would spur on some of these World dominating leaders & media types. How ironic that the works or letters of Nietzsche, Darwin, Einstein & other geniuses should be so perverted in translation & used so selectively by madmen in order to execute their will upon the World Stage.
This is essential reading regarding the US Embassy in Baghdad:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/26/2772/
Eric, how likely is it that the USA will abandon this project?
Tho it would make for an interesting place to hold an Iraqi Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
July 27th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Phill, well said…the attempted use of your brother by Ch.9 for propaganda doesn\’t surprise me in the least.They tried to set up a bunch of Islander kids at a train station here in Logan, make them look like threatening L.A. style gang members…all caught on surveillance video BTW. And still not released to the public, unfortunately . They have no shame.
And Governments & the media wonder why the citizenry lose trust in them.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Eric, how likely is it that the USA will abandon this project?
Not likely, but then, there may come a point when we don’t have a choice. I’m trying to push in the direction of making the choice to leave this project on something resembling our own terms.