So the Russians are supposed to do for us what they can't do for themselves in Chechnya.

You guys both left out the all important question of whether third party troops would be any good. See e.g. http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM

An additional problem with Russia is the likelihood that they would be pursuing counterproductive goals in Iraq such as helping to continue hiding WMD. See e.g. Ion Pacepa's recent article at Opinionjournal.com.

OT: India turned us down for troops in Iraq, but maybe they'd play ball in Afghanistan? There is a standing UN resolution on the issue, and 17,000 Indian troops could really make a difference there--and keep Musharaff up at nights, which is cool.

Tom - whooole different world between Iraq and Chechnya. In one, the bulk of the population wants the Russians out; they're facing whay looks much like the traditional War of National Liberation. Iraq, if handled right, is a case where the minority of the population is violently opposed to occupation.

Havign said that, I don't see a lot in Russian doctrine as shown in Chechnya that suggests that they could effectively run their own troops.

Problems, problems...

A.L.

Iblis,

Go here:

http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/default.asp

Though you burn a lot of electrons up, I'm more persuaded than ever, given your valiant attempt, that we're pretty much in it with the team we're going to get. We need to get as many Iraqi's trained as quickly as possible. Next would be a $50,000 incentive payment to every college graduate who is fluent in Arabic, written and spoken, and volunteers for service in the branch of the Government's choice, cause we're going to be doing this again and the biggest shortage seems to be linguists. That would be a lot cheaper than guaranteeing Iraqi repayment of debt to Russia and suffering the consequences of their thuggish army running around too close to Checnya.

A.L.,

You mistake cause and effect.

Most Iraqis will react to our occupation like the Chechens react to Russian occupation if we let Russian forces into Iraq.

Admit you were wrong.

Tom & Richard -

In the course of my nosing around, I've seen force:population ratios in the 20:100,000 range tossed out as the effective numbers (i.e. that's what we used in Kosovo, what was used in WWII in Germany, etc. etc.). This is an area where substituting tech for boots is pretty difficult, and so here's the issue - where do we get the boots??

If we follow Trent's suggestion and reinstitute a draft, we're talking a year before any substantial numbers of effective troops start coming out the pipeline.

If we work to bulk up the all-volunteer force, we're looking at a longer time to see the force levels increase to levels that would afford us the opportunity to put 200,000 - 300,000 troops in Iraq.

And we still need some flexibility to deal with what follows.

Suggestions??

A.L.

Tom -

>Admit you were wrong.

Not sure I agree. the Chechens have quite a history with the Russians going back hundreds of years. the recent history of the Russians with Iraquis is positie - they were the supplier, trainer, superpower shield.

Again, not 100% sure, but unconviced by your assertions so far.

A.L.

i think we all agree that this is a very tough situation. i dont think a full solution has been worked out by anyone, let alone those of us discussing it here. i do think there are many partial suggestions being floated that are very appealing. a larger presense in afghanistan with a totally international (ie: indian) face could do a lot to help take off some of the pressure in iraq. there isnt a whole hell of a lot else available to relieve presure though, so the question is how we make this work with what is now available.

honestly i think going it mostly alone in iraq could turn out to be a good thing. the iraqis are likely to remember those nations that were willing to come in despite the lack of a un stamp of approval and may be more likely to shun those that were not. if we recognize that the threats we face go beyond just the fantasy world of islamism and involves also the entire issue of general gulliverisation, should we really be so eager to bring the main advocates of such into decision making process?

I thought that our stated objective in Iraq was to create a stable, economically prosperous democracy there.

How on Earth this could be accomplished by inviting Russians to the region? They don't exactly have a good record with regard to democracy, rule of law, market economy, or treatment of non-Russians.

And even if we think that their interest may coincide with ours, this does not mean that they see it this way. After all we KNOW for a fact that the terrorists threaten entire West; but French et al. prefer to pretend otherwise and instead see the US as a greatest threat to their dreams of "glorie". Russians are also quite interested in cutting the US down to size, no matter how much Vlad may enjoy Texan barbeques. Does anybody really believe that the Russians would follow our political plans, or even cooperate with our military?

If we simply want to screw the Iraqis all we have to do is to leave now; no need for elaborate games with Russians.

AL --

I don't think your numbers work.

First, there's a huge difference between raw troop numbers (which you use, and which basically count the number of guys with an uniform and a rifle) and deployable troop numbers (which 1. are preferrably not conscripts, 2. well-trained, 3. have vehicles, 4. have other equipment such as radios, 5. include their own supply train, and 6. can transport themselves to Iraq. If 1-5 don't apply, we're far better off training civilian Iraqis instead).

Then there's a big difference again between the number of deployable troops and the number of useful troops -- troops that have good morale and discipline, are reasonably well-educated, and have decent English and Arabic language skills.

Bottom line: the UN is a chimera.

Let's keep our focus on the Iraqis; on training and equipping an Iraqi security/police force and otherwise build a decent country they can be proud of.

Bremer is asking for what, 2 divisions? The Turks and Indians would have given us that many--and the Turks still may give us a division.

The Indians bowing out has created an unforseen problem, much like the Turks balking at letting us stage from their country earlier this year.

We made do when the Turks balked. We'll make do now; probably wind up sending another batallian or two, train Iraqis as fast as we can and get a few hundred international troops here and a few hundred there. It'll all happen more slowly and with more bloodshed than necessary, but it'll still happen.

Tom -- Am familiar with your work. Those who aren't should check it out.

A.L.,

Chechens know the Russians up close and personal.
Iraqis don't.
Put Russians into Iraq and that will change.

I'm no policy wonk either, but there is one thing you got this wrong:

China and Russia both have huge dogs in this fight, as each of them faces their own issues with Islamists

China's problem isn't with Islamists but with seperatists. They just happen to come from a region with strong islamic influence (Xinjiang province). A lot of reports have confused this issue, and the US has recognized some terror groups in the area and somewhere along the line things got confused.

So they don't really have a dog in the fight at all. But you are correct to point out that even if they did we have absolutely no leverage over them whatsoever over Iraq, and they would probably actually like to see us go down just a few notches.

Tackling the comments thread before adressing A.L.s post itself,

Iblis, Balagan - Indian troops in Afghanistan is an interesting idea but they might complicate the picture more than advance it, especially since they would be highly tempted to try and use Afghanistan as a base for their rivalry (to put it mildly) with Pakistan.

Let me say here that I for one would much rather prefer warmer ties to India than to Pakistan, and have said so in a number of blog posts. But the potential for something Really Bad is too high here - considering both countries came closer to war in the last year than many people realize, and such a war could easily go nuclear.

Turks - We have a fairly long relationship with Turkey that has been remarkably good. They've been with us in places like Korea, during the Korean War, and IIRC there were even some Turkish forces in Vietnam (someone please correct me if I'm misrecalling).

However, in Iraq, at least under the current Turkish government, they seem more interested in mischief than help. Sure, they would be happy to provide a Division or two in the occupation force. However, the sticking point, I believe, is where they want to deploy it and to what end.

The Turks were, people may remember, "vollenteering" to send troops into Northern Iraq (the Kurdish zone) during the fighting. They're still happily vollenteering to "help" by sending troops to occupy the Kurdish areas of Iraq.

I believe people see the problems that would almost certainly lead to.

OtoH, we'd be happy to have the Turks provide troops to guard the oil pipeline to prevent sabotage, and perhaps watch the Iraq-Syria border. But they're wanting a quid pro quo - they'll be happy to watch the pipeline (which after all helps them), but want to "additionally" garrison those Kurdish areas. . .not a good deal.

So, what we have is an impasse and until they give up the ambition to be put in charge of clamping down on Iraq's Kurds (for their own reasons), Turkish troops are right out - they would cause more problems than they would solve and would lead to inflaming a region (Northern Iraq) that is, right now, stable and reasonably calm. It would be counterproductive rather than helpful.

A.L.,

Our most natural allies in this fight are the Iraqis themselves. The current plan to send 30,000 Iraqis to Hungary for police training (and I suspect some intensive "debriefing/reeducation" as well) will be tantamount to an additional two-heavy/three- light divisions - with an Iraqi face.

The best way to pacify Iraq and put it firmly on the path to freedom and democracy is for us to make partners of Iraqis in this effort. Sure, we might suffer some setbacks due to enemy "moles" but on balance we'll get to work closer with them; and they with us. This procedure should create more people dependent upon our succeeding; promote confidence in our efforts and intent; less fear of our leaving Iraq to the Ba'athists and Wahabbists; and finally, promote the kind of stable, civil institutions that will be necessary in Iraq long after we leave. Shared responsibility and accountability will do wonders for Iraqi self-reliance and independence: think job training and welfare reform rather than welfare programs.

And the best part of it? We and the Iraqis both win. Oh, one more thing: we won’t have to cut any mission compromising deals with the "allies" who gratuitously alienated us by selling out our security interests at the U.N. to defend their pal Saddam.

Now, as to A.L.'s core proposal: introducing Russian troops into Iraq.

The difference isn't just one between Chetchna & Iraq. It's a matter of the composition of Russian forces - very ill-trained and uneavenly lead conscripts.

Qualitative aspects of a military are at least as important as quantitative ones. Lets take a douple-look at the list of militaries. No one would argue that Egypt's military (#10), or Pakistan's (#6), is better than, say, Britain's (#23), especially at stuff like this. Even France's (#17) isn't better than Britain's, I would argue - not because French military traditions are bad but the current state of their force is, let us say, somewhat atrophied.

In truth, probably no military in the world is better than Britain's at the sort of operations being done in Iraq - though the USMC is a near runner-up. (Btw, a better ranking of militaries, one using "combat power" rather than raw force strength, can be found in James Dunnigan's "How to Make War". On that list, Britain's ranks #8. They would rank even higher on a list that takes account of only forward-deployable combat power; the combat power of most of the other nations in the top #10 is primarily "fixed" to their immediate region).

Other problems with Russia:

Russian relationships with the former ruling authorities of Iraq, the Ba'athists are strong and close and would introduce a pernicious aspect to things. Putin is, for all his authority, not definately completely in control and there has always been a greater tendency of "moonlighting" among Russian military officers than those of the Anglosphere - engaging in things on their own account, even in contradiction of official policy. Also, Russian troops are poorly paid. Want to help arm the Ba'athist remnants and other elements fighting us? Then introduce an army, Russia's, in which there is a thriving grey and black market (true stories of Russian military antics in the past include troops who traded their tank for as much booze as they could carry, and other shenanigans). The image of Russian troops being under iron discipline is misleading at best. Sure, discipline is harsh in the Russian army - but it is uneven and only partially effective. Russian troops get away with a lot of things, things that we wouldn't want them getting away with in Iraq. By contrast, our "looser" military maintains discipline more effectively. Sure, people can point to stories of American soldiers black marketing stuff, but it is not nearly as pervasive nor on the kind of scale it is in the Russian army today.

The Russian army also lacks the professionalism required to handle the delicate "Hearts and Minds" task in Iraq that is so vitally important.

Now is also a good time to remind people that during the war, there were fairly reliable accounts that the Russians had provided Saddam's side with equipment (including GPS jammers which, thankfully, were minimally effective) right up to and perhaps even during the conflict.

Now, as to Russia's interests in Iraq in other respects, A.L. is right that they do have strong interests there but they run contrary to ours. Take the example of Russia's oil interests - sure, they desire stability in oil markets, but at a high price per barrel. Which means they're not interested in the outcome mentioned in the CDI article.

As to honoring prewar debts and oil contracts to Russia - ok, but there is a problem within that. The debt burden would be crushing on Iraq at this stage. We would have to pay it. The oil deals that Russia has with Iraq were made under terms that are almost obscenely favorable to Russia and disabling to Iraq - the oil deal that the Russian oil companies are most keen on was inked about a year ago, essentially as a bribe for Russia's continued support. Saddam agreed to terms that were not based on commercial viability, but political pay-out for continued Russian support; one can ask him if he got what he expected out of it, but the answer is indicated by the fact that he voided the deals last December. Honoring those deals might win Russian support, but it would be at the expense of Iraq and Iraq's people. IMO, the deals would, at minimum, have to be re-negotiated on fairer terms.

(See here and here for some posts I have on the Russia-Iraq oil contracts).

Add to that the problems I already mentioned with regard to Russian soldiers and a Russian presence in Iraq and I simply do not think it would work out to our benefit, or to the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Porphy,

Not to mention, the Kurdish areas are (seemingly) the least in need of garrisons.

A.L.:

Remember - if an Iraqi is shot, Americans will take the blame, whether or not it was a Russian, Turk, or Indian at the trigger.

I think we can field enough troops even if Bremmer needs another division or so. The question is can we do it without destroying the moral of our volunteer force, which is arguably the most precious resource in this present situation. I think we can, with a combination of the right incentives, bonuses, and rotation schedule. Cut the deployment to 9mos or even 6. Rotate everybody through. Really this is a domestic political issue, and should be treated as such.

Further, more civilian forces need to be sent right away to pick up the slack with the humanitarian work. Money talks and money spent now will be well spent.

On all counts now is not the time to try to save money. Where will it come from? I have some ideas but the most important thing is to make sure our troops and humanitian workers are numerous, rested, and well compensated.

Could the Russians help? Sure. They could help with people to work with us to repair the infrastructure. Would this be worth cutting them in on an oil deal? I don't think there's any principled objection. Leave it up to the Iraqi's - if they find the Russians helpful let them set the reward.

Interesting string. We've worked with the Russians in the Balkans. There soldiers are very good, very tough. But, they're tied to a third world logistics tail (we fed them in Pristina) and, even more important, have tough conditions at home. We'd be sending them into a sea of illicit cash. That said, I don't think the focus needs to be on more boots on the ground. It needs to be on civilian reconstruction. Wrote about a Euphrates Valley Authority. A New Deal for Iraq. Loaded term, but in transitioning the Iraqi's from a state driven economy to a market based one, some sort of New Deal (honey, off to my job at the Jobs Program Authority. You can poor a million troops into Iraq, and some jagoff with a bomb or an AK can create a sense of "instability". Still issues (Europundit has a good post France's Algiers military victory vis Idealogical defeat, similar to our Vietnam experience,) that we have to be aware of and deal with.
That said, Russia is definetly being set up as the belle of the ball. Between France's need to substitute Russian Military prowess for British (the Primakov plan,southern strategy, etc) and our desire to have them on our side out of "common interest" ---the Russians are starting to have options.
If you like Sci Fi, looking at the difference between Jerry Pournelle's "CoDominion" and Danial Keys Morans "UN" outlook. Niether is palatable.

What you are leaving out is the moral advantage of doing it ourselves.

If we can do the job with the boots we have even if the casualties are 2X what they would be with an optimum force it will increase our effective military strength by at least 3X. Making our armed forces equal to a minimum of 4 million.

The second problem is that we do not train with the Russians. The radios are there for not interoperable. Very important. We have no common tactical doctrine. That means we will be operating at cross purposes in many cases. Russian doctrine calls for flatening guerillas and their city supporters with arty. We and the Israelis OTOH prefer decapitation and targeted strikes limiting colateral damage.

I'd say to pick any of those on the list you would have to limit it to those countries who we have worked with and trained with for years. It wouldn't hurt if we had weapons in common too, limiting logistics problems.

So who on the list fits the bill? The Brits. They are already with us.

We are getting all the help we are ever going to get.

Men and women are going to die. We are going to have to grit our teeth and take it. That is what war is about - can we stand the pain better than our enemies. If we can the next battle of the war will be easier. Our enemies will give up sooner. We have to bite the bullet. Iraq is going to be a tough battle. Our enemies may be losing 30 or 40 a day but for now they can handle that level of pain. So the question is can we handle losses of 1 to 2 a day? Our enemies are betting against us. They remember the lesson of Vietnam. We lost Vietnam in America not on the battle field of SE Asia.

I am sorry to tell you all this but we have to take casualties to prove our determination. The rest of the world outside OZ, Israel, and the Brits expect us to eventually cut and run. The attacks will continue until they lose that hope.

*History*

If we are not at least as good as the men of that era we don't deserve to live as free men. The price of Liberty is the blood of patriots and tyrants. Let us pay willingly.

“Not once in a century are men permitted to bear such responsibilities!” Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain professor of Rhetoric Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine.

Tim's point on Iraqis is a good one and I, for one, haven't the foggiest why we didn't and aren't making more use of recruiting from the Iraqi exile community, either before the war or now. Many have offered to help, only very few were trained and sent, and they were largely sidelined.

As for other countries, of those listed the best bet is really Indian troops in Iraq, but there is a catch-22 there.

India wants UNSC cover. UNSC cover in this case means going through France & Russia. So that would mean giving those countries something in exchange for nothing (unless counting their obsteporousness as something worth rewarding). What they mainly want are their commercial contracts honored and Iraq's debts to them honored.

However, it isn't so much, as some have asserted, that this gets in the way of us and our interests in Iraq, but, as mentioned in the previous post, these burdens would be crushing for Iraq and pretty much kill any prospect of them getting back on their feet economically any time soon - Iraq's pre-war debt levels were unsustainable (and, indeed, Saddam had ceased payments on most of them already), and the oil deals which were signed by Saddam for political reasons (to buy political support) are stacked to Iraq's detriment; honoring them would mean that Iraq would be denied the benefit of its own oil revenues, which would instead go to Russia and France.

In tandem these would be particularly impossible to service - honoring the oil deals with France and Russia would mean that there would be absolutely no way Iraq could generate the revenue to pay back the debts that those countries want honored, above and beyond the fact that it would deny them money for reconstruction and building up a viable economy.

So, in exchange for troops India wants something that depends upon the support of third parties that are not inclined to give it unless they are conceeded something that would hinder - criple, really - any prospect of Iraqi recovery. Thus it is a price not worth paying.

Hmmm. The issues raised are certainly all real.

Let me toss two out in return as I ponder all of this.

First, is time our enemy or friend in Iraq right now? My concern is that we need to hit a level of stability X (which I'll define as basic civil order, a functioning infrastructure, and some progress on getting the oil infrastructure in place so the Iraqis can sell oil and survive, and that we have resources A to get us there.

Every day that Iraq isn't at X, some amoount of Iraqi goodwill and American resolve drains away.

You see where I'm going with this...do we need to ramp up the speed at which we hit X, or slow down the drain on resources, or are we OK??

Next, looking past Iraq, there are real conflicts between the E.U. and the US (just because I don't share Trent's loathing for France doesn't mean I think everything is hunky-dory.

I tend to see Russia as the prize, because after it bottoms (and it's coming close), it will have a strong, resource-driven economy.

Right now the EU is trollng hard, but Russia hasn't been landed. I'd rather we landed them, if at all possible.

But that's an impression, not an argument yet...

A.L.

IIRC the UNSC resolution recognising us as the occupying power precludes the kind of sweetheart oil deals Saddam struck with France and Russia (I recall reading this on DenBeste's site). The accounts are audited by an international team - something that never happened with the "oil-for-food" program. Bottom line is we couldn't get those Russian oil contracts honored if we wanted to - we'd be violating international law.

Beets: those troops in the Balkans were a few select troops, not an entire Division of Russian soldiers (they tend to have a few good units but are very thin after that). So the problems would really be worse.

Things were actually somewhat strained even in the Balkans. Look into Wesley Clark's record there and the, um, friction with the Russians.

A.L. I actually agree with you re. Russia in the larger sense, and in particular with this:

"I tend to see Russia as the prize, because after it bottoms (and it's coming close), it will have a strong, resource-driven economy."

(though the latter, "resource-driven economy", I donno. Resource-driven economies tend to be poor. But I believe they will begin to revive an industrial base).

However, IMO Iraq is an area where this could too easily get messed up rather than helped. IMO, it's the wrong time and the wrong place and the likelyhood of clashing rather than conjoining interests is too great in that area.

I think working together in other aspects of the war against terrorism would help, but including them in in this part of the campaign would be rife with potential mischief, not all of which would come "from the top" but would result from lower-level people doing things that could not be ignored but then would cause international incidents, especially given Russian pride.

lewy14:

The UNSC is, um, "uneven" in the arena of "International Law". What they pass with a Resolution they can revise with another one, and that is the pound-of-flesh that France and Russia are looking for in any new, "stronger UN role" Resolution.

We won't do it because it would be self-defeating to do it, but they're ready and willing to alter the previously passed UN Resolutions on post-war Iraq, which would amount to "passing new legislation" changing the "international law" (such as it is) in the area.

A.L., a list of manpower numbers is so deceptive. Few of those countries actually have "effective" forces. Even the Russians had a great deal of difficulty deploying the small number of troops that they sent to the Balkans. And as I think Tom has stated, you can't just send any body you have to work with US troops in Iraq.

Porphy,

I should have put "interntional law" in scare quotes, not italics.

Yes, I recognize that with the UNSC what can be done can be undone.

The real issue I'm raising is that the oil contracts aren't really ours to negotiate - it really is Iraq's oil, right?

If we did re-create sweetheart deals for Russia and France to benefit ourselves at Iraq's expense, then the accusations of imperialism and colonialism leveled at us by a certain segment of the political spectrum would be a lot less ridiculous.

Here's the headline on the Washington Post and NY Times as of 9:15pm Pacific:

U.N. Troops Considered For Securing Postwar Iraq

Subhead: Bush administration explores creating a multinational force that would still be subordinate to U.S. commanders.

...

A.L.

Many comments are at least entertaining the necessity of "internationalizing" the faltering nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq.

I reject the notion that - "We are going to have to grit our teeth and take it" as obdurate and forward again the suggestion that American troops have completed their primary mission, and need "our allies" (remember them) to help provide relief, defray the costs, and assist in the security of the abused Iraqi citizenry.

America should seek assistance, not relinquish command.

This lively discourse and suggests that;

- America cannot afford, nor do we have the forces to conduct the visionary Pax Americana nationbuilding enterprises (the military democratization and religious reformation of the middle east pipe dreams) conjured by rightwingideologues in the Bush clan, alone.

- The Iraq nationbuilding plan or lack thereof was woefully misguided and ill conceived.

- Bush should have finished the mission in Afghanistan first, and then moved on the House of Saud, the heart of islam, and 40% of the worlds oil, instead of wasting our and Iraqi blood and untold amounts of our money in a war against Saddam.

- There are no easy, cheap, or bloodless solutions now to the Iraq mess Bush has deceptively heaped on our unchallengeable military, and America for decades to come.

Tony, there were no easy, cheap, or bloodless solutions to the challenges before the USA even BEFORE Iraq. There still aren't any. To start with strategy:

Afghasnistan is not finishable, unless you want to try it the way the Soviets did. Don't recall that working too well. So, we'll play this the old British way (which did work, mostly), with a few American twists. That means Afghanistan will ALWAYS be "sorta stable". Get used to it.

Or... explain to us all how just you'd "finish" Afghanistan. This one, I've got to hear...

No argument re: the House of Saud as a target. We might argue about the timing and preconditions needed to set them up for a fall, though. So far, not bad. I just wish I trusted Bush to take this to its logical conclusion - but if he doesn't, American opinion Right and to some extent Left too is likely to find someone who will. Nice to hear voices like yours on the Left who get that - the Right largely does. And oddly, your most reliable allies on this are the neocons you so despise.

Now, Iraq. I think it was the right move. You think it was the wrong one. We both wish some things were different. But the USA is there, and now what? Even Howard Dean seems to accept that - not that I trust him at all to live up to it.

Recall that Hitler had not been found, and German "Werrewolves" terrorists were still attacking, right into 1947. The difference is that Germany did not have neighbouring countries who could or would send reinforcements to replace the Werewolves as they fell. So, this is going to take a bit longer and cost a bit more.

Agree with those on the thrread who say Iraqis are key. And see Melana Zyla Vickers' article for more Iraq options.

Hey, Tony...

I'm assuming you're here to join a discussion and share your knowledge and opinions (and I personally REALLY like the idea that this isn't some kind of echo chamber where we all agree and congratulate ourselves on our insightfulness)

but...

...the jargon and - I can't think of another term - cheap rhetoric you keep throwing into your posts means that whatever signal may be there gets lost in the noise. Some examples:

>of the middle east pipe dreams) conjured
>by rightwingideologues in the Bush clan

>Bush has deceptively heaped on our >unchallengeable military

The points you may make are worth making (although not necessarily ones I agree with, and you'll probably get some argument from me), but it's hard to pay attention when the rhetoric is so strident that folks just tune out.

You're a grownup (no one can tell you're a dog on the Internet), and make your own choices. But I'd like to have some good leftie arguments here to leaven the right-wing nods of assent, and I'd rather people didn't just tune you out.

Your call, tho.

A.L.

- America cannot afford, nor do we have the forces to conduct the visionary Pax Americana nationbuilding enterprises (the military democratization and religious reformation of the middle east pipe dreams) conjured by rightwingideologues in the Bush clan, alone.

- Bush should have finished the mission in Afghanistan first, and then moved on the House of Saud, the heart of islam, and 40% of the worlds oil, instead of wasting our and Iraqi blood and untold amounts of our money in a war against Saddam.

Tony writes: "Many comments are at least entertaining the necessity of 'internationalizing' the faltering nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq."

Another example of Tony assuming something he can't establish. Any claim of our efforts in Iraq 'faltering' would require establishing a baseline of expected progress. But Tony makes no such effort, instead jumping to the ridiculous rhetoric.

"America should seek assistance, not relinquish command."

Another example of Tony making false implications that our policy contradicts his claim.

"- America cannot afford, nor do we have the forces to conduct the visionary Pax Americana nationbuilding enterprises (the military democratization and religious reformation of the middle east pipe dreams) conjured by rightwingideologues in the Bush clan, alone."

As opposed to the leftwingideologue nation building you advocate ...

"- The Iraq nationbuilding plan or lack thereof was woefully misguided and ill conceived."

Try just establishing this point instead of repeating it without foundation over and over again.

"- Bush should have finished the mission in Afghanistan first, and then moved on the House of Saud, the heart of islam, and 40% of the worlds oil, instead of wasting our and Iraqi blood and untold amounts of our money in a war against Saddam."

That's your version of leftwingideologue invasion and nationbuilding. Again, you don't support your claims.

"- There are no easy, cheap, or bloodless solutions now to the Iraq mess Bush has deceptively heaped on our unchallengeable military, and America for decades to come."

Empty vapid rhetoric, devoid of factual basis.

This is all that Tony contributes and why this trolling ( I unfortunately disagree with Tom's characterization while agreeing with his frustration ). Another dead thread.

A.L., regarding the WaPo story,

Sounds like State dept is floating a trial balloon of some kind. State likes to negotiate international agreements, that's what they're about. Whitehouse and Defense are not on board.

The interoperation and logistics arguments against "Internationalizing" the occupation force made in this thread are interesting because they don't change even if we had complete international and UN support from the beginning. On paper, Kuwait was liberated by the United Armies of Benetton™ but the situation on the ground was that the US did the vast bulk of the fighting, and today the interoperation issue are even worse.

A.L.,

Troops on occupation duty tend to use the occupation policies of their respective armed forces, assuming their country has one. If not, they improvise and the success of that improvisation depends on the professionalism of the armed forces in question.

Russia has an occupation policy of many years' standing. Joe would be very upset if I described it. Ask the Chechens and Afghans. Yet you want to put the Russians into Iraq.

Are we talking about the same Russians?

It is pretty near imposssible to retrain a foreign ground force which has a significant proportion of short-service conscripts to use a new occupation doctrine in the time frame before we could deploy a comparably sized and effective, and brand new, group of Iraqis.

IMO, Turkey and South Korea are the only countries with ground forces which have the capability and numbers to assist us in the occupation of Iraq. AFAIK, the pre-war plan was to use the Turks in numbers at this point. That fell through due to Turkish domestic politics. The ROKA/ROKMC are presently unavailable due to prior pressing commitments.

The occupation policies of both the Turkish and ROK forces are effective but hardly nice.

What seems to be going on here are two points:

1. Time is short for the Iraqis
2. Americans cannot sustain casualties.

I don't buy #1. We have enough time if the Iraqis change their minds and decide that they (not the USA) are responsible for their country. In fact since this is a pre-condition for self rule they are going to have to change their minds for US success. Because they have had 30+ years of being told what to do this will take time. Given human nature very few will change their attitude for at least 6 months. For the rest it will take two or three years for an attitude change and another three years to get the required practice - see Germany 1945 to 1951. Or Japan same era.

Prewar poling said that Americans would accept 1,000 deaths to secure Iraq. Assuming one death a day we are still 2+ years from that number.

In any case can is not the issue. Must is the issue.

It is America's and the Brit's job. Let us stop the whining and get on with it. We are not going to get significant outside help. We must proceed slowly in Iraq due to deBaathification. So we will not get much Iraqi help for a while. War sucks. So does 9/11.

We must also recognize Saudi strategy for what it is. War has often been a way to clean a country of malcontents. In other words suicide by American troops. Fortunately the Saudi's cozy relationship with America (Bandar Bush anyone?)is unraveling. All to the good.

As I alluded to in a prior post, if America goes crawling to the UN or any of the Axis of Weasels we are in deep do do for the next strike.

Washington Times: U.S. miscalculated security for Iraq. Pretty honest and candid assesment; the tone is that while significant problems exist there is no "disaster". Some of the "how did we know?" protests from some of the quoted officials fail to impress me however.

Agreed Joe, but prior to the war, the "otherside" was pushing for a continued inspection process, and unanimously agreed on strict prohibitions against and enforcement of the destruction of Saddams' WMD development.

It is moot to argue hypotheticals, but I believe the world would have eventually supported beheading Saddam and America would not face the problems we do today alone.

I appreciate your advice A.L., and will try to curb my rhetoric, - but I think framing the obviously necessary and justified response to 9/11 as a war, was...deceptive, and purposefully opportunistically marketed to sell the lurch into Iraq and achieve the cloaked ulterior political and economic objectives of the...administration.

Our mission is, or should be hunting, capturing or killing islamic jihadist mass murderers, and those that aid and abet them, destroying their networks, systems, bases of operations, - and prosecuting, (with the assistance of the rest of the civilized world, which offered universal and impassioned support after 9/11) criminal manhunts and police actions against all the jihadist islamic and islamofascist mass murderers, their gangs, and those that aid and abet them for crimes against humanity.

War constructs, strategies, tactics, and logistics are quite different than police actions and criminal manhunts.

Regarding Afghanistan, - our military located, targeted, and destroyed the al Queda and Taliban bases, and individuals initially quite forcefully allowing Karzai and the Northern Alliance to establish rather quickly a new more progressive islamic Afghanistan. Bush, focusing on Iraq for whatever reason however, deflected attention, military resources, and money from Afghanistan, (reneging on many pre and post war promises of larger support to Karzai in the process) which allowed for the Taliban and al Queda to reconstitute as we see happening today.

Now, we cannot commit the force needed to finish hunting, capturing, and killing these freaks in Afghanistan, because of the large and sticky commitment in Iraq.

I reject the invasion and occupation scenarios as "old world", over arching, and beyond and outside of the critical mission. Oil, energy, construction, and military cartels may benefit from these massive invasion occupation, and ensuing nationbuilding enterprises, but the American public, our military, and the victim nations must burden and hazard the enormous costs in blood and money of such epic undertakings.

I believe Bush, and forgive me here for stating my opinion, exploited the horrors of 9/11 for the political and economic gain of a few rightwingideologues, and cronies in the oil, energy, construction, and military cartels of (what I view as accurately described as) the Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy.

Bush deceptively hyped Iraqi threats, opportunistically marketed the war to win republican seats in November, secretly promoted the wildly visionary agenda of said clan of rightwingideolgues and crony capitalist profiteers in the Bush... administration, hurled America to war and a misguided, woefully ill-conceived, and enormously costly nationbuiling enterprise against the wrong muslims - hence my dread concern and indignation.

I will post a more detailed response tomorrow, but briefly, I said move on the Saudi's - not invade occupy, and nationbuild, - a construct I reject.

Our enemies are jihadist and islamofascist mass murderers and those that aid and abet them, and I believe most of the muslim world - if given a chance and a reasonable alternative rejects the savagery and insanity of these perverted freaks, - but if - IF - islam sides with the malignant perversions of jihadist and islamofascist islam, - then yes - we must crush this enemy completely and before a mass murderering martyr treks through Grand Central Station infected with some chimera bug, or manages to detonate a dirty bomb in Haight Ashbury.

Destroying our enemies is the mission at hand, democratizing the middle east militarily is beyond our capabilities economically and politically.

Don´t forget the wider pricture: Bringing in the Russians will inevitably reduce American leverage over neighbouring countries Iran and Syria. These issues must not be separated.

Besides, I really don´t believe Russian troops will achieve anything in Iraq except cause trouble.

Any kind of internationalisation will not reduce the commitment of US forces, since useful contributions could come at best in the form of civilian efforts (training, money, infrastructure, political support), not in providing security. Only the US and, with time, the Iraqis themselves can do anything about security. Now don´t panic, it´s only been a few months.

Tony, My problem is that experience had given me zero confidence in your first paragraph's proposition, and it's also crystal clear to me that the French were never going to give up their client Saddam. Nor would the Russians. Again, both have a long history that goes back to the 1990s, and in both cases it's completely consistent and unvarying since the aftermath of Gulf War I.

So basically, I have zero belief in your first 2 paragraphs. And of course, as you point out, we're beyond that debate now.

RE: Afghanistan, if you'll recall, the reconstitution happened mid war. The Taliban abandoned the cities and melted away into the countryside/Pakistan. Karzai set up in Kabul, but his writ in practice did not extend further. His influence depends on the cash of the Americans and their rewards to keep existing tribal structures on side (a la the British playbook). Nothing much has changed since.

Afghan family loyalty shelters many Taliban, and Pakistan shelters and recruits many more. If you have a working solution to either either problem involving large numbers of troops, put it out there - but I think tackling this set of problems this way would ignite a Soviet-style war across Afghanistan. Pursuing the Pakistani option militarily, meanwhile, would result in a confrontation with an Islamic nuclear power and possibly draw India in. Doesn't look appealing to me.

You've made points before about the USA not being omnipotent. It's precisely this realization that is driving the current Afghanistan strategy, and giving us the results that may be unsatisfactory to you.

lewy14 wrote:

"The real issue I'm raising is that the oil contracts aren't really ours to negotiate - it really is Iraq's oil, right?"

Correct, with a but:

The Russian and French position remains that those are still valid. They also want to have UN control over the political side of the occupation in Iraq so that they will be able to put in place an Iraqi government that will aceed to their deals - thus, for example, their continued interest in finagling the Ba'athists back into the picture; that way they can re-introduce the folks they have long standing contacts with, and such folks would be likely to give them something because their aint no other way they'd get back in power.

Tony writes:
"I believe Bush, and forgive me here for stating my opinion, exploited the horrors of 9/11 for the political and economic gain of a few rightwingideologues, and cronies in the oil, energy, construction, and military cartels of (what I view as accurately described as) the Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy."

And your continuous and baseless slanders got old years ago.

"I will post a more detailed response tomorrow, but briefly, I said move on the Saudi's - not invade occupy, and nationbuild, - a construct I reject."

In other words, you have no criticisms but slanders, you have no solutions but platitudes. And you call this toning down your rhetoric?

I "reject" your postings.

A a post hooking together a couple columns from yesterday that are relivant to this debate.

China /did/ have a big dog in the Iraq fight -- his name was Sadaam. Classic proxy.

China's two main strategic concerns are the US (especially as it relates to sea and space power) and India -- a dynamic, democratic, regional power. China (quite correctly) is India's primary strategic concern.

China is deeply involved with commercial and naval development of the Pakistani port of Gwadar, strategically located at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman, in a position to control the Persian Gulf (and its oil), given a big enough naval presence. Gwadar is a two-fer, creating problems for both India and the US.

India has quietly had its first overseas military base operating at Farkhor, Tajikistan, for almost a year and a half. India is also building a substantial blue-water navy, including at least four strategic missile capable nuclear-powered submarines of its own design. One fleet of the new Indian navy will be tasked to the upper Arabian Sea specifically in response to Gwadar.

As for the Russians, let's remember that the Russians were the primary military advisors to the Iraq army. The Iraqis used Russian equipment and Russian tactics. Got their butts kicked badly on both counts, if I recall.

Only the Russian spyetznatz units are worth bothering with. Most of the Russian military is configured for 2nd generation warfare (massed firepower) and this is largely a 4GW fight. US, UK and Israel understand 4GW. The Aussies are learning fast.

So don't look for the Rooskies in Iraq. They (like us), however, have a major argument with Saudi militants who have proven to be both the money and the brains behind Russia's problems in Chechnya and Dagestan.

When it is time to take out the regime in Arabia (and by then the militants almost certainly will have taken down the house of Saud), expect the Russian spyetznatz to be in the thick of it. They will probably stage out of Iraq.

Even now the Arabia strategy unfolds. USAF formally deactivated its 363rd Air Expeditionary Wing at Prince Sultan Air Base yesterday. Doesn't sound like much when said that way, but it is a strategic shift of some substantial proportion. We are gradually pulling out everything that matters.

Apart from the 'flypaper' strategy under development in Iraq, the real targets are Syria, Iran, and Arabia. The amazing thing about the guerrilla action in Iraq is that there is so little of it. Once the weather cools off and there is some usable thermal contrast in the backwaters of Iraq, I expect the al Qaeda and Jihadis will find their exits blocked.

In all honesty, we probably do not need (or want) a whole lot of extra help at this stage. We are learning how to occupy and pacify that part of the world. Once we have that figured out, the next phase--whatever it is--can begin.

Added an Update with several links to *blat* that are worth checkin out if read the pre-Update post.

19 freaks (15 of them Saudi's) with box cutters struck at the heart of America and changed the world, so this is the face of our asymmetric enemy.

Our military is unchallengeable and has the capabilities to strike with precision and overwhelming force and lethality at virtually any target on the planet. The key is discovering and unearthing the right targets. That process requires special or covert operations strategies tactics, global cooperation, and localized humint.

No one - including me - would argue that Bush (with the help of many other nations) has not succeeded in disrupting the mass murderer gangs operations, uncovering elements of their networks and systems, and capturing or killing many mass murderers, - and this is the mission that will eventually put down the threats we face, and defeat our enemy.

The most critical mission, - (and one some of you believe is just now two years later starting to happen, but I do not see yet beginning) - is cutting off the Saudi funding and nurturing machinations. This mission does not necessarily require large military operations, though it may eventually, - but in the meantime relentless merciless and forceful political and economic pressure, - the kind of political pressure and information warfare Bush utilized to sell the war in Iraq, MUST be vigorously applied to Saudi Arabia, - and perhaps only the Saudi "dirty dozen."

Bush cannot be let off the hook on this mission, and excused by hollow and airy promises of some "ropeadope" theory, or the dim hope of some grand super plan eventually emerging. Redressing the Saudi issue is job one, and way overdue.

With no funding, our enemies will quickly be reduced to a bunch of perverted religious freaks throwing stones.

The House of Saudi is the key to defeating our enemy, (there are other funding and nurturing sources that deserve the same treatment, but the Saudi's are the key).

The secondary key to keeping these freaks from reemerging are the global police actions and military prosecutions of criminal manhunts of mass murderers and those that aid and abet them -

Eventually, a global discourse and redress of the legitimate reasons why so many muslims are so desperate and full of hate must begin, but only after the (major) threats are eliminated.

Rumsfeld has publicly stated that if Gens. Abizaid or Sanchez asked for more troops they could have them. At this point, it's not clear to me what more troops would do for us operationally. You still couldn't guard everything. It seems to be more of a political cover issue, at least with internationalizing the occupation, which I agree is a mistake anyway. As Porphy has repeatedly pointed out, we'll get the blame anyway. And why would we want to hand someone the responsibility for a mission that they do NOT support anyway?

The BIG issues are troop rotation and enlistee retention. We should probably be increasing our troop levels to help manage these problems. I haven't seen any indications of a recruiting push, so apparently the decision hasn't been made to do this yet. It seems that the Pentagon always prefers new toys to 'boots', maybe because officers like managing procurement programs instead of leading troops on the battlefield. As has been pointed out, boots are more important during an occupation.

Unfortunately, recruitment is going to be more difficult due to, as AL has repeated tried to point out, Bush's poor selling of the war. We've not been asked to participate in the efforts in any way, unless shopping is considered as participation. Did those who bought a new Korean DVD player with their tax rebate check feel particularly patriotic?

And reinstituting the draft is a crazy idea. The Armed Forces don't like it because the enlistee quality will go down. Philosophically, if troop levels can't be maintained with a volunteer force, then, well maybe, we aren't pursuing a policy worth dieing for. If you are not literally willing to give your life for the policy that you're advocating, then suggesting that the draft be used to further that policy is the worse kind of elitist hypocrisy. The little people just don’t know what’s best. Right?

[ 2. Russia 1,520,000 ]

Those numbers are pure hype. Russland has nowhere near that numner of effective troops. Relying on such hypothetical headcount lists of soldiery is numbskull stuff.

... From accounts I've heard, the Russkies have had as few as five (5) attack helicopters available -- total -- during their Chechen campaigns.

Russian conventional forces are extremely weak. Russia's only remaining military strength is its nukes.

Lurker writes: "Unfortunately, recruitment is going to be more difficult due to, as AL has repeated tried to point out, Bush's poor selling of the war. We've not been asked to participate in the efforts in any way, unless shopping is considered as participation. Did those who bought a new Korean DVD player with their tax rebate check feel particularly patriotic?"

My comments are not aimed solely at Lurker, but everyone who uses this line. President Bush made a comment about returning economic activity to normal after Sept 11 2001 as part of his attempt to reassure the nation. It wasn't part of "selling the war" - something the administration has spent a lot of time on - and lumping them together is just a cheap shot.

Robin:
AL's point still stands. Bush isn't doing a good job of selling his policies. If we're going to need more US troops for this long war, young men are going to have to be MOTIVATED to enlist. Are we seeing anything like that?

Robin,

In defense of Lurker - yes, Bush has spent a great deal of time selling the war - both in Iraq and the larger war on terror. And yes, the "go out and shop" meme is not part of that selling job.

The criticism is that many people perceive that the spirit of sacrifice which characterized other war efforts seems to be missing here. There is a concrete reason for this: an actual curb of consumption would do more to damage to our economy than to help the war.

The key would be to craft a message of sacrifice which maintained the economy and actually helped the war - and I agree with Lurker (and have posted above) that recruitment, retention and moral are key to this.

Personally I would feel better if we were to immediately fund another two divisions (so they would be there in a couple years if we needed them) and pay for them by "postponing" some missle defense activity (based on "disappointing test results", of which plenty can be found).

Lurker, I still dispute A.L.'s standards for "selling" the war - as seen in that thread. But I would like to see some good old fashioned jingoist recruitment propaganda of the kind Tony falsely claims is being done. Some extended commercials of the Sept 11 attacks with an Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine recruiting call center phone number at the end.

Of course, we'd be treated to some hilarious foaming from the ANSWER/Howard Dean cultists.

lewy14, can't disagree with your comments.

I agree and disagree.

Some use of commercials that you suggest may be helpful, but a media saturation effort would be prety grotesque. Don't you think?

At some point he has to sell his policies, especially over the long term. One of my biggest fears is that we will be politically forced to leave Iraq with the job undone. That would be the real disaster. If Bush is laying the groundwork for a LONG campaign, I just don't see it.

Can anyone point to us were Bush is laying the foundation for a long and expanding campaign? Any preparations for increasing the number of troops, like recruiting or funding? Any substantive efforts to maintain or expand public support?

If we really need more troops, and we don't want any international involvement, then we're goin' to have to recruit 'em and train 'em ourselves. Like, I said the draft is out. So, what ARE we going to do?

First off, I posted this with the intent of starting a discussion, and wow!! Thanks to all...

Obviosuly this is an issue we'll all be thrashing around with for some time. Let me toss somethign esle into this:

Porphy Tom and others have hammered me for criticizing Bush for doing a bad job of "selling" the war...they say he's done just fine, thanks.

The problem is that the administration deliberately obfuscates about who and why we are fighting. A "war on terror" is like a war on tanks--it's a war on a tactic, not an enemy. If al Qaeda had hit the Pentagon with a missile rather than a civilian airliner, that attack on a military target wouldn't have been an act of terrorism, but it would have been an act of war. And there's no reason to think al Qaeda wouldn't have used a missile if it could have. Because the administration won't say bluntly who and why we're fighting, it tends either to step on its own strategy or to mislead the public about the reasons for U.S. actions.

A.L., going back to work for a bit...

lewy14,

Test results are always disappointing until the bugs get worked out of a system. They tend to be the very worst as a project nears completion.

There are plenty of places where we can defer spending to get a missile defence, two divisions of Army, one Marine, two carrier battle groups, and possibly one more amphib carrier. A balanced force.

Tony,

If we can't democratize the Middle East we will be fighting alligators forever. We will get nuked for sure. We will have to deal with disease outbreaks. etc. Time to drain the swamps.

Sure it is a risky policy. However, the policy you suggest is riskier. After all how do criminal manhunts in Iran? Syria? Lebanon? Saudi? Iraq? Ask pretty please? We are going to have to take all those countries down in various ways one by one. Iraq is the ideal location for applying pressure to each and all of them.

I thank my lucky stars that Bush is in charge of policy and not you.

Another thing I might point out is at ther end of WW2 people especially didn't think Japan could be democratized and that Germany was a long shot.

We have experience doing this sort of thing and we have the national archives to look at for policy ideas. Plus we have some very good boots on the ground.

To a certain extent we are going to have to do what we did at the end of WW2, muddle through. ie. innovate, adapt, overcome. We are pretty good at that sort of thing. We will prevail.

In the mean time we don't have to go after the terrorists. They are coming after us. Very good. We have no way of extraditing them from the countries that are supporting them. Or perhaps you could share with us how we can do the criminal manhunts in Iran today? This ought to be good. In my opinion reality is not your strong point. Prove me wrong.

Strategic offence tactical defence. The strongest position militarily. It got Sherman from Atlanta to Savanah. With very few casualties.

A.L. writes:

"Porphy Tom and others have hammered me for criticizing Bush for doing a bad job of "selling" the war...they say he's done just fine, thanks.

Yesterday, that radical leftist. . ."

My statements regarding that were of a particular sort that I do not think this remark does justice to. Likewise, they did not depend on whether the criticisms were coming from a "radical Leftist" or not.

It might behoove you to refresh your memory regarding what I said, the degree to which I did and did not let Bush off the hook but objected and object to placing the blame and responsibility entirely in his lap when that was never the case in the past.

I will also say, regarding the idea that the "war on terror" description is deliberately obfuscatory, just this:

"Many have Tried, All have Failed" to come up with a pithy description. Your "War on Bad Philosophy" descriptions is one of the better but hardly perfect ones, which is one reason I have found it both useful but also not "just so".

Anyhow, I'll read the Postrel piece at the same time you're re-reading the posts & comments I wrote in response to the "Bush failed to sell" meme.

A.L.,

The only people who do not understand what we are doing in Iraq are wilfully blind.

Any serious student of history and current events who can read a map can figure out what we are doing.

Virginia is a very nice person. But there is no way I want Bush to announce our tactical policy to the world. He has stated that his policy is to prevent further attacks any where in the world but especially America. From my point of view he has the correct strategy and tactics to do just that.

For a very bright woman Virginia is not too smart. Or else she is playing dumb for effect.

The Bush policy is:
1. No more attacks on America
2. Change ME political culture one or two countries at a time to remove the seeds of resentment. Let the people control their own destiny.

On both counts I'd say he was doing a fine job so far.

I might add that we may be able to handle as many as a few dozen countries at a time . We did at the end of WW2.

Tony & M. Simon,

The US clearly has the capability of winning the war on terror, which is really Arab-sponsored terror. Foreign terrorist attacks on Americans at home will ensure that we have the will to do so.

The only question is how many Arabs survive the experience.

Democratizing the middle east is a noble goal, (although I believe there should be some discussion of the middle east nations willingness to accept this goal) but my point is - we cannot achieve that objective, that goal militarily. Democracy at the tip of a spear is imperialism, and it will not work in a region, and specifically a RELIGION that has never in the history of man welcomed democracy (Israel being the single exception). You are projecting christian constructs on the muslim world that holds diametrically opposing and conflicting ideals, values, and philosophies.

Certainly America has the military capabilities of executing regime changes aplenty, - but the nationbuilding enterprises, and the continuous policing and monitoring of these societies that would be necessary to maintain democracy would be an enormous unsustainable and crippling cost, (many billions of dollars more than anything ever dreamed of before) in money and blood, that America cannot, and I contend will not countenance.

The middle eastern nations and the muslim must voluntarily on their own volition choose to join the 21st Century, and perhaps adopt some kind of democracy. America cannot, nor do we have the legal or moral right to impose democracy on the middle east.

We have to dismantle and destroy completely our enemies. Israel is the model I would adopt. They strike deep into the heart of the arab world and poof known threats, or ticking bombs with relative impunity. "Syria, Iran? Libya? Lebanon? Saudi? Iraq?" may whine about mass murderers, and mullahs being suddenly spattered all over the street, - but the outcry will be nothing compared to the resistance of invasions and occupations (colonization), and I contend there is virtually nothing they could do.

Again the key is cutting off the Saudi funding and nurturing machinations, and the threat capabilities will reduce significantly. Threats will of course always exist, but the kind of long-term global operation conducted on 9/11, the purchase of heavy weapons, and certainly the acquisition of WMD will be rendered impossible.

Saudi Arabia is the key.

Tony, your comments reveal a great ignorance of history. Countries can be "democratized" at the gunpoint - there are several examples of different ways to do it. Israel, Japan and Turkey are some widely divergent examples.

However, you misrepresent - again - the Bush administration policy.

Tony,
I'll certainly agree that democratizing the Middle East is is not the easy way, but it seems the best of a whole set of not-so-good options.

It sounds like the polict that you would have preferred, would have been enlarging the Iraq imbargo to include the whole Middle East, and making strikes at whatever specific threats we find out about? Is this a basically accurate statement of your idea?

If so, I don't think it would have been wise. It would have required an immediate declaration of war with every Middle Eastern country, SIMULTANEOUSLY. Also, if the UN wouldn't cooperate with us on Iraq, how would we ever get them to cooperate on a plan like this? We'd certainly be hearing even more charges of unilateralism! And how would you have kept the oil flowing during all this?

Seems to me that your path would have been even riskier than the one we're already on.

[ The middle eastern nations and the muslim must voluntarily on their own volition choose to join the 21st Century, and perhaps adopt some kind of democracy. America cannot, nor do we have the legal or moral right to impose democracy on the middle east.

We have to dismantle and destroy completely our enemies. Israel is the model I would adopt. ... ]

This Israelite-style democracy to be imposed upon the A-rubs: does it include The Chosen People's non-separation of church and state?

Yuk yuk.

Wow. What a thread.

While I think Tony's posts have been a waste of time, at least they helped divert everyone from the idea of Russian troops in Iraq. That one was a doozy. I'm as eager as the next guy to see some sort of improvement in our relations with Russia, but anything would be better than sharing heavy-duty military occupation work with them.

Somewhere back in the thread, there was a discussion of how to maintain a sense of wartime sacrifice without instilling wartime austerity. How about a "Shop for Iraq" campaign, in which kids collect pencils and notebooks (hmmm... the notebooks would have to come from the Leftorium to be of value to Arabic students), and companies get to write off donated computer equipment?

Don't know which chosen People David is referring to, but his past comments on this blog have been openly anti-Jewish and one assumes this is in the same vein.

Church and state are indeed separate in Israel, to the dismay of the small (but annoying) ultra-orthodox parties who seek to erode this distinction. Which explains why Muslims and Arabs can be Parliamentarians in Israel's Knesset, and why state law and not the equally developed corpus of Jewish law is in use by its courts.

Tom:

>The US clearly has the capability of winning
>the war on terror, which is really Arab-
>sponsored terror.

I've agreed with you at great length; of course we can defeat the Arab world - we can cause it to essentially cease to exist ...delanda est as they say.

The problem is to defeat the irredentist Islamist factions without hitting the 'delete' key on the whole thing.

Theer are two core questions that remain unanswered in this thread:

Do we have the resources on hand to pacify Iraq?

What will the cost to our other foreign policy initiatives of making that commitment?

There's a second issue, which is largely unspoken: is our larger aim to dominate the world, or to share dominion?

Many of the objections to 'internationalizing' the Iraqi Project, as I've come to call it, are that we will have to compromise on our goals.

That's obviously a legitimate objection.

But I'll reply with the (serious, not rhetorical) question "what's it worth to go it alone?"

Because we're faced with three broad choices here:

1) Go it alone, bear the cost and reap the benefits;
2) hand the keys back to the UN;
3) weld together some other kind of international collective, in which other counties play a mroe meaningful role than they do today in the 'coalition of the willing'.

Thoughts??

A.L.

I'm offering a question ONLY at this point:

Is it possible to have UN transition (or fold in) with the present reconstruction effort? That means, NO military or peace-keeping effort whatsoever. Simply put, they've mucked up several efforts in the past, so let 'em handle the bureacratic crap they seem to be capable of dealing out.

P.S. Chain the silverware to the tables before they get there.

There are those who oppose the expansion of the UN's role because UN organizations are more corrupt - and thus likely to make our problems worse. Likewise on many UN "peacekeeping" troops, witness the various reports of problems with corruption among UN peacekeeping troops in the Balkans.

I think at this time the key resource we need to spend in Iraq is time and resolution.

A.L.
I think the consensus is to go it alone, especially if it means compromising our objectives in Iraq.

We're committed to this course. If others are demonstrably committed to these same goals for Iraq, then maybe their aid should be considered; but face it, the UN and the EU, excepting Britain of course, and Russia do not share our objectives, and in fact have their on agendas to pursue. Further, there's too much downside for anyone else (like India) to help without political cover from the UNSC. They don’t feel as directly threatened as us, and it's cheaper to be a free rider.

It's basically our war and our war only. It's been our war from the beginning. No one else is going to step up, and we don't need reluctant allies. So, until something happens to make the threat more real to them, it's wishful thinking to expect them to help. Because until then, their goals -- like maintaining the status quo or in some cases actually counter balancing the US, and our goals -- removing the terrorist threat, just won't mesh.

Some help would be nice, but if we’re trying to cut a firebreak, while the neighbors are worried all the pretty trees, then maybe we don’t want their help.

A.L.

Option #3 sounds alluring and certainly in the best of all possible worlds that's what we would have.

However, I'm going to run a "counter-meme" on the name of your post ("Who Will Bell the Cat")

"First, Catch the Rabbit"

How do you make Rabbit stew?
We can discuss the ingrediants, &tc. But the first thing is catching the rabbit, and as Elmer Fudd never learned but should have, tha (no, not "all folks") can be harder than it seems.

For other countries to make a more meaningful contribution to what, say, Britain has, to pick the other country that has made the most substantial contribution, they'd have to step up to the plate.

We complain here about how we don't have enough forces to do what we need to do, not quite the right kind of forces, &tc. Well, all these problems are worse in the countries that would make a good "posse" (to use Al Gore's meme) - Western Democracies. Set aside the other problems with France & Germany, and start a list of what such an alliance would look like.

It would include the NATO countries, plus Australia, Japan, eventually hopefully India, down the line one day Russia, and perhaps a couple others.

Well, most of those places haven't got a military up to par to engage in such activities on a wide scale. They simply do not make defense spending of that sort a priority. Of the ones that do, their military capabilities tend to be "localized" - not designed for extended deployments in distant places on a large scale. Holding down Kabul in Afghanistan is a stretch for the "League of Extra-Ordinary Democracies"; there's little interest in going beyond Kabul, in spite of the fact that Karzai would like them too and we would welcome them doing so.

They're not prepared to invest more in expanding their defense capabilities. They would welcome improved defense capabilities falling into their lap from some sort of deus ex machina, but when it comes to their own budget priorities, additional spending to finance expanded military capabilities so they would be able to participate on a significant scale in these kind of missions are unappealing to them.

Indeed, unappealing in other ways; after Kossovo (a comparatively small enterprise, relatively speaking) the consensus in Europe was not "ok, this is fine" but rather "we never want to do this again".

The basic problem in these discussions we're having here is it revolves too much around what our needs, priorities, capabilities, attitudes, &tc. are and doesn't take into consideration the politics of other countries and their attitudes towards these things - which go far beyond Bush-hating. Clinton couldn't talk them into maintaining a robust military capability, either, and had difficulty dragging them into dealing with something in their own backyard - mentioning that isn't pointing fingers at Clinton for "failing", but highlighting the fact that it takes two to tango and they'd rather be wallflowers than dance with us in a meaningful sense.

Oh, sure; they'd be happy to have a say, have the (deciding) vote on what policies should be pursued. So in that sense there is some interest in maintaining or creating the kind of "international collective" you mention. But beyond contributing their willingness to guide the policy and have a say in it, there is virtually no constituency in continental Europe for investing in the capability to make significant substantive contributions on the ground. Sure, they have an economy roughly our size and a larger population base, but there is no interest in spending what it would need to have a comparable capability to contribute ("burden share") in these activities. Not even financially.

Failure to recognize and take account of this, not only their current lackings in these areas but the lack of political interest in redressing such voids, is one of the things that are distorting debates in America, where it is often presumed that they have much to give and a latent but extant willingness to participate on a significant scale.

So we go full circle; this post started as an effort to answer questions I raised, and now with the concept of an "international collective" we are right back to them, IMO. Because, when it comes down to it, Iraq is just a symptom of the larger matter that is raised by invoking the possibility of such a collective.

Pursuant to that, I suppose I will recommend posts in my incomplete series on America's 21st Century Foreign Policy.

Funny David Davenport, but twisting my statements out of context only confuses you, so for your sake - I form a marked differentiation between our enemies, jihadist and islamofascist mass murderers and those that aid and abet them, - and the entire middle east, or the larger muslim world.

I believe our enemies are relatively few, and morphing the alleged "war on terror" into a far larger much more daunting and costly democratization of the middle east meme is part of the deception and disinformation Bush employs to achieve the cloaked and singular rightwingideologue fundamentalist republican oligarchy Pax Americana war agenda. Our enemies and the middle east are, or in my opinion should be - two entirely different and separate constructs.

We cannot, and should not pretend we, or anyone, Israel included - have the right to impose democracy, - or any government on any people or nation. Is this not exactly what we are fighting against? Is that not why we fought the cold war, and countless proxy wars against the Soviet totalitarian regime?

This vibrant thread reveals an underlying and rather disturbing expectation, support, and actual glorification of a future of continuous neverending war.

I believe the war language Bush exploits is bent on proselytizing exactly this liturgy, for the profits of rightwingideologues and cronies in the oil, energy, construction, and military cartels of the Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy who singularly benefit from this agenda.

The relentless warspeak and the notion of a neverending war on terror is defeatist.

Defeating our enemies is not something that can be achieved in the next few weeks, but our leadership should set realistic goals for achieving our objectives, and we should work to defeat our enemies, (forget about democratizing {Bushspeak for colonizing}the middle east) as swiftly as possible. Redress in Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh will expedite this process significantly.

Bush and his clan do not want swift victory, - they want neverending war, which is far more profitable and beneficent to their singular and narrow interests.

My contention is, and has always been, that until Bush forcefully addresses the Saudi's - we are not seriously fighting the war on terror.

The point Lurker is that the UN and the world was unanimously and universally on our side after 9/11 and initially with regard to Iraq. Were there parochial conflicts of interests, and France and Russia vying for economic interests and rewards? Most certainly. That is where leadership is required, state craft, compromise, intelligence, none of which Bush exhibited.

Most of the rest of the world - RIGHTFULLY - rejected Bush's airy and deceptive Iraqi WMD threats propaganda, - preferred a more vigorous inspections process at the time - and did not consider the Iraqi situation as a "last resort" necessity. No one on earth supported Saddam, and many nations and cronies in this administration had longtime economic and political relations with the Butcher of Baghdad.

Iraq was a deceptive manipulative misdirect to deflect and detour attention and focus away from the Saudi's.

When and if Bush decides to place America's future and best interests above the profits of is papa's cronies - and force the Saudi's to quit funding and nurturing our sworn enemies - then our problems will diminish significantly and swiftly. Until that day, I hold no delusions, and wait and watch as the world is forced by Bush aggression and hegemony into relentless conflict and neverending, war. Peace is rarely ever mentioned.

Most of you seem to support this agenda, and unfortunately for all of us, - Bush and you will have your way - neverending war is our future.

Lastly, eight years separated the first