From guest poster Daniel Markham:
I thought I would put on my process wonk hat and take a look at the Iraq Study Group report.
As you may know, part of my day job is teaching and applying technology strategy. Most anybody who uses a computer knows that computerized systems have a way of becoming very complicated very quickly. A user presses the red button one day and the system does X. He presses the red button the next day and it does Y. When you're using one program, fixing this is known as debugging. But with 40 systems, 200 programmers, 3 divisions, and offices all over the country, it's different. How do you organize and align key business processes in such a complex environment? How do you see the big picture?
What I find the most is that people get lost in the details. They stop seeing the forest for the trees. Part of this is because each person has their own area of interest or specialty: the guys in finance don't understand or care much what goes on in shipping, and the guys in manufacturing don't think of the procurement guys as much more than impediments to getting work done.
It becomes really difficult, then, for large organizations to get a grip on what's going on, how to fix it, and what's important to fix and what isn't. I could write a book on this (and I am), but for now, let's take that experience of reading committee reports and organizing complex systems and put it to work on the ISG report.
A practical and simple set of questions can "cut to the chase" when dealing with complex processes in an organization:
- What are your objectives?
- Are they worth it? (What are the consequences of both success or failure? Usually measured in dollars)
- Do you have concrete, measurable goals in support of your objectives?
- Are you executing to these goals?
- Are you measuring and reacting to your risks realtime?
In the west, public opinion about Iraq is all over the place. There were people for it originally who are against it now, and vice-versa. Our primary feedback mechanism, media reports, tell us every day about new bombings and atrocities. In addition, just like my example, everybody has their area of expertise and they are fairly blind in other areas. The military are experts on various types of military missions, but are out of depth when it comes to flexibility and agile project management. Other agencies are inept and muddled when it comes to using military power. Citizens who are religious see the war in religious terms and care less about pragmatism. Citizens who are realists see short term choices and regulate most predictions about the future as being unreliable. Our recent election made several of our anti-peacekeeping voices a lot louder.
So I suggest that let's all take a deep breath, back away, and look at the situation in Iraq dispassionately. It's The Big Picture. I am not going to fight the battle of the-mistake-we-went-in again, nor am I going to reminisce about if-only-Iraq-were-Switzerland. Let's ask the questions we would ask any organization and see what the Iraq Study Group has for answers. Let's specifically ask what the objectives are and are they worth it. We can do the other questions later, but I feel that even this may be too much for some readers.
What are your objectives?
Oddly enough, we go through 30 pages in the ISG report until they finally get around to telling us what our goals are. On page 31 they say:
We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by the President: an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. In our view, this definition entails an Iraq with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn't brutalize its own people.
In my opinion, this is a mushy list. There are no positive, clear, measurement criteria. "Governing itself" could mean any number of things, as could "sustaining itself" and "defending itself" Never fear though, Lets play around with the wording a bit. It seems the goals of the US are: 1. Continued elections even if people who are against the US get elected 2. Iraq pays its own bills for security and whatever else it wants 3. Iraq has an army that can keep the Iranians, Syrians, Turks, and Saudis and others from making Iraq their backyard proxy war
In addition, we also want to make sure: 4. No use of Iraq as a terrorist base 5. No abusing the Iraqi people
How do we measure each of these objectives? Let's give it a shot. To reach each goal you must: 1. Continue to have elections where the government changes and new blood is brought in 2. Demonstrate the majority of the infrastructure money in Iraq comes from Iraqi sources 3. This is subjective, and can only be measured by opinion. I believe the opinion of the Iraqi public would be the ones to measure. So -- make sure the Iraqi people are happy with the degree of infiltration and influence from foreign powers 4. This is also subjective, and requires the United States to make a judgment, just as we do in other countries. A house with 3 idiots with bombs in it is not a terrorist base. I believe this is something that is negotiated on an ongoing basis between the US and foreign governments. So we build a repeatable consistent system of identifying and using violent force against terrorists in Iraq that is amenable to both parties 5. Civil rights, elimination of death squads, no torture, etc -- great objectives, certainly. But it is not up to us to define this further. If Iraq is selecting and rotating its leaders, and it the people regularly speak, then the people of Iraq will decide what degree of personal freedom they are willing to trade for security. As long as they have free political speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to vote, it would be unwise and hypocritical for us to judge them as if they were bugs under our microscope. If they want to summarily execute rebels, as we did in the civil war, or burn homes to the ground, or imprison people with little legal recourse, we may not approve of these things, but we are not the ones who count. So -- the American people feel that the Iraqis are free enough to change political leaders and we stay out of the way for the rest of it.
Out of our five objectives, two can be objectively measured externally, two are the business of the Iraqis, and one is a joint effort between friendly countries. For those objectives that are the responsibility of the Iraqis to measure, we are indeed in an interesting pickle: we have national goals that we are not responsible for measuring or defining success. Without getting into the constitutionality of such goals, they seem problematic at best. Number 3 especially seems tricky: we obviously have skin in the game as we don't want foreign powers making Iraq a playground, but whether that is actually happening or not is debatable ad infinitum unless those powers actually start setting up puppet governments with little flags on the government buildings. I am concerned that the American public does not know enough on an ongoing basis to understand or decide progress on this objective even if it is ours to manage.
It is very interesting that "Stopping the bombing" is not a direct objective. Obviously it is impossible to completely stop the bombing, and the question of what degree of bombing is acceptable is one for the Iraqis to decide. Also missing was "Secure our troops". Many people seem to view any loss of American life as too much, for those people it seems the ISG can only offer generalities. Troops and resources should be expended in support of our objectives, to the degree that the resulting equation makes sense, it appears. Which leads us to our second question.
Is it worth it?
There are two ways to measure worth, the value of success and the pain of defeat. The ISG has something to say on both of these counts. On the value of success, immediately following on page 31 we have this nugget:
"it will offer people of Iraq a reasonable opportunity to lead a better life than they did under Saddam Hussein. Our recommended course has shortcomings, as does each of the policy alternatives we have reviewed. We firmly believe, however, that it includes the best strategies and tactics available to us to positively influence the outcome in Iraq and the region. We believe that it could enable a responsible transition that will give the Iraqi people a chance to pursue a better future, as well as serving America's interests and values in the years ahead"
So the upside is: 1. Iraqis have a better life than they did before 2. We positively influence the region 3. Iraqis can pursue a better future 4. It serves our interests
Pardon me, but this verbiage is not very useful. What is the dollar value of the benefits of this plan? How do we measure the benefit in real terms of any of this? Is this an Iraqi plan, or an American plan?
So what are we trying to avoid? What's the pain if we fail?
If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe for Iraq, the United States, the region, and the world. Continuing violence could lead toward greater chaos, and inflict greater suffering upon the Iraqi people. A collapse of Iraq's government and economy would further cripple a country already unable to meet its people's needs. Iraq's security forces could split along sectarian lines. A humanitarian catastrophe could follow as more refugees are forced to relocate across the country and the region. Ethnic cleansing could escalate. The Iraqi people could be subjected to another strongman who flexes the political and military muscle required to impose order amid anarchy. Freedoms could be lost.Other countries in the region fear significant violence crossing their borders. Chaos in Iraq could lead those countries to intervene to protect their own interests, thereby perhaps sparking a broader regional war. Turkey could send troops into northern Iraq to prevent Kurdistan from declaring independence. Iran could send in troops to restore stability in southern Iraq and perhaps gain control of oil fields. The regional influence of Iran could rise at a time when that country is on a path to producing nuclear weapons.
Ambassadors from neighboring countries told us that they fear the distinct possibility of Sunni-Shia clashes across the Islamic world. Many expressed a fear of Shia insurrections -- perhaps fomented by Iran -- in Sunni-ruled states. Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a Pandora's box of problems --including the radicalization of populations, mass movements of populations, and regime changes -- that might take decades to play out. If the instability in Iraq spreads to the other Gulf States, a drop in oil production and exports could lead to a sharp increase in the price of oil and thus could harm the global economy.
Terrorism could grow. As one Iraqi official told us, "Al Qaeda is now a franchise in Iraq, like McDonald's." Left unchecked, al Qaeda in Iraq could continue to incite violence between Sunnis and Shia. A chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally. Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden, has declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda: they will seek to expel the Americans and then spread "the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq." A senior European official told us that failure in Iraq could incite terrorist attacks within his country.
The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends further into chaos. Iraq is a major test of, and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial capacities. Perceived failure there could diminish America's credibility and influence in a region that is the center of the Islamic world and vital to the world's energy supply. This loss would reduce America's global influence at a time when pressing issues in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere demand our full attention and strong U.S. leadership of international alliances. And the longer that U.S. political and military resources are tied down in Iraq, the more the chances for American failure in Afghanistan increase.
Continued problems in Iraq could lead to greater polarization within the United States. Sixty-six percent of Americans disapprove of the government's handling of the war, and more than 60 percent feel that there is no clear plan for moving forward. The November elections were largely viewed as a referendum on the progress in Iraq. Arguments about continuing to provide security and assistance to Iraq will fall on deaf ears if Americans become disillusioned with the government that the United States invested so much to create. U.S. foreign policy cannot be successfully sustained without the broad support of the American people.
They also make sure that people know that these are just informed opinions, nothing guaranteed. So let's sort this list out. The pain for us looks like: 1. A humanitarian catastrophe that we would be forced to respond to 2. Another strongman takes Iraq and uses it's resources to cause problems for us 3. Significant violence crosses the borders into neighboring countries causing instability 4. Countries overtly sending troops into Iraq to support various sides 5. Broader regional war that we would be forced to enter 6. Iran gains more power in the region and becomes a bigger problem 7. Decades of instability as countries and populations re-align 8. Drop in oil production leads to extremely high energy prices 9. More terrorism, including for our European allies 10. Less leverage on North Korea 11. Iraqis completely despise their liberators 12. The American people decide to quit and throw away both the good and the bad in the region in a spasm of hopelessness
Wow! That's some kind of list. But these negatives are always trumped up a bit in these papers. Just to spot a bit to those doubters out there, let's pick the easiest half and assume the rest is just over-stretching. That would be less leverage on NK, bigger Iranian problem, another Saddam, a humanitarian catastrophe, Iraqis hate us completely, and instability in the region.
Once again, there are no dollar figures, but let's give it some thought. To deal with these negatives it would take at least the same amount of commitment we have today. We're going to contain another Saddam, move troops around the region, deliver humanitarian aid under fire and dissuade the Iranians? Heck, we could end up in five years with the same situation in Saudi Arabia as we have today in Iraq, with Iraq being even worse.
How about if things turn out well? From page 7:
The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams, and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue. A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in Iraq.
From what I hear, that means up to twenty thousand trainers, plus force protection, plus rapid reaction and special operations. That's not counting SoCom or the other troops in the general region. Let's call it 40 thousand troops. So we're in Iraq, with a lot of troops, no matter how Iraq turns out.
One can make the case that total isolationism and quitting the region completely gives us security, but I do not believe that holds up under any sort of scrutiny. So, from the bipartisan report, we are left with an understanding that we're in the region, in force and taking casualties, for the foreseeable future. In fact, if things go to hell in a hand basket, we're going to need many more resources. Not exactly clear from the 86-page report that was issued, but in there nonetheless.
These negative "What ifs" are usually referred to as risks -- bad things we worry about happening. We take the cost of the thing happening and multiply it by the likelihood of it happening. This dollar figure is referred to as exposure. The goal is to allocate resources to cover your exposure, in other words, to CYA if the negatives actually happen.
I have one simple question for our government: if our force commitment is likely to remain the same in the region or increase dramatically, where are the plans to handle this? Where are the twenty thousand trainers for Iraq to relieve the combat troops, where are the plans for another 6 or 7 medium infantry divisions (including perhaps reactivating the 5th and 6th Marine Divisions)? Right now I don't want to know whether the ISG's recommendations are good or not. We can and should argue that another day. Based on this report, and looking at both the upside and downside of our objectives, I want to know where is the common sense to make our situation better in 2 or 3 years covering all possibilities? Are we betting the farm again, or do we have the wisdom to make it work even if things go south? The ISG has given us a worst-case scenario; can we make sure we're prepared and ready to take advantage of any situation as it happens?
The question I have for the readers is this: should these be our objectives, and do you agree that the reward and pain cost estimates are in the ballpark?
Rerad why some cultures succeed and others do not. Politically incorrect material.
I can't believe how Bush let the PR aspect of this war, which should have been the most important yet least expensive aspect of the War Strategy, go awry.
Never before in history has a military done this well, yet be subjected to the popular belief that it has 'lost'.
And if we 'lose' here, how will we ever wage a war again, even when we need to?
Mr. Markham Sir,
Could you please explain the costs of isolationism? If we pulled out now and said, "Look Iraqis, we got rid of a tyrant that threatened us and made life hell for you. Now we're done, but if any threats come our way, we'll be back," what would likely happen?
Worst case scenario, Iran moves in, becomes a regional power, develops nukes and uses them against Israel. Israel does the Samson option and wastes Tehran & Mecca. Europe pulls another Neville Chamberlain moment. Saudis & company decide they are the last man standing and have another OPEC embargo. What then? Another terrorist moment on US shores? Our response - we play by Hama rules as Assad did in Syria and ask questions later, "Oh, it wasn't really your country the bad guys came from? So sorry. Maybe you'll help us figure out who did it next time."
Any scenario better than that, and we'll continue trade like any other country. Wouldn't this be a "realist" approach? Good old Hugo hates us, but he still sells us oil.
While I think Bush jr could have done a better job in many areas. His first mistake was the team he picked. His National Security team for one example.
He also has failed (a personal failure) to understand the imbred evil that is Islam.
He can't seperate the cult of Islam from it's followers, the Muslims.
Islam is and has always been the Muslims greatest enemy. It has brought more destruction, war, hatred and misery to the Muslims than it ever did to Christians.
Only in the last fifty years or so have the Islamic true believers turned to killing westerners in large numbers.
Bush jr could have been more forthright and vocal in his own defense over the last few years, but the Media's actions in of themselves are borderline treason and definately anti-American.
He can't be blamed for that, but he shares the blame in not at least trying to counter it. The Military has never been good at PR and any efforts lately have been turned around against them by our own Media and the Media of other countries.
It seems everyone wants to see the U.S. fail, for us to recieve our just rewards and be put in our place.
History will record all this and to the everlasting shame of those guilty.
But we must not forget that History is written by those who won, not by those that perished.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
American troop authorizations were increased by 80,000 a year or two ago.
They are in the pipeline. We should be getting useful efforts out of them just about when they are needed.
Which amounts to about 5 or 6 light divisions (10,000 troops) plus support.
BTW troop strength is handled by Congress. Sec. Def. has to go to war with the Army he is given and the budget authorised.
M Simon (#5)
I'm aware of how force increases happen. It's complicated, but as a recall, basically JCS submits a force plan and a budget. That's there executive duty. Of course, they don't submit things that Congress isn't going to authorize usually. So I asked the question "to our government" You directed me, quite rightly, to the legislative branch, which I believe would include my Senator Warner who used to chair the Armed Forces Committe in the Senate. If I spoke to Warner, I'm sure he'd point me right back over to the Joint Chiefs. Homeboy don't wanna play that game no more, so I just asked the question to the government in general.
I have not heard of the increase, however, and that's great news. It's great news if we're talking about 80,000 working boots on the ground. If we're only talking a general headcount increase (which is what I fear) then what, that's only going to be 7 or 8 thousand boots? I specifically brought up re-activating the 5th and 6th Marines because they are more self-contained, mobile, and the tail isn't so long. If you could provide a link to that increase, I would appreciate it.
Sure enough, SecDef has to go to war with the force he has. But the rest of our venerated leaders are supposed to be looking 1-10 years out and fixing whatever problems we have with the status quo, right? I mean at some point, it wasn't the army you had that you're fighting with, it's the army you wanted to have. I think we're reaching that point.
should these be our objectives,
and do you agree that the reward and pain cost estimates are in the
ballpark?
I think there is a problem with your (and/or the ISG's) central thesis -- that Iraq policy can be decided within the context of specifically defined long-term objectives -- and measured against potential short-term consequences.
Within the context of corporate behavior, what we need is "crisis management", not "long term planning". Iraq is our "Tylenol scare", or our "New Coke" --- in other words, its a situation in which "the company" is no longer in control of events, has a great deal of money invested, and which negatively impacts the perception of the company to the point where, if the crisis is not properly managed, it threatens the viability of the company itself.
The proper solution is one which ignores the short term bottom line, and focusses on restoring consumer faith/confidence in the company and its products. It requires not merely a "course correction" (like a different ad campaign) but a something far more radical -- withdraw the product from the shelves, and install new management.
- Getting off the oil economy entirely.
- We'd need to prohibit legal immigration for any reason.
- We'd need to close our borders.
Lots of luck with that plan.Oil is fungible. Self-sufficiency doesn't change this. Even if we import zero oil from the Middle East since the Gulf states are the low-cost producers we're still dependent on them.
It's amazingly easy to get multiple passports these days. Many North Africans have French passports. Many from the Gulf states and Pakistan also hold British passports. And so on. Just prohibiting immigration from the Middle East won't do it.
North and south.
"Worst case scenario, Iran moves in, becomes a regional power, develops nukes and uses them against Israel."
First of all, im not particularly ok with this outcome to begin with. I'll just leave it at that.
Secondly, from purely the United States point of view, the 'worst' outcome could be Iraq devolving into what Afghanistan used to be, a terrorist base designed as a country, but this time with oil revenues. Somehow when I ponder worst case scenarios, i gotta consider US cities on fire.
If 911 taught us anything, there is no hiding. I suppose we could cut off immigration, fence off all our borders (we should anyway), severely limited travel and commerce, and sick masses of FBI agents on every suspicious dark skinned person already here, but even that is little guarantee of safety. And meanwhile the world burns.
luka (#7) That was a heckuva comment. Thank you. I would like to repeat what I think you're saying so that I understand it better. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
I believe you are doing three things at the same time in your comment. First, you do not agree with the objectives as laid out in the ISG report. Although I am not sure what you mean by their thesis being incorrect -- are you suggesting that both the objectives and the consequences should be measured in a long-term manner? I believe the time frame seems like 2-10 years. Is that too short for you?
Secondly, I believe you are saying that the entire strategic planning paradigm is misapplied here. You suggest a "crises management" paradigm.
I take issue with that. Even in the examples you cited, the larger corporate entities went ahead just fine with strategic planning, thank you very much. Even in crises planning, objectives and goals must be met. In fact, crises planning can probably described as more "agile" strategic planning.
The third thing you do is suggest possible solutions -- fire the managers! Remove the product immediately! Make radical changes right now!
I didn't ask for solutions, probably because I felt like we would all depart ways just talking about goals and consequences. Turns out I was right.
I would be interested in hearing your goals, in clearly defined bullet points. And you list of gains and losses based on your goals. What are the long term conseqences we are missing? What is the value of having you goals instead of other ones? If you would oblige, I think it would move the conversation in an interesting direction.
Secondly, from purely the United States point of view, the 'worst' outcome could be Iraq devolving into what Afghanistan used to be, a terrorist base designed as a country, but this time with oil revenues. Somehow when I ponder worst case scenarios, i gotta consider US cities on fire.
but is this a realistic scenario vis a vis Iraq per se? I think not.
Any "power vacuum" left by a quick US withdrawal is almost certainly to be filled quickly by Syria and Iran. Neither nation is the least bit likely to allow "al Qaeda" affiliated terrorist groups to set up base in the areas of Iraq under their control -- not only does al Qaeda represent a threat to both the Syrian Baathists and the Iranian Shiites, the leadership of neither nation wants to risk sharing the fate of the Taliban.
That being said, the "cities on fire" scenario is possible -- if Syria and Iran simply let al Qaeda types walk out of Iraq, rather than agressively pursuing them. Their next stop would likely be Afghanistan/Pakistan (with the Saudis providing the funding since 'returning home' for a big chunk of these terrorists means Saudi Arabia). Its not inconceivable that Pakistan could be taken over by radical fundamentalists and/or devolve into a failed state itself under this scenario -- and Pakistan does have nukes.
Our biggest challenge right now is dealing with what happens to the al Qaeda fighters who are currently in Iraq. We've botched things so badly in Iraq that dealing with them ourselves is pretty much impossible at this point (short of our very own little "ethnic cleansing" campaign in Anbar). And its in the interest of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria that they just "go away" once the US is gone....
Consequently, I think we really do need to sit down and talk with Syria and Iran about leaving Iraq in an orderly fashion in exchange for their aggressive containment of the al Qaeda threat. If you don't want to see "US cities on fire", that's really the price that has to be paid....
are you suggesting that both the objectives and the consequences should be measured in a long-term manner? I believe the time frame seems like 2-10 years. Is that too short for you?
To stay with the corporate metaphor, I'd say that the question has to be changed from "how to we deal with this crisis" to "how do we stop/prevent this crisis from (potentially) destroying the company?" In other words, I see the situation in Iraq TODAY as representing an existential crisis for the United States (or at least the USA as we know it.)
So, when you ask about "time frames", my answer is BOTH
AND
IMHO, the problem with the ISG is that it was started at a point where the deterioration of the situation of Iraq appeared to be "manageable", but during the "study period" events started overtaking baseline assumptions (specifically, the feasibility of a unified, secure Iraq in the foreseeable future). In other words, I think that the recommendations of the ISG might have made a lot of sense -- a year ago. But yesterday they made no sense, today they make even less sense, and tomorrow they'll make even less sense than that.
Even in the examples you cited, the larger corporate entities went ahead just fine with strategic planning, thank you very much. Even in crises planning, objectives and goals must be met. In fact, crises planning can probably described as more "agile" strategic planning.
While I don't disagree with any of this, I think it misses the point. While "strategic planning" continues to happen, and other "objectives and goals must be met", the crisis has already changed the baseline assumptions for the strategic planning, and interfered with the achievement of other "objectives and goals." (For example "People trust Tylenol, and trust our company" was a baseline assumption for strategic planning that could not be considered reliable when the "Tylenol scare" happened. And suddenly, the "objectives" of the personnel department became more difficult to achieve because potential employees might have doubts about the company.)
The "crisis in Iraq" makes strategic planning difficult, because we really don't know -- and can't predict -- our diplomatic strength and influence until its resolved. As for "goals and objectives"...well, I don't know what the Bush administration's agenda was for the last two years of his term -- but I think its safe to say that the "crisis in Iraq" has made it far more difficult to achieve those goals even in areas unrelated to Iraq per se.
I didn't ask for solutions, probably because I felt like we would all depart ways just talking about goals and consequences. Turns out I was right.
sorry :) But when you are thinking "crisis" there is an imperative to "act" (i.e. goals and solutions.)
I would be interested in hearing your goals, in clearly defined bullet points. And you list of gains and losses based on your goals. What are the long term conseqences we are missing? What is the value of having you goals instead of other ones? If you would oblige, I think it would move the conversation in an interesting direction.
Primary goal -- Restore America's "good name" in the international community. Without the co-operation of the rest of the world, the US really is not only a "pitiful, helpless giant" -- its a highly vulnerable one.
The Bush administration has done enormous damage to our international reputation -- Iraq is both the most glaring example, and significant symbol, of this fall from grace. I think that the international community sees Iraq as a crisis --- but until the US recognizes it as a crisis and treats it like one, no significant help will be coming our way because NO ONE trusts the Bush administration. (I mean, how much trust would you put in someone who said "disregard the forseeable future, and all the bad things that are likely to happen, and just trust me -- in the long term its the right thing to do" when the person demanding that trust had Bush's record?)
(as an aside, I was simply appalled by the announcement that Bush was "putting off until January" the decision about what to do in Iraq.)
As to how I would achieve that....
1) Bush/Cheney has to go. Period. The closest thing to a possible means of reaching consensus on that point would be for Cheney to resign, and Junior to appoint Bush Senior to the VP position, and then Junior resigns.
2) Announce US intentions to withdraw all forces within 12 months, regardless of conditions in Iraq.
3) Simultaneously announce that the US goal is for a regional peace-keeping force under the leadershp of Syria (for Sunni dominated areas) and Iran (for Shiite dominated areas) -- with the establishment of a semi-autonomous Kurdish republic -- and start talking with EVERYONE about how to implement it.
4) Pledge massive amounts of US cash to deal with the current Iraqi refugee crisis, as well as funds for "resettlement" of Iraqis who may wish to move to a different region. (Yeah, we're talking about the possibility for "ethnic cleansing" of some areas here, but at least it will be done without killing people. And quite frankly, I'm not convinced that the Sunni-Shia conflicts in "mixed" areas are insoluable -- once the US leaves.)
The US objectives during the negotiations should be (in order of importance)
1) Avoid destabilizing the whole region (i.e. keep the oil flowing)
2) Restore stability to Iraq (i.e. stop the madness)
3) The capture and detention of "al Qaeda" foreign operatives -- where it can be determined that these individuals committed terrorist acts against Iraqi civilians, they should be tried under Islamic law for their crimes. Otherwise they should be turned over to the governments of their home country. (i.e. persue the "war on terror")
If it works, the big "downside" of increasing the power of Syria and Iran is ameliorated to some degree by the simple fact that the US has demonstrated that it can work with "hostile" regimes in areas of shared interests -- and to me, that's a HUGE plus.
luka I want to get to your later post when I have more time. It might be a day or two.
For now, in post #11, you say:
"Consequently, I think we really do need to sit down and talk with Syria and Iran about leaving Iraq in an orderly fashion in exchange for their aggressive containment of the al Qaeda threat. "
I'm not going to bust your chops on the use of the term "Al Qaeda" -- surely you know that there are dozens of terrorists groups with the same aim. I am, however, interested that you think Syria and Iran could agressively contain AQ in return for us leaving.
I take it that is some sort of twist-of-phrase to mean secular/religious cleansing. So if right now Syria and Iran have the capability to stop terrorist attacks on US soil and property, and they don't, why wouldn't their passiveness constitute an act of war? In other words, are you saying that Syria and Iran DO control AQ, or are you saying they COULD control AQ? (using AQ to represent the terrorist threat in general) I ask the question because the basis of Bush's policy is that nation-states be held accountable for how they deal with terrorism. You seem to be indicating some agreement with that premise.
Personally I think neither is true. I think both nations are happy with religious chaos as long as that chaos and violence is directed externally, ie, at us. It's also an intersting trade -- we leave Iraq and let other countries do the work we don't have the "stomach" to do. Wonder how many other places we have to trade off like that before our stomach gets better.
So if right now Syria and Iran have the capability to stop terrorist attacks on US soil and property, and they don't, why wouldn't their passiveness constitute an act of war? In other words, are you saying that Syria and Iran DO control AQ, or are you saying they COULD control AQ? (using AQ to represent the terrorist threat in general) I ask the question because the basis of Bush's policy is that nation-states be held accountable for how they deal with terrorism. You seem to be indicating some agreement with that premise.
What I'm talking about is the couple of thousand "al Qaeda inspired" (better? ;) ) foreign fighters in Iraq right now, who are there because the US is there. Neither Iran nor Syria has any control over them, because they're in Iraq. But if we leave Iraq, and Syria and Iran fill the power vacuum --- well, those foreign fighters become their responsibility at that point.
Both Syria and Iran will be left with three options
1) Tolerate their continued presence in Iraq. I don't consider this a real option -- not only do these foreign fighters represent a threat to the current Iranian and Syrian regimes that is located on the other side of a rather porous border, but if those terrorists do decide to target the US homeland, well, I suspect that their life insurance premiums will go WAY up, if you catch my drift :)
2) Tell these foreign fighters to get lost, but allow them "safe passage" out of Iraq. This is the easy way out for both Syria and Iran, because it avoids a confrontation with a couple of thousand foreign terrorists, while getting rid of responsibility for them.
3) Agressively pursue (i.e. kill or capture) the foreign fighters that are affiliated with "al Qaeda inspired" groups that are in Iraq before they can get out. This is the most desirable outcome for the US...but its not going to happen unless Syria and Iran see some good reason to assume the risks involved in confronting these terrorists.
It's also an intersting trade -- we leave Iraq and let other countries do the work we don't have the "stomach" to do. Wonder how many other places we have to trade off like that before our stomach gets better.
its not just a question of whether we can "stomach" what has to be done, its an issue of whether we can be effective (not to mention efficient). I think that, at best, the US can be only marginally effective in that effort in Iraq at present -- with a huge risk that the effort will be counter-productive.
(I mean, we outsourced the overthrow of the Taliban to a bunch of primitive, opium poppy producing warlords.... and quite frankly I think that drugs do a hell of a lot more damage in America than terrorists have done---and if we are smart, are ever likely to do. Given that, making common cause with Syria and Iran shouldn't represent some sort of significant moral quandrary...)
Here is a bit on the troop increase proposal. Sen Clinton was a co-sponsor. It passed:
Troop strength increase.
I note that the increse was 20,000 per year for 4 years. Which would mean increased retention most likely vs 80,000 new recruits.
"Neither Iran nor Syria has any control over them, because they're in Iraq. But if we leave Iraq, and Syria and Iran fill the power vacuum --- well, those foreign fighters become their responsibility at that point."_
There are so many problems with that sentiment. How do you prove if its Iran or Syria or both that are accountable for any given terrorist entity? And since when has the international community ever really held a foreign sponser responsible for terrorists living in a different nation? How would this be any different than Hezbollah in Lebanon or AQs original ties to Pakistan?
Moreover, Syria and Iran have been necessary cogs in the AQ-Iraq wheel so far, but if Iraq devolved into a terrorist sponsoring state in its own right with a quasi-legal government similar to the Taliban, how much support would they then need from either? The damage is done.
Given the world history of tolerating, even defending terrorist sponsorship like Hezbollah, how can we possibly even think about relying on some sort of implicit (or even exlicit) threat against the neighbors to keep a failed Iraq from becoming a ticking timebomb of international terrorsism? Why promote a policy that has demonstraby and abjectly failed the world over?
From the 9/11 Report:
61
60
128
240
240
240
241
241
Uh, it is prohibition that is damaging America. With or without prohibition we will have a drug problem. With prohibition we add a criminal/terrorist problem to the mix.
Without prohibition a pile of vegetables will no longer be worth its weight in gold.
Besides drugs do not cause addiction. The NIDA says the cause is genetic and environmental. I believe the environmental trigger is trauma:
Heroin
Do Republicans support drug prohibition because it finances criminals or because it finances terrorists?
Republican Socialism. Price supports for criminals and terrorists.
BTW Milton Friedman is the one who turned me on to the idea of prohibition as a socialist enterprise.
Milton Friedman
M Simon, i don't think you are correct about the troop increase. I don't believe that bill ever passed. I can't find any indication of it being voted on or signed, and if this is correct the bill was referred to the House Armed Services Committee and never heard from again.
Unless i am very mistaken, there is no significant troop increase currently funded.
Luka,
Your point one about Bush Cheney resigning. Should then be followed by point two where you get pigs to fly. Perhaps followed by a new Olympic High Jump record of 2 1/2 miles with the jump starting at sea level.
Then we can get all the people of the world to live in harmony and peace.
Easy. Simple.
Problem solved.
In the words of Bush I "Not going to happen".
Thus your plan falls flat with its first bullet point.
I'll get back to the rest of the points in a while.
The Congressional Research Service has been doing annual reports on troop end strength issues.
In 2004, the end strenth was increased by 26,000 (20,000 Army and 6,000 Marines)
In 2005, the end strenth was increased by 10,000 for Army and 1,000 for Marines, but decreased for navy and air force for a net decrease of 4,500.
Report here (pdf)
For 2006, it appears that army end strength is remaining the same, and the marine end strength is increasing to 180,000, which I think is an increase of 1,000. Here
From Shaw's link:
"Administration End Strength Initiative
Before the House Armed Services Committee on January 28, 2004, the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Peter Schoomaker, testified that he has been authorized by the Secretary of Defense to increase end strength of the Army b 30,000 personnel on a temporary, emergency basis. He argued that a permanent, legislated increase would be unwise and unnecessary. He asserted that a permanent increase would create a burden on planned defense budgets in the out years, citing $1.2 billion anually for each incrase of 10,000 troops."
For the record that is equivalent to about 10 V-22 Ospreys. Show of hands, who would prefer the 10,000 fresh troops?
Essentially Congress approved the temporary 3 year build up that idiot Rumsfeld recomended. According to the link 'temporary' is defined as 4 years, more than one of which has already elapsed. So essentially we are talking about 30,000 troops (not nearly enough) at the absolute peak of the program which will be done by 2009. Lets hope theres nothing important going on.
luka,
Why not just come out and say you are for giving Iraq to Syria and Iran?
I don't think that is a very good idea. What do we get in return? What do the Iraqis get? Seeing as how Syria is allied with Iran I don't see the Sunnis being protected.
And then what about the Saudi initiative?
And do we have to consult with the government of Iraq on this? Or can we just give Iraq away no matter what the government of Iraq wants?
And how about this Lebanese fellow who says Hizballah, the cats paw of Syria and Iran, does not speak for all Shia? Perhaps there are Iraqis who feel the same way.
Mark....
There are so many problems with that sentiment. How do you prove if its Iran or Syria or both that are accountable for any given terrorist entity?
my proposal is based on the assumption that Syria and Iran would have separate/distinct geographic "spheres of influence". Thus, if it could be shown that the government in question of aware of and tolerated the presence of an al Qaeda inpired cell comprised of "foreign fighters" that subsequently attacked the US mainland, they would be held responsible.
And since when has the international community ever really held a foreign sponser responsible for terrorists living in a different nation?
Under my proposal, Iraq as a nation would de facto cease to exist. Iraq, as we all know, was cobbled together by the British with the intention of a "nation" that was incapable of sustaining a coherent national identity. Well, the British scheme worked -- and now its time to move on.
How would this be any different than Hezbollah in Lebanon or AQs original ties to Pakistan?
Re: Hezbollah in Lebanon -- we have to take a "pragmatic" approach to the crisis that is Iraq, and recognize that the rest of the world sees Hezbollah as part of the larger Israeli/Palestine issues -- and the rest of the world pretty much tolerates Hezbollah's acts of terror in Israel and will continue to do so until the larger issues are settled.
The aim of my proposal is to prevent the world from devolving (further) to a place where we seen as the equivalent of "Israel" to al Qaeda's "Hezbollah".
re: Pakistan -- I didn't see any evidence that the Pakistani government was aware of plans to attack the US mainland -- nor evidence of the kind of overt support of al Qaeda provided by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
**************
PD....
remember how "9-11 changed everything?" While its not really true, it did change a lot of things -- including the worldwide perception of al Qaeda.
Perhaps more importantly, "al Qaeda" wasn't even identified as a threat to the US until the mid-90s.... (thus, citations from actions taken prior to the mid-90's aren't really relevant) and one of the biggest flaws of the 9-11 Commission report is its attempt to find evidence of ties between the 9-11 attacks and Iran.
There is no question that Iran is co-operating with "terrorist groups" that target Israel, and that would include "Sunni" groups. And while the commission report cites Iran's co-operation in providing "safe passage" of individuals who would subsequently be identified as "muscle" hijackers, the very fact that these people were considered "muscle" (and were not involved in, or even knowledgeable of, the 9-11 attack plans at that time) it doesn't constitute Iranian involvement in or knowledge of an attack on the US mainland.
The 9-11 Commission also makes a big deal out of supposed Iranian involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing by Saudi Hezbollah. But unless they have access to considerably more information that was included in the indictment pursuant to that attack, there is no real evidence. (Iran did request surveillance of the American presence in Saudi Arabia from the people who attacked the Towers years before the attack took place -- and while the indictment does say that one of the leaders of the attack claimed that (paraphrase) "Iran would be pleased", no evidence is provided to substantiate that claim, AND the indictment includes evidence that when Iran discovered the plans for the attack, it was displeased.
(what we are talking about is standards of evidence --- if you start with the assumption that Iran is supportive of al Qaeda, the evidence appears compelling. Then again, if you start with the assumption that the US was supportive of Saddam's atrocities prior to 1991, the evidence is even more compelling. If you start with no assumptions, its difficult to draw any conclusions on either issue... the closest thing to a conclusion that can be drawn is a strong suspicion of "willful blindness" about what was going on in both cases).
But the bottom line here is this...governments act in their own self-interest. It is in the interest of neither the governments of Syria nor Iran to harbor a bunch of radical Sunni fundamentalists within their area of control once the US presence in Iraq is eliminated. (This is especially true given what we've seen in Iraq -- a willingness to attack "soft targets" in an effort to create instability,)
Its unsurprising that there is "support" for or acquiescence to an al Qaeda presence in Iraq from Syria and Iran as long as the US represents a greater threat to their governments than al Qaeda does. Thus the goal is to reduce the (perceived) threat that the US represents to these governments to the point where "al qaeda inspired" groups represent a greater threat than the US does.
Let's review the New Coke fiasco before we all go off half-cocked and drink luka's surrenderist kool-aid.
Coca-Cola had been the number one soft drink since it created the market, always with the same formula, though it was adjusted once to get rid of the cocaine.
Sometime back in the 1980s some maroon at Coke decided that Pepsi was getting almost as popular, and in a fit of stupidity decided to change the Coke formula to be more like the number 2 soft drink that itself, the number 1 soft drink. Coke drinkers hated the new formula, preferring to drink Pepsi when they wanted a sweeter, less interesting cola. Coke recovered by reintroducing the real Coke as Coca-Cola Classic and rebranding their reformulated Coke as New Coke. New Coke withered away in a few years.
What would be the correct parallel to the US's experience in Iraq? The USA has since the 1960s abandoned its muscular military posture and self-reliant attitude, and has decided to imitate the sweeter, more corrupt posture of european countries that are willing to pay criminal states off instead of going to war with them. In the 2006 elections the US voters rebelled. The lesson is not to become even sweeter and more accomodating to criminal states and terrorists. The US needs to reassert its muscular military posture and fight this war on terror to win it. If anybody needed to be fired it is the SecDef and a few generals. They need to have their feet held to the fire until the situation turns around. And the justice department needs to do something about the semi-treasonous or fully treasonous behavior of media outlets that have decided to expose effective wartime intelligence programs, and the terrible culture of leaks in the capital. Leakers need to go to jail. Some may need to be prosecuted for treason and executed.
"To crush your enemies, to drive them before you, and to hear the wailing of their women!" That is what the US wants from its military. Not a kinder, gentler, "new coke" military.
Why not just come out and say you are for giving Iraq to Syria and Iran?
okay.
I'm for giving Iraq to Syria and Iran.
its not that I think its a good idea, just that its the "least bad" one -- and one that if properly managed could work to our long-term advantage.
"my proposal is based on the assumption that Syria and Iran would have separate/distinct geographic "spheres of influence"."
Why is that a valid assumption? Can you identify these spheres in Lebanon? Which Hezbollah rocket is stamped with SYRIA and which with IRAN? Or do we judge each individual rocket based on a sliding scale of culpability?
"Thus, if it could be shown that the government in question of aware of and tolerated the presence of an al Qaeda inpired cell comprised of "foreign fighters" that subsequently attacked the US mainland, they would be held responsible."
When have we ever been able to show that any government is responsible for anything? You really think relying on our miserable CIA is a realistic answer? Especially after all the intelligence fiascos of the last 5 years? If President Hillary comes to the nation in 2009 and claims the CIA is real sure the bomb that went off in Boston originated from a terrorist cell training in Baghdad via funds funnelled from Saudis through Syria used to buy plasic explosives from Iran- A.who the hell do we bomb, one or all? and B. Is anybody actually going to believe the CIA has a clue what they are talking about?
Why is that a valid assumption? Can you identify these spheres in Lebanon? Which Hezbollah rocket is stamped with SYRIA and which with IRAN? Or do we judge each individual rocket based on a sliding scale of culpability?
Mark, you've reached the point where you are being argumentative for its own sake.
The proper lebanon analogy would be the aftermath of their civil war, when Israel occupied Southern Lebanon, while Syria occupied the rest.
In other words, we aren't talking about a shared custody arrangement of all of Iraq between Syria and Iran, but custody of separate geographic regions of Iraq.
When have we ever been able to show that any government is responsible for anything? You really think relying on our miserable CIA is a realistic answer? Especially after all the intelligence fiascos of the last 5 years?
and I thought I was a "surrenderist".
Mark, if "relying on the CIA to track terrorists" is not a viable option for the future, what does that tell us about our prosecution of the "war on terror" TODAY?
And while I am concerned that the CIA's effectiveness has been significantly compromised by politization by the Bush regime, neither 9-11 nor the Iraq war was an "intelligence failure" by the CIA. Rather, it was a failure of the executive branch to pay attention to the warnings being provided by the CIA prior to 9-11, and a decision by the executive branch to act on "estimates" that the CIA admitted were "best guesses" and which had been proven wrong prior to the start of the war.
The original Iraq NIE was known to be flawed ----and its flaws were due to it being a "rush" job cobbled together for political purposes. Bush had already decided that Iraq was a threat without an NIE, so when Congress demanded one before voting on the AUMF, a "made to order" NIE was created without the usual safeguards that ensure an NIE's reliability.
Knowing that the original NIE was wildly off the mark, Bush should have demanded a new NIE --- one that wasn't intended to be used to justify his pre-determined course of action, but would be used to determine the correct course of action.
luka writes:
"I'm for giving Iraq to Syria and Iran.
its not that I think its a good idea, just that its the "least bad" one -- and one that if properly managed could work to our long-term advantage."
This is certainly a breathtaking proposal. Breathtaking is the least term to describe a proposal that is just so fundamentally outrageous that I can't believe anyone would put such thoughts in writing. luka is basically proposing to recreate the post 9/11 Afghanistan - a sanctuary for terrorists and extremists - only in a far more dangerous location with its proximity to the core of the Middle East, and within easy reach of the most important source of oil and with far more resources actually in control of the extremists who would dominate the resulting anarchic fairytale land of islamic extremism.
I can't express just how unserious a proposal this is within the site's guidelines.
"recreate the post 9/11 Afghanistan " should read "recreate the pre 9/11 Afghanistan ".
"Mark, you've reached the point where you are being argumentative for its own sake."
I happen to think its an exremely pertinant issue. What exactly do we do if Iran and Syria arent so good as to slop their finger prints all over Iraq?
"The proper lebanon analogy would be the aftermath of their civil war, when Israel occupied Southern Lebanon, while Syria occupied the rest."
And yet arguably it was Iran that ended up with the strongest influence. This analogy is not helping your cause.
"In other words, we aren't talking about a shared custody arrangement of all of Iraq between Syria and Iran, but custody of separate geographic regions of Iraq."
Again, have you cleared this with Iran and Syria? What if they dont feel like playing ball with putting themselves in the crosshairs?
"Mark, if "relying on the CIA to track terrorists" is not a viable option for the future, what does that tell us about our prosecution of the "war on terror" TODAY?"
I dont have much faith in the CIA, but there is a big difference between 'tracking down' terrorists, which they might be able to handle, and providing definitive proof that the American people, much less the United Nations, will accept in the nebulous world of terrorist sponsering.
If this stuff was as cut and dried as you are pretending the world wouldnt be as screwed up as it already is. The details of Iraq intel bungle are well documented elsewhere and there is certainly plenty of blame to go around. Tough to pin it on Bush when Clinton was saying all the same things (not to mention George 'Slam Dunk Tenet').
All I will say is that Iran and Syria are the Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle of terrorists sponsers. They arent rookies, they arent going to let their fingerprints get on some group just because it would be convenient to your theory. We cant even get international condemnation for Iran supplying Hezbollah in violation of UN mandates, AND IRAN DOESNT EVEN DENY THAT! Why play directly into our enemies strengths and the Wests weakness?
A failed state where neighboring countries eek out zones of influence does not promote accountability.
PD, yep, that's exactly why Syria uses Lebanon to wage its proxy war against Israel.
SPQR...
luka is basically proposing to recreate the post 9/11 Afghanistan - a sanctuary for terrorists and extremists...
I think that if you read my actual proposal, you will see that it is designed to prevent such an occurrence
*************
Mark...
Again, have you cleared this with Iran and Syria? What if they dont feel like playing ball with putting themselves in the crosshairs?
I'm working under the assumption that nations generally act in their own best interests. It is in the interest of neither Syria nor Iran that Iraq become a failed state and a haven for "al qaeda inspired" groups once the US is out of Iraq. So I work under the assumption that those two nations will work to restore stability and order in Iraq, and will not permit it to become a "haven" for al Qaeda.
Now it is in the long-term best interest for both Syria and Iraq to act agressively against al Qaeda once the US is gone....but its in their short term best interest to not act agressively (i.e. put themselves in the crosshairs).
Thus, one of the reasons that the US needs to work with Syria and Iran is to reduce the perception of the US as a long-term threat to their governments --- and convince them that it makes more sense for them to deal with al Qaeda now rather than later.
What I think you fail to take into account is that radical Sunni fundamentalism is NOT an existential threat to the US per se. They can attack us, and damage us, but they can't destabilize our government with those attacks--only strenghten it, in fact. (The greatest danger isn't terrorist attacks at this point, its control of mid-east oil resources by these fundamentalists -- that does represent an existential threat to the US as we know it because we are so dependent upon oil for our way of life.)
But radical Sunni fundamentalism does represent an existential threat to governments in both Syria and Iran. Syria is majority Sunni, but is run by Shia Baathists -- it is especially vulnerable to destabilization by Sunni terrorists.
In that sense, both Syria and Iran are "natural allies" in the war against al Qaeda inspired terrorism.
Its really a question of priorities -- if you place the security of Israel above that of the United States, then accomdation of Syria and Iran is a bad idea. If you think US security is more important, then there is no other feasible way out of the mess we've created in Iraq than working with Syria and Iran.
"It is in the interest of neither Syria nor Iran that Iraq become a failed state and a haven for "al qaeda inspired" groups once the US is out of Iraq."
Why do you make that assumption? Isn't in the interest of Syria for Lebanon to remain a failed state? Isn't an Iraq run by goons that can be manipulated behind the scenes better than trying to stick their hands into a hornets nest and contol a state directly that both nations have warred with in the past 20 years?
"So I work under the assumption that those two nations will work to restore stability and order in Iraq, and will not permit it to become a "haven" for al Qaeda."
Why is that a good assumption?
"Thus, one of the reasons that the US needs to work with Syria and Iran is to reduce the perception of the US as a long-term threat to their governments"
But we are a long term threat to their governments. Because their governments WANT to sponsor terrorism, WANT to destroy Israel, WANT to have global influence and (in Iran's case) spread their idealogy and ultimately the nuclear weapons to ensure it. So arent our option either to 'fool' them somehow into thinking we are ok with that, or else truly abandon opposition? Which should we pursue? Are you really ok with a nuclear powered Iran overseeing a failed Iraqi state? That doesnt put you in a cold sweet? What exactly happens if one of Iran's supposed 'client' terrorists does blow up a disco in Des Moines? How do we punish a nuclear Iran?
"What I think you fail to take into account is that radical Sunni fundamentalism is NOT an existential threat to the US per se."
Heh. I love it when people get blase about terrorism on US soil. Its really no big deal if Manhatten gets levelled again.
"Its really a question of priorities -- if you place the security of Israel above that of the United States, then accomdation of Syria and Iran is a bad idea."
Ah, now the crux of the matter.
"If you think US security is more important, then there is no other feasible way out of the mess we've created in Iraq than working with Syria and Iran."
But you dont seem to provide a very good explanation for why Syria and Iran want to work with us. Iran isnt afraid of Al Qaedaism, AQ is on the decline, Iran is on the rise. Syria just wants to be a contender. And maybe grab Lebanon.
So to turn things around- is it really ok to let Syria have Lebanon back, allow Iran free reign in continuing to radicalize Hezbollah and the Iraqi Shiia, and for Iran a regional nuclear power? All in exchange for some nebulous dialog and empty promises? That is absurd. It sounds to me like abandoning Israel is more an end than a means, to be quite honest. Israel is the least of our worries.
A nuclear Iran with hegemony over the Middle East or a Democratic Israel willing to do a lot of our dirty work against people intrinsicly opposed to us idealogically? Now that is a no brainer. All you are attempting to do is wrap up your wish for us to take our ball and somehow go home (and cut bait on Israel of course) in hopes that we can bury our heads in our pillows and everything will be fine, disguised as real-politic. Its anything but. We gain nothing concrete with your plan while handing our enemies everything they want without a quibble.
Isn't in the interest of Syria for Lebanon to remain a failed state?
No its not. If Syria thought that a failed state in Lebanon was a good idea, it would not have intervened in the Lebanese civil war. (and since when is Lebanon a "failed state?)
A failed state is one in which there is no longer a (effective) central government. You may not like the fact that the Lebanese government on its own cannot control the actions of Hezbollah --- that does not make it a failed state however. The difference between a dependency (which is what Syria probably wants lebanon to be) and a "failed state" is that Syria can exercise control over a dependent central government -- it cannot control a failed state, because there is no central government to control.
Isn't an Iraq run by goons that can be manipulated behind the scenes better than trying to stick their hands into a hornets nest and contol a state directly that both nations have warred with in the past 20 years?
you seem to be confused here. A "nation run by goons" is, by definition, not a "failed state" -- its a state that run by goons. (unnecessary joke about the current US administration deleted). Nor can Syria be the least bit confident that an "Iraq run by goons" would be subject to Syrian manipulation. Quite the contrary, given the fact that the majority of Iraqis are Shia, and Iran would support them in a civil war. Now, its possible that with sufficient intervention from Syria and Saudi Arabia, Sunni "goons" would win a civil war.....but guess what? The Saudis won't be supporting the Baathists, but the religious fundamentalists....
not to mention the toll in blood and dollars that a successful civil war waged against Iranian backed Shia would take on all sides involved in such a war....
Nor would Syria be trying to control all of Iraq -- just the parts where Sunnis constitute a majority. Remember, Syria is Baathist, and the Sunnis in Iraq are predominantly Baathists. What the Iraqi Baathists fear most is the subjugation of the Sunnis (and reprisals against them) by the Shiite majority. In essence, the Sunni areas of Iraq would become Syrian protectorates for the foreseeable future.
Why is that a good assumption?
since I've already explained this, its obvious that you are just being argumentative. If you don't understand that radical Sunni fundamentalism and al Qaeda inspired terrorists represent a threat to both Syria and Iran by now, I don't think you ever will.
"No its not. If Syria thought that a failed state in Lebanon was a good idea, it would not have intervened in the Lebanese civil war. (and since when is Lebanon a "failed state?)"
Syria intervened in Lebanon with the interest of annexing Lebanon (which doesnt exist on Syrian maps btw), not stopping a civil war.
"A failed state is one in which there is no longer a (effective) central government. You may not like the fact that the Lebanese government on its own cannot control the actions of Hezbollah --- that does not make it a failed state however."
I think our definition of an effective central government must be radically different. You basically just defined what is not an effective central government- ie one that cant remotely enforce its writ in the vast majority of the country, if at all.
"The difference between a dependency (which is what Syria probably wants lebanon to be) and a "failed state" is that Syria can exercise control over a dependent central government -- it cannot control a failed state, because there is no central government to control."
If Syria isnt allowed (internally or externally) to hold Lebanon as a dependency, which to date it has not,
would they not prefer a failed state as opposed to a democratic, representative state that would prove to be friendly to the West. We dont need to guess, Syria answered that questions many times, most famously with a car bomb that kill Hariri.
"you seem to be confused here. A "nation run by goons" is, by definition, not a "failed state" -- its a state that run by goons."
I'm sorry, Afghanistan wasnt a failed state? Somalia wasnt a failed state? Sudan? Do we really need to get into a semantic argument here? The idea is that a terrorist client state along the lines of the Taliban would be a bad thing for the US but not particularly troublesome for Syria or Iran.
"not to mention the toll in blood and dollars that a successful civil war waged against Iranian backed Shia would take on all sides involved in such a war...."
Dont seem to be shying away to date. Why is it that all your assumptions fly in the face of what actually is happening? Doesn that bother you a bit?
"or would Syria be trying to control all of Iraq -- just the parts where Sunnis constitute a majority."
OH I GET IT! So by your plan if a terrorist cell launches an attack based East of the Tigris we bomb Iran, West of the Tigris we bomb Syria! Its all so simple. If we can just get Syria and Iran to agree to such idiocy.
"since I've already explained this, its obvious that you are just being argumentative."
You mistake arumentativeness with pointing out the fundamental flaws you arent able to address, because your assumptions exist only in your head and not particularly in the real world. Bad assumptions, as they say, are the mother of all cluster-$%#^s.
"If you don't understand that radical Sunni fundamentalism and al Qaeda inspired terrorists represent a threat to both Syria and Iran by now, I don't think you ever will."
I'm terribly sorry, are we talking about the same Iran currently harboring high ranking Al Qaeda members? This is the same kind of blatant idiocy that never accepted a Nazi-Soviet understanding until tanks were in Warsaw. You are tied to your assumptions and beliefs as those the parties involved are automotons that respond only to their precise programming- instead of human beings who have DEMONSTRABLY, REPEATEDLY found common cause with greater enemies time and time again. By your own definitions Syria and Iran shouldn't be working together and yet they ARE like Frik and Frak in Lebanon. The real world doesnt work like that.
I'm terribly sorry, are we talking about the same Iran currently harboring high ranking Al Qaeda members?
well, Mark, you've proven to me that you are uninterested in serious discussion of the Iraq issue, so I'm disengaging.
But before I go, I would like to suggest that if you are going to say something like "Iran currently harboring high ranking al Qaeda members" that you provide a link that that is more recent than August 28, 2002. (I'm sure I needn't remind you of all the flawed intelligence that was being hyped during that period....)
Luka:
1.I apologize if i've gotten overly heated in this discussion. It is a discussion of substance.
2.That happened to be the first link i found. Regardless, it is the stance of the US government that Iran is harboring AQ fugitives. I agree our intel sucks, but there is extensive data that AQ has used Iran for transit and refuge. A simple perusal of google can display that. So lets no pretend im making this up out of whole cloth.
More sources needed?
The New Yorker (9/11/2006) by lawrence Wright, an Al Qaeda expert, member of the Councli on Foriegn Relations, and certainly no friend to the Bush administration.
"In 2002, he (-ed Saif al-Adl) fled to eastern Iran, where bin Laden’s son Saad and Al Qaeda’s security chief, Saif al-Adl, had also taken refuge. There was a five-million-dollar bounty on his head. In this moment of exile and defeat, he began to conceive the future of jihad."
Or this MSNBC breakdown of AQ members at large.
So i have a picture of Saif al-Adl buying a falafal in Tehran? No. But it seems that if the US government, the media, and a lot of pretty smart experts think there is good evidence AQ has operated out of Iran in some capacity, we should listen.
I understand that clashes with your worldview.
But it seems that if the US government, the media, and a lot of pretty smart experts think there is good evidence AQ has operated out of Iran in some capacity, we should listen.
this is scant evidence that al qaeda "operated" out of Iran with the knowledge of the Iranian government.
What there is considerable evidence for is that the Iranians have placed some 25 members of Al Qaeda under house arrest -- reportedly because of their involvement in the Riyahd bombing.
(oh, btw, did you know that Iran tried to assassinate Mullah Omar, head of the Taliban?)
Iran is no friend of al Qaeda -- in the aftermath of 9-11, Iran expelled a whole bunch of people associated with al Qaeda.
however, Iran also stopped co-operating with the Bush regime in the "war on terror" after the "Axis of Evil" speech -- and was apparently tolerant of the presence of al Qaeda members who were living near the Iran-Afghanistan border. In the wake of the Riyahd attacks, they were rounded up, and put under house arrest -- Iran will not permit them to operate, but also won't turn them over to anyone else.
Iran sees al qaeda as a threat, but sees the US as a much bigger and more immediate threat. They have acted against al Qaeda in the past -- and are keeping some major al Qaeda figures out of circulation.
It should also be remembered that prior to the "axis of evil" speech, Iran was moving toward a more democratic system of government -- and had elected a President who was an advocate of a more "open" society (he was not able to accomplish much, because the Presidental powers remain subordinate to those of the clerics in Iran -- but what is important here is that the Iranian people were clearly moving away from the conservative interpretation of Sharia law being imposed by the Ayatollahs.)
In other words, there is considerable evidence that suggests that Iran's current strong hostility toward the US is the result of implied (and direct)threats made toward Iran by the Bush regime and its proxies-- and are not an intrinsic and inevitable part of Iranian policy.
To me, the smart thing to do is engage Iran on topics where there is a shared interest (stability in Iraq, radical sunni fundamentalism) despite the fact that there are areas where no progress can be expected for the foreseeable future (such as support for Hezbollah).
If you look upthread, you'll see that the primary objectives are (in order of importance) keep the oil flowing, stabilize Iraq, and pursue the war on terror. Whatever strategy that we pursue has to maintain the flow of oil from the middle east---because if that is interrupted for any length of time, we're screwed, pure and simple.
I don't see how we can keep the oil flowing if we confront Iran, or allow the region as a whole to become destabilized. And I don't see how we avoid one of those problems unless we find a way to work with Iran.
I see. So Iran allows some top Iranian dogs to chill under 'house arrest' which apparently includes high level meetings with Al Zarqawi (god curse his soul) re: how to F the Americans in Iraq, but they are in fact no friend to AQ because they are willing to winnow a few small fish back to Saudi Arabia after the Riyadh bombing to keep the Saudis happy?
OH, but actually its all Bush's fault, because although you have spent an entire day argueing that Iran will follow their long term interests rationally, the fact that Bush has publicly annoucned our entirely rational opposition to those purposes has provoked Iran into doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE SPENT ALL DAY CLAIMING THEY WONT DO.
Your argument has gone from circular to self-defeating. Its like a boomarang of death.
I see. So Iran allows some top Iranian dogs to chill under 'house arrest' which apparently includes high level meetings with Al Zarqawi (god curse his soul) re: how to F the Americans in Iraq, but they are in fact no friend to AQ because they are willing to winnow a few small fish back to Saudi Arabia after the Riyadh bombing to keep the Saudis happy?
actually, no. The supposed Zarqawi meetings took place in 2002, well before these guys were placed under House arrest... and the expulsions of people found to be affiliated with al Qaeda occurred in the aftermath of 9-11. The house arrest were in reaction to the Riyahd bombing, which took place much later.
US intelligence officials do not believe there is any substantive connection between Zarqawi and Iran --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6262451/site/newsweek/
Personally, given what we know about the willingness of this administration to abuse intelligence in pursuit of its policies, I think that its best to be highly skeptical of "reports" of significant ties between Iran and al Qaeda. There is no evidence whatsoever that those currently being held under house arrest are being allowed to do anything.
Speculation about why these people are under "House arrest" is fun -- and if you want to speculate that al Qaeda is "protecting" them, and allowing them to co-ordinate attacks from within Iran against the US, that fine. I don't think it makes a great deal of sense though. Iran doesn't need al Qaeda to attack US forces in Iraq, and isn't about to provide the US with an excuse to retaliate by sponsoring attacks elsewhere.
Personally, I think they're being held as a threat (attack us, and we'll turn them loose) or negotiating chip (what are you willing to give us in return for handing them over?).
OH, but actually its all Bush's fault, because although you have spent an entire day argueing that Iran will follow their long term interests rationally, the fact that Bush has publicly annoucned our entirely rational opposition to those purposes has provoked Iran into doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE SPENT ALL DAY CLAIMING THEY WONT DO.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Bush chose to pursue an agressively confrontational policy toward Iran in early 2002 with his "axis of evil" speech. Iran reacted the way I would expect any nation to act under those circumstances. As a result, instead of Iran being a nation that could help us in dealing with al Qaeda, we provided them with a major disincentive to provide that help. When al Qaeda operatives set up shop in remote regions of Iran near the Afghan border, Iran turned a blind eye... until it found out that the group was involved in an attack on fellow muslims in Saudi Arabia -- at which point they gathered them up and took them out of circulation. But all of these actions took place within the context of Bush's threats against Iran.
Its simple human nature at work here... people under threat act differently than they would otherwise. Some people will grovel, while others will refuse to be bullied and act defiantly in the face of that threat. Remove the threat, and the grovellers stop grovelling, and the ones who refuse to be bullied will calm down.
"actually, no. The supposed Zarqawi meetings took place in 2002, well before these guys were placed under House arrest... and the expulsions of people found to be affiliated with al Qaeda occurred in the aftermath of 9-11."
I seem to recall 911 occurring in 2001.
Again, your argument is circular. You are advocating letting Iran gain their sphere of control in Iraq because you claim they will be disinclined to allow AQ to work freely. But you acknowledge they allowed AQ to work freely on their own soil and at least turned their eyes away, because Bush opposed their policies.
So the way I see it, your idea is basically that our best solution is to give Iraq to Iran and to thank them we will need to ignore their provocations, assumedly not stand in the way of their nuclear program, and basically lie down and allow Iran to do what they want in the world lest they once again allow AQ to run free... if not worse. I'm sorry, which side are you advocating?
luka (#12)
Primary goal -- Restore America's "good name" in the international community.
I've read your comment, and I believe this is the only goal you mention.
Just as I parsed the ISG's words, I believe I have to parse yours a bit. Restoring our good name is a good thing to do, but I wonder how such a goal is measured.
I can't address your action items (Although it would interesting to ask you why these items would achieve your goal) because I am a bit confused about your goal.
Are you saying that countries are like huge versions of people? That they have "reputations" and "populariy" and "moral authority"?
Hey -- and I was thinking my corporate methaphor was sucking wind. This metaphor might be just as bad! LOL
So how would we measure "our good name" to see if we were accomplishing this goal? Is it kind of like a world-wide popularity contest? Do we read news clippings to determine how many negative adjectives are located in close approximation with "United States"? I know that sounds silly, but goals are pointless unless you can show that they are achieved.
Just like with some of the ISG goals, I have problems when it comes to having national goals that are measured by some other people. I think we should always act in our self-interest, and I expect other countries to do the same. That's why I have such a problem with moral arguments for political policy -- people tend to moralize, then slam the bunch they disagree with. The problem is that moralizing is just taking the place of rationalization. There are a lot of people in the world that are not going to like America as long as we are rich and prosperous. That's simply human nature. The better we do, the more it is going to gall them. In fact, resentment of America is probably the norm for the foreseeable future. This is why it is in our best interests to spread prosperity as much as we can.
Are you saying that countries are like huge versions of people? That they have "reputations" and "populariy" and "moral authority"?
actually, yes....although I'd say they are more akin to "political leaders" than celebrities...or just plain old folk like us.
Not being an "alpha male", I'm not terribly comfortable with power and leadership. Nevertheless, I recognize that any successful organization requires leadership -- and we're talking about everything from a local bowling league to the entire community of nations.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US became the defacto "leader of the world" because of its military and economic strength. Bush I and Clinton understood that world leadership represented both opportunity and responsibility -- and required sacrifice as well. Both Bush I and Clinton worked very hard to send the world the message that the US was "first among equals", that it did not see its position as the "sole superpower" as something to exploit solely for the benefit of the USA, but a means to create a better world for everyone. And their efforts were successful. The US was considered the legitimate leader of the world community-- the "first among equals".
To put it mildly, today that is no longer true. (anti-Bush II rant deleted)
The world needs leadership. I look around, and I don't see any nation that can provide that leadership (with the possible exception of China--but I don't think China wants to be the leader....at this point in time.) That leaves us.
So, that's why I want to restore our good name. Because the world needs leadership, but has serious -- and legitimate -- doubts about allowing the US to assume that position.
As to secondary and tertiary goals.... well, I've always wanted a pony. And can we do something about infomercials? ;)
Luka I want to join you in your goal of having a pony. It's about time that people from every stripe can gather together around an equine ideal for all of us.
Speaking as an Omega male, I don't understand what you mean by "Bush I and Clinton understood that world leadership represented both opportunity and responsibility -- and required sacrifice as well."
Of course, we Omega males don't study very well in school, so I get lost a lot. I always hated those Zeta males. Uppity sots.
In my world, where everybody has a pony and infomercials have been banned, nations are judged on objective merits of mutual self-interests. I mean, if I had an ambassador who came to me and said, "We'd like to help those American chaps, but they're president is a real jerk" I have him fired on the spot. I could care less about fuzzy phrases like "moral authority", "first among equals", and all of that nonsense. Diplomats are supposed to make things happen. Anything else is posturing. I just wouldn't buy into it. Under dictatorships you can make some sort of case about the leader being some super-huge version of the state, but with America it just seems so silly.
In my world, where everybody has a pony and infomercials have been banned, nations are judged on objective merits of mutual self-interests.
and indeed, that is how they are judged. And that is why the US has almost no international support for its own objectives anymore.
Bush is held in low regard by most of the rest of the world because he does not consider the interests of other nations when demanding that they support his idea of what is right. Time and time again he has demonstrated his contempt for diplomacy and negotiated solutions -- and this started from the very beginning of his presidency. (Trashing the Global Warming treaty, insulting North Korea in a way that humiliated the President of South Korea, abandoning any effort to broker a Israeli/Palestinian peace -- preferring to allow the intifada and Israeli retaliation to spiral out of control, etc. )
And I'm sure I needn't remind you of the debacle of his "diplomacy" regarding Iraq.
When Bush does engage in diplomacy, its object is not to solve a problem, but to establish support for actions he has already decided he wants to take. In other words, when Bush does "negotiate", he does not do so in good faith.
Consequently practically no one trusts him and his administration, and what "international co-operation" he does get is more symbolic than substantive.
So, were a diplomat to say something like "We'd like to help those American chaps, but they're president is a real jerk" it wouldn't be because of Bush's boorish personal behavior, but the fact that Bush acts like a "real jerk" in the international community -- and ultimately, its in no ones interest to encourage such behavior, so there winds up being very little in the way of "mutual national interests" between the US and other nations.
Luka, I'm not going to get into a pro/anti Bush snit with you. Like I said, it seems silly. From your response, I take it you disagree.
I would like to point out some things our country is doing that can easily be mis-applied as some sort of slander of the current idiot living at 1600 Pa. Avenue, Washington DC.
The American policy of not dealing with the Iranians directly on any issue until the nuke problem is worked out is due to our stance with our European partners. The formation of a coalition to remove Saddam was an example of our working outside the UN -- an action that every other president has undertaken. Not dealing with Cuba -- the administration is bound by federal law. Overthrowing Saddam -- national policy as of 1998 was Saddam had to go. Later, Congress authorized the president to take whatever action he deemed necessary (for a lot of reasons besides WMD)
I could go on, but suffice it to say that this personalization and demonization of the president makes it hard to have a reasonable debate. I'm for action in Iraq not because Bush was for it, I'm for it because it makes sense to me. Likewise, I don't think talking to the Iranians and Syrians is going to get us anywhere, not because that is the administration's viewpoint, but because it simply doesn't make sense -- there's nothing in it for either party and it breaks our existing promises to our partners.
What I see that is interesting is the rise of a Global Left. Partisans in Italy want to expose and try CIA agents doing things CIA agents have done in Europe for fifty years or more. Protesters in France coordinate with protesters in Beverly Hills. For this global political movement, America is always going to be the enemy, no matter who is president.
I'm sure Bush is awful, and gosh-durn it, I'm just not voting for him again. So if we're past that, I'm still firing that ambassador because he is an idiot. The policies of the USA are real and exist for real and valid reasons. Our partners and we can find common ground -- we do all the time. The French were bought off before the second Iraq war yet they are some of our best partners on the GWOT. The world is not unanimous, nor should it be. If we truly are to lead, there will have to be some daylight between our positions and those who follow us. That's what leadership means.
I could care less about fuzzy phrases like "moral authority", "first among equals", and all of that nonsense.
it sounds to me that your professional expertise is limited to highly sturctured hierarchal organizations. Not everything organization in the world is organized in that fashion -- including democratic governments.
...and in those latter organizations, concepts like "moral authority" and "first among equals" is a critical component of getting things done.
Diplomats are supposed to make things happen. Anything else is posturing. I just wouldn't buy into it. Under dictatorships you can make some sort of case about the leader being some super-huge version of the state, but with America it just seems so silly.
notwithstanding the fact that the primary role of diplomacy is to stop things -- specifically, wars -- from happening...
"personal diplomacy" involving heads of state does play an important (and sometimes, crucial) role in international relations. It can open up negotiations on areas of mutual interest, and break log-jams in ongoing negotiations -- and understandings reached during private conversations are often key to dealing with international problems. These things can only occur if the heads of state trust each others character and judgement -- and "personal diplomacy" provides the means by which those judgements can be made.
But what we're talking about here isn't really personal diplomacy, but leadership on a much broader scale. America, because of its economic and military strength, can still throw its weight around. But when the US says it wants to do something, and a country says "what's in it for me", we no longer have the moral authority necessary to use the "a better world for all of us" argument, because no one trusts Bush's character, intentions, and judgement.
It was this "better world for all of us" argument that Bush was making for invading Iraq. Most nations certainly didn't feel threatened by Iraq, but supported Bush when he went to the UN and said (in essence) "Iraq has WMDs, which it can give to terrorists, and represents a threat to the stability of the entire region." The whole world was pretty much behind the idea of deposing Saddam because the US said it would make the world a better place. So the UN passed a resolution that no one expected Iraq to comply with....
But Iraq did comply with it (to the best of its abilities). And no WMDs were found, and no evidence of WMD programs was discovered --- despite detailed accusations by the US. When a missile was found to be in technical non-compliance with a previous resolution (and it was merely technical... a few test firings without warheads resulted in the missile going slightly more than 500km -- add a warhead, and the extra weight would have reduced the range) Iraq complied with the UN's demand that it destroy those missiles.
So, when the US went to the UN and demanded authorization for an invasion of Iraq -- despite the fact the el Baradei had certified that Iraq had no nuclear program (contrary to US claims) and Blix was saying nothing had been found and he needed only a few more months to say with confidence that nothing would be found, the world said "not yet, because this threat that you claim existed does not appear to exist at all."
And Bush decided to invade anyway -- and now when the US says something like "Iran has a nuclear program, and needs to be sanctioned" the world goes "hey, we're not falling for THAT one again....."
That is the cost of the loss of the moral authority to lead. Iran and North Korea probably do represent threats to regional stability -- but no one has any intention of dealing with that threat the way the US wants, because we can't be trusted.
The American policy of not dealing with the Iranians directly on any issue until the nuke problem is worked out is due to our stance with our European partners.
David, "not talking to Iran about other issues" is a stance our "European partners" are taking at our insistence. All we have to do is say "We gotta talk to Iran about Iraq" and our "European partners" will say "no problem."
The formation of a coalition to remove Saddam was an example of our working outside the UN -- an action that every other president has undertaken.
Nice try, but no other president has gone to the UN and asked for its authorization, got a resolution passed with the understanding that the wording would not be used as an authorization to attack, got that resolution passed based on WMD claims that wound up being completely unsubstantiated, then claimed that the invasion had been authorized by the UN based on the previous resolution.
Bush went to war after a campaign of lies and deceit -- and THAT is why we've lost our moral authority. That is quite different what Clinton did in co-operation with NATO in Bosnia -- where the only reason the UN did not authorize military action was the use of a single veto in the Security Council.
Not dealing with Cuba -- the administration is bound by federal law.
a law that Bush could have gotten changed at virtually any point in the last six years if he wanted to (especially if he'd claimed that we needed to start dealing with Cuba because of the "war on terror.")
Overthrowing Saddam -- national policy as of 1998 was Saddam had to go. Later, Congress authorized the president to take whatever action he deemed necessary (for a lot of reasons besides WMD)
the "national policy" was not "regime change by any means necessary. And there were two reason that a majority of congressmembers voted for the AUMF --- Bush's assurances that Iraq had WMDs and might turn them over to terrorists, and the fact that Bush would use a vote against the AUMF politically. That was it. Bush was telling the American people and Congress that Iraq represented a terrorist threat, and that anyone who didn't vote for the AUMF was soft on terrorism.
Finally, it should be noted that the AUMF authorized the use of force only after Bush had determined that there was no other means of dealing with the threat posed by Iraq. Congress made the mistake of trusting Bush's integrity and judgement -- it was glaringly obvious before the war started that there was no evidence that the threat that the AUMF was aimed at even existed.
Bush CLAIMED he needed the AUMF in order to be able to go to the UN to get the necessary authorization to use force and to form the necessary coalition to deal with Saddam (One of the problems Bush I faced in creating the coalition for the first US-Iraq war was that Congress had not authorized the use of force -- and there was some question if it would do so.)
Bush's lies and deceit came back to haunt him on the international stage almost immediately, and they've come back to haunt him now domestically. A majority of Americans don't just disapprove of his policies, they don't trust his judgement or character.
God, I'm tired of the 'WMD lies' argument. Everyone who had an interest in the issue believed that Saddam had unreported WMD in 2001. The Europeans, Democrats, Republicans, for all we know the Russians, too.
Bush spun the issue hard, but was also clear in saying that we would not wait until the threat ws imminent to act.
The sanctions regime was collapsing, in no small part because of the complicity of the international agencies being bribed by Saddam, and because of the moral issues raised by many of the same people now jumping up and down and shouting "Bush lied!" and everyone expected that when it did collapse, Saddam would rapidly reconstitute all his WMD programs up to and including the nuclear program he had shipped to Libya.
So no, the war wasn't based on lies. It was based on deeply flawed intel, and if people would stop running around misrepresenting it, maybe we could get somewhere in improving the intelligence we're getting now.
A.L.
Well, if you're tired of hearing it now, A.L., I hate to think how you're going to have to deal with it for the rest of your life.
FIrst of all, there is good reason to believe that the WH had access to intelligence that was different that that which was shared with congressional Democratic (and Republican) leaders, and which painted a much less certain situation WRT WMD.
Second, only Dick Cheney was going around saying that Saddam had, in fact, reconstituted Nuclear Weapons. He said this more than once so it was not a single mis-spoken comment on MTP. The "smoking gun in the form of a nuclear cloud" phrase was uttered many times by other Bush administration officials, including Bush, many times in public. It is now clear that this represented an inflation of that same intelligence you say was faulty and is the real culprit in the whole deception.
Blaming the intelligence community for the Bush administrations lies is deplorable. It calls into question why anyone should think that someone so willing and able to misrepresent current and past history to further their political goals, or cover their asses, should be trusted to render any further judgments pertaining to matters of national security.
Finally, the idea that invading Iraq when and as we did was the necessary response to this uncertainty about the possession of WMD (because that, in fact, was what the intelligence said, not that he had them) has also now been proven foolish, clearly. Not only did the invasion result in the unregulated dispersal of whatever weapons did exist to neighboring countries and who knows where else, it also created a new situation in Iraq that is less manageable than the former, with Saddam in power.
You better get used to the fact that the twin evils of lying and incompetence can never be disentagled by continuing to insist that Bush was saying no more than anyone else and acted on good faith in response to this. History is crystallizing as we speak around this view of events. Sorry it doesn't appeal to you.
Andy, history has crystallized around all kinds of false assumptions, and then dissolved and recrystallized again, so being somewhat less certain would be a suggestion...
Yes, Bush has super-secret intelligence; and yet so did Clinton and his poition was...??
AL...
Re Bush lied: I suggest that you read the additional views section (starting on Page 158 of the report-- page 161 of the PDF document) of "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress " by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiinc.pdf
which details, at length, how the Bush administration lied about three separate issues. It also details how the GOP majority blocked the questioning of a whole boatload of GOP officials who could shed further light on other lies.
This document is really just an appetizer, now that the Democrats control the Senate. The GOP can no longer block a full investigation... and when the TRUTH is finally released, there will be no doubt in anyones mind about how we were lied to.
Luka.
You have a very interesting definition of lying, and you have a very interestnig idea about how various pieces of intel are assimilated. In addition, you have view of recent history that seems almost in a world to itself. A world which many others share, as I'm sure you know.
I'm not going to fight the battle of recent history today because, quite frankly, it's been done here over and over again. Just stay tuned and your favorite topic will come up and we can all have at it! Only sometimes it really is beginning to seem like a re-run. How many times do you have to explain how all intel has conflicting aspects and the role of the chain of command in forming the NIE? How many times do you have to explain that lying means presenting something as truth that you know to be false? How many times must a person explain that there was a host of reasons for going into Iraq (read The Threatening Storm for a complete view of the reasons for invading Iraq. Be sure to follow the footnotes)? But as Andy points out, the answer is forever! Because these urban political myths have become part of the culture, and unless people continue to use reason and common sense, this emotional claptrap will prevail.
I have suggested in the past that Joe or A.L. or somebody take these topics and make a political Wiki out of them (moderated, of course) where we could put all of the facts in one place, with all of the arguments pro and con, and then just point people over there.
I promise, however, that I will engage any and all on this issue. If I am wrong, I want somebody to show it to me. But in return, I ask that others keep the same open mind. We have to stop talking past one another and work more on talking to each other.
As a side note, it always saddens me to see people with such a negative worldview and opinion of the country they live in. I remember how I used to hate that last guy, old whatshisname, until one day I finally realized just how weak the office of the president really is. The only thing he can do is speak from the bully pulpit, for everything else he needs funding and/or authorization. But partisans love to demonize the presidents -- all the more to turn out the vote the next time around. I don't know about you, but I'm just not falling for it anymore. Our presidents are neither gods nor devils, they are regular people who want the best for our nation. That's kind of the whole point in having a president.
"FIrst of all, there is good reason to believe that the WH had access to intelligence that was different that that which was shared with congressional Democratic (and Republican) leaders, and which painted a much less certain situation WRT WMD."
You obviously dont understand how Congressional oversite works. If the intelligence committies settled for white washed briefings from the executive, they did so of their own volition. The intel committees, including the minority leader personally, has subpeona power and therefore access to every shred of intelligence data the President does. That they choose not to use that power speaks to either how seriously they take their jobs, or how certain they themselves were of the 'conventional wisdom'. The Senate Select Committee Vice-Chair could have George 'slam dunk' Tenet, the Clinton nominated head of the CIA mark you, in their chambers at any time, and demand every shred of paper at Langely if he liked. That was and is in his power.
Luka.
In a way, from a political standpoint I think this lying charge is actually funny as heck. Now that the Dems are in control, it's time to put up or shut up, big guy. If they really believed so much wrongdoing was going on, then they either have to impeach the president or resign in shame. If, on the other hand, you partisans have been played as patsies, they'll come up with some reason impeachment won't work. I can't wait to hear the reason why, when the president did the most evil thing in the world and took us to war for nefarious purposes, that impeachment or threats of impeachment are off the table.
If I were the Dems, I wouldn't even run all those investigations you are salivating about. Because when Joe Sixpack gets a good look at the escaped lunatics running the committees, the field of Dems will have a heck of a time looking serious for the next presidential run. Sure, we'll see lots of low-key posturing and innuendo. Just enough to keep the Dem base for figuring out what suckers they were played for. It's almost as funny as watching the Rs play the Christians as suckers on the abortion issue. Maybe more so.
I love the argument that the branch of government charged with funding everything in the government is too stupid to review the operations of the government. Help us before we do something idiotic again! We're just wimps who believe everything the president says! Don't blame us, we're not paid to actually figure anything out!
LOL. Almost as good as the "stop me before I spend again" you hear from then when you try to ask them why the budget is out of whack. These guys must be like zombies or something. It's a wonder they can make decisions at McDonalds without holding the line up for hours.
You have a very interesting definition of lying, and you have a very interestnig idea about how various pieces of intel are assimilated.
how do you know what I do, and do not, know about "how various pieces of intel are assimilated". You don't. and its obvious that either I know a great deal more about how this war was sold than you, or you're doing your best to spin falsehoods into halftruths...
Now that the Dems are in control, it's time to put up or shut up, big guy. If they really believed so much wrongdoing was going on, then they either have to impeach the president or resign in shame.
I guess you didn't bother to read the "additional views" from the SSCI report I linked to? The Dems have already "put up" quite a bit....and according to the new chair of the intelligence committee, the REST of Phase II will be coming out in a few weeks....
As to impeachment -- Even the GOP leadership recognized that there were grounds for impeachment of Ronald Reagan in the Iran - Contra scandal. The Democrats chose not to impeach Reagan "for the good of the country" (that was the official version, my guess is that politics had at least something to do with it.)
I personally believe that Bush will be impeached -- not because of his lying, but because he will refuse to comply with congressional supoenas or reporting requirements, or refuses to declassify information solely for political reasons. But that, of course, is another topic entirely.