http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/25/AR2006112500886.html
More on the latest developments in the Baker Commission with some sweet, sweet, neocon grousing.
After the US government squandered it’s entire political capital on a gung-ho invasion and a criminal mismanagement of Iraq you don’t have that many options left.
And speaking of confronting tinpot dictators, does that still only apply to the ones who aren’t backing US foreign policy, or have you actually stopped with the selective human rights criticism?
The primary problem with neocons and the Middle East is that they resolutely refuse to acknowledge our vital interests in their quixotic quest for remaking the world into something they agree with.
I suppose it’s in our “vital interests” to allow the Assad and Khomeini regimes to car-bomb and machine-gun the members of democratically elected neighboring governments, with the goal of reducing those governments to satellites dominated by Syrian/Iranian armies, intelligence services, and terrorist proxies. That sounds like a brilliant plan for securing American interests in the region.
And speaking of confronting tinpot dictators, does that still only apply to the ones who aren’t backing US foreign policy, or have you actually stopped with the selective human rights criticism?
I will settle for confronting those that pose critical transnational threats, i.e. Syria and Iran.
Not sure how you define a regime as “rogue” (Syria isn’t developing nukes)…
If a dictatorial regime is conducting a wave of assassinations of the leaders of its democratic neighbor, with the intention of regaining military hegemony over that neighbor, then it’s met my definition of “rogue.” Developing nukes when the regime is publicly calling for the destruction of the “cancerous growth” that is a democratic neighbor, then that pretty much qualifies too.
A Grand Bargain where Syria has a stake in Iraq and the return of the Golan in return for a cessation of support for terrorists and disengagement from Lebanon is certainly a deal they’d consider, and is directly in our interests.
Your “grand bargain” is folly, not to mention appeasement, as well as reward for terror. Regardless, you’re likelier to see Santa Claus visit your house this Noel in a reindeer-borne sleigh,
How do you feel about Russia?
How so? Returning the Golan would piss the Israeli right off, but so did returning the Sinai. And in the age of missiles it’s not really that helpful for Israel’s security to hold a ridge line any more.
Syria isn’t a “transnational threat” save to Lebanon, which they consider (with some very arguable justification) a Syrian province that colonial powers took from them. Thus, what they’d have to give up (claims to Lebanon as a client state, along with giving sanctuary to terror groups).
The Syrian-Israeli border has been very, very quiet for the last 40 years. And only the wackiest neocons blame the Iraqi Sunni insurgency on Syria. There were quite enough weapons and pissed off guerilla recruits knocking around Iraq, Syria didn’t HAVE to ship in any.
When people act contrary to our interests, occasionally trying to talk them out of it may be a good thing.
Like how Iraq was a critical transnational threat before you invaded? You, like your government, squandered what authority you had on international affairs in that debacle and you don’t show any sign that you’ve actually learned anything from it all.
But here’s a dictator for you to confront. Pakistan has a dictator that’s about as tinpot as you can find with confirmed nuclear capabilities. Pakistan has also been training and funneling militant muslim insurgents into neighbouring countries, and is fighting intermittent border clashes with India over Kashmir. Oh, and lets not forget that Pakistani government operatives sold knowledge and materials required to build working nukes to other countries. I won’t even go into human rights abuses.
By any metric Pakistan should be at the very top of whatever list you care to devise and it should be fucking leagues ahead of Syria.
Syria isn’t a “transnational threat” save to Lebanon…
I’m pretty fucking sure that Israel would disagree with that. Plus, it sounds like you don’t consider Hezbollah to be much of a problem for anyone, despite its history of mass-casualty bombings as far distant as Buenos Aires.
Nor does it seem you’ve spoken with any U.S. servicemen who have come under fire from jihadists shepherded through Syria by bus, complete with Syrian passport stamp, into Iraq.
When people act contrary to our interests, occasionally trying to talk them out of it may be a good thing.
Talking them out of it would be great. Alas, talking them out of it involves the issuing of threats we intend to keep. Here is a simple formula for you:
Diplomacy - Credible Threat of Negative Consequence = Farce
But here’s a dictator for you to confront. Pakistan has a dictator that’s about as tinpot as you can find with confirmed nuclear capabilities. Pakistan has also been training and funneling militant muslim insurgents into neighbouring countries, and is fighting intermittent border clashes with India over Kashmir. Oh, and lets not forget that Pakistani government operatives sold knowledge and materials required to build working nukes to other countries. I won’t even go into human rights abuses.
Pakistan’s problem is the ISI, not Musharraf. Indeed, Musharraf’s crackdown on Islamists in the ISI has earned him the enmity of his own intelligence service, not to mention a few carefully-calibrated and nearly-successful assassination attempts. He is our best hope for reining in the Islamists in that government.
Fundamentally I agree with you…Pakistan is a serious problem for peace in South Asia and will get exponentially worse if Islamists ever succeed in gaining power. For now, Musharraf is the best available solution for limiting the transnational threat posed by forces within Pakistan, and his dictatorship is a net benefit to transnational peace in the region. How’s that for “vital interests?”
How do you feel about Russia?
Not very optimistic, and I’m outraged that we’re inviting them into NATO meetings. Russia should not be allowed anywhere near a NATO table right now.
Again, I don’t mean to imply that we shouldn’t be dealing with nasty governments in all sorts of sub-rosa conversations. But openly pinning our foreign policy to those conversations is an outrage, not to mention a fool’s errand.
Just out of curiousity, Morris, given your track record of predictions about how Iraq was going to turn out and what wonderful and glorious democracies were going to spread around the middle east - why should your analysis mean squat now?
Events over the past week, including the deadliest attacks since the war began in March 2003, have created a new sense of diplomatic urgency about finding a viable strategy to contain Iraq’s violence and limit spillover damage across the region. The White House again resisted assertions that Iraq is now in a civil war, but that stance is increasingly hard to defend, according to analysts, diplomats and even some U.S. officials in private.
“While the situation on the ground is very serious, neither Prime Minister [Nouri al-] Maliki nor we believe that Iraq is in a civil war. The Iraqi government is making slow but sure progress on important issues that will help stop the violence and bring the country together,” National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said yesterday.
At least one Iraqi leader says otherwise. “It’s worse than a civil war. In a civil war, you at least know which factions are fighting each other,” lamented a senior member of Iraq’s government in an interview a few hours after Johndroe’s comments. “We don’t even know that anymore. It’s so bloody confused.”
Saudi Arabia is so concerned about the damage that the conflict in Iraq is doing across the region that it basically summoned Vice President Cheney for talks over the weekend, according to U.S. officials and foreign diplomats. The visit was originally portrayed as U.S. outreach to its oil-rich Arab ally.
In a reflection of the growing new dimension of civil strife, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday that the militia of radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr has grown eightfold over the past year and now fields 40,000 to 60,000 men. That makes it more effective than the Iraqi government’s army, the official indicated.
The Iraqi army has about 134,000 men, but about half are doing only stationary guard duty, the official said. Of the half that conduct operations, only about 10 battalions are effective – well under 10,000 men.
Sadr is so powerful that if provincial elections were held now, he would sweep most of the south and also take Baghdad, said the intelligence officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of his position.
Iraq’s prime minister “doesn’t have any coercive powers of his own,” he said, calling Maliki “beholden to Sadr.” Maliki won the prime minister’s job with backing from Sadr, whose political bloc holds 30 seats in parliament.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701398.html
Between al-Qaeda’s violence, Iran’s influence and an expected U.S. drawdown, “the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point” that U.S. and Iraqi troops “are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar,” the assessment found. In Anbar province alone, at least 90 U.S. troops have died since Sept. 1.
The Post first reported on the memo’s existence in September, as it was being circulated among military and national security officials. Several officials who read the report described its conclusions as grim.
But the contents have not previously been made public. Read as a complete assessment, it paints a stark portrait of a failed province and of the country’s Sunnis – once dominant under Saddam Hussein – now desperate, fearful and impoverished. They have been increasingly abandoned by religious and political leaders who have fled to neighboring countries, and other leaders have been assassinated. And unlike Iraq’s Shiite majority, or Kurdish groups in the north, the Sunnis are without oil and other natural resources. The report notes that illicit oil trading is providing millions of dollars to al-Qaeda while “official profits appear to feed Shiite cronyism in Baghdad.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701287.html
Hey, I never thought of that. We may have just given Al Qaeda a resource rich country. Sweet.
Considering that there was no Al-Qeada in Iraq before we went it, it’s basically a huge clusterfuck on our part.
You do understand that the terrorism risk has greatly increased since we went in, right? Not incidentally, but because we went in and tried to manhandle a cultural and political situation militarily.
Why would I not understand the first sentence? It’s odd to me that you are posting this immediately after what I posted.
As well, understanding the first sentence also does not imply the second sentence is correct (or that each portion thereof is correct at least).
You really don’t want me to answer that question.
Because you are one dimensional in your thought and viewpoints, and assume everyone else is too?
In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be “solving one problem and creating five more” if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.
One hopes he won’t make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that “since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited.” If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.
What’s clear is that the Iraqi government won’t be able to protect the Sunnis from Iranian-backed militias if American troops leave. Its army and police cannot be relied on to do so, as tens of thousands of Shiite militiamen have infiltrated their ranks. Worse, Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, cannot do anything about this, because he depends on the backing of two major leaders of Shiite forces.
There is reason to believe that the Bush administration, despite domestic pressure, will heed Saudi Arabia’s advice. Vice President Cheney’s visit to Riyadh last week to discuss the situation (there were no other stops on his marathon journey) underlines the preeminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq. But if a phased troop withdrawal does begin, the violence will escalate dramatically.
In this case, remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia’s credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran’s militarist actions in the region.
To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks – it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.
The writer, an adviser to the Saudi government, is managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project in Riyadh and an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not reflect official Saudi policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801277.html
We can’t stay and we can’t go. Good war, Mr. President. Nice work. This is going to make us forget all about Vietnam…
Nope.
Brian, I think you’ve got me confused with someone else. Perhaps Richard Perle.
My “track record” is support for decisively confronting rogue regimes. Preventing NBC proliferation among “states of concern” ought to be the alpha and omega of our foreign policy. This means serious diplomatic pressure on rogue regimes, and military force when diplomacy fails to coerce behavior. No one seemed to have any problem saying these things – I recall UNSC Resolution 1440 passing by unanimous 14-0 vote – so apparently my crime is that I actually supported doing them.
It should go without saying that this is the whole world’s challenge, but sadly, the world isn’t up to it. I’d prefer this problem be faced by a strong and serious UN, but in lieu of it I’ll settle for a serious U.S. and Britain.
Re: Democracy – the carnage in Iraq is precisely the result of a successful democratic sea change there. Sunni rejectionists are resorting to terror rather than accept an enfranchised Shiite majority. I wouldn’t call that a failure of democracy in Iraq so much as a mortal assault upon it. If a serious UN could be bothered to help impose a partition – as it does in the former Yugoslavia, where European lives are on the line – then we’d be achieving the rescue and democratic self-determination of long-repressed Shiite and Kurdish populations. (Not to mention simple justice, of the sort Europeans were pleased to crow about when they previously applied it to Milosevic’s Serbia on behalf of the Balkan Muslims.) Alas, the international zeal for diplomatically isolating the U.S. trumps any humanitarian regard the UN may have for Iraqis.
One is also tempted to point toward pathbreaking elections in Egypt, the Palestinian territories and even in Saudi Arabia, since March 2003. The impact of a democratic Iraqi Shiite republic upon the growing democratic movement nextdoor in Iran hopefully goes without saying. All of which is to say that the book on “Middle Eastern democratization” has yet to be written.
A final thought: The worst thing about the status of Iraq is that it’s provided handy excuses (as if any were needed) for why the world shouldn’t take serious action against the nuclear proliferation of Iran and North Korea. Here is where the UN stands to fail the same test that doomed the League of Nations. Total economic embargo would be a good starting point, but even this bloodless strategy won’t get through the Security Council. (China will cravenly veto even the semblance of economic sanctions against Iran.) Basically, the UN will take no responsibility for the world’s two greatest security challenges. Are global citizens really content to pin these challenges to an American Gulliver, wash their hands of it, and then lament the state of things? Apparently so. Here’s a prediction for you, Brian — history may record that Americans tried and failed, but it will render a harsher verdict on the so-called “international community” that fiddled an anti-American song while Rome burned.
I recall UNSC Resolution 1440 passing by unanimous 14-0 vote – so apparently my crime is that I actually supported doing them.
Resolution 1440 pertains to the Moscow hostage situation. Do you mean 1441?
If so that pertains only to Iraq, not all nations deemed rogue by the US, and did not allow for military intervention without prior approval from the UN. It only warned of “serious consequences” for failure to comply, without specifying what those serious consequences were, how it would be decided what they were, when they would be carried out, who would decide if compliance had failed, how would that be decided, or any number of vital issues unilaterally decided upon by Bush.
Also: The UN is to blame for the failure of democracy in Iraq. Hahahaha. Good one!