Who Is Losing Iraq?
The upcoming issue of TIME (which will also contain the article detailing Abu Zubaydah's relationship with Saudi and Pakistani intelligence) features this analysis of the Iraq situation by Joe Klein.
Indeed, a depressing array of defense and foreign policy experts, including members of the uniformed military, have quietly concluded that postwar Iraq is the most vexing theater of operations the American military has faced since Vietnam. Even if Saddam Hussein is captured or killed, most experts (outside the Pentagon) believe that the restoration of order will be extremely difficult. Jihadist terror, organized criminality and internecine religious violence are likely to continue. For the immediate future, this is where George Bush's war on terrorism is being fought — and this is where his political future may be decided.
Last week the President restated the obvious: retreat is not an option. Iraq cannot be left an anarchic, terrorist state. Every major Democrat running for President, including Howard Dean, agrees — and most go further than Bush, asserting that more money and manpower are needed to secure the peace. But the President has stubbornly resisted sharing with the American people a detailed assessment of the situation in Iraq: the fact that we may still be there a decade from now at a cost of hundreds of billions. The Pentagon — the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, that is — stubbornly insists that it retain control of all aspects of the Iraq operation and that no increased manpower is needed. Oddest of all, the Pentagon retains its neoconservative fantasy that Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress — who misled the Administration on weapons of mass destruction and on the rose petals that would greet the American liberators — may yet be coronated leader of a population that barely knows who he is.
Perhaps the defense ideologues remain hypnotized by Chalabi because the reality on the ground is so depressing. There will be no stability, and certainly no economic progress, until there is real security — but the three most likely paths toward security have severe drawbacks. The first is increased use of American troops and money. The money is inevitable — a supplemental appropriation of $60 billion, including $15 billion to $20 billion for reconstruction efforts, is being prepared — but more troops are problematic because the Army is already overstretched. The second path is a return to the U.N., which the State Department is trying to negotiate. This would be helpful symbolically — it would be nice to have Iraq become the world vs. the terrorists — and perhaps financially, but it would have limited military utility: State expects only 10,000 U.N. peacekeepers. And a deal will be difficult: the U.N. will agree to American control of the military operations, but not civil administration. "No Bremer," an international diplomat told me. "He's not done very well."
That leaves Iraqification, the third path, which everyone agrees is absolutely necessary. The Pentagon says it is Iraqifying as fast as it can, building no fewer than five indigenous security services that will ultimately involve 70,000 recruits. But far more bodies are needed. Several experts, including some in the Administration, suggest calling the Iraqi army — the ragtag regular army, not the Republican Guard — back to barracks. We are paying 235,000 former Iraqi soldiers to do nothing each month. Why not pay them to be border guards, to provide security for pipelines, power lines and neighborhoods? If they can't do that, why pay them at all?
A Pentagon official told me the idea of reactivating the army is "naive"--which is ironic, given the Pentagon's willful naivete about postwar Iraq. But I suspect that all these options will be attempted in the coming months, lest George W. Bush face the electorate in 2004 as the President who presided over a severe degradation of the U.S. military and the diminution of America's reputation in the world — as the President who lost Iraq.
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
Still Time to Avoid Failure by Fareed Zakaria
Zakaria is unique among public intellectuals by nature of the fact that he is about the only self-described "Reagan Republican" who I ever feel like taking serisouly. Zakaria has become a bit of an Iraq war apologist, but even when trying to gloss over the monumental failures of American policy in the Middle East, he always manages to make concrete points. In his latest Newsweek piece, he again carries the mantle of those who still advocate for the Bush Doctrine, but it is also perfectly clear that Zakaria knows a disaster when he sees one.
Last Friday’s bomb blast in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, presumably by Baathist terrorists, might mark the beginning of internal violence among various groups in Iraqi society. If so, we may be in for a hellish ride....
Saddam, who took brutality to an entirely different level, destroyed whole villages of Kurds and Shiites during his reign. The memories of most Iraqis are filled with stories of terror, torture and murder. If score-settling among these groups begins, that would mark a new phase in Iraq’s blood-soaked story—potentially one that will prove even more destructive.
To make matters worse, Iraqis have proven to be strong nationalists. In every war in which Iraq has participated over the last half century, Iraqis have fought tenaciously—even when they knew they were going to lose. Americans who had fought in Vietnam, and then again in the first gulf war, recalled that their fire fights with Iraqis were more intense than anything they had experienced from the North Vietnamese.
Keeping peace in a country like this cannot be easy. That is why the Bush administration’s attempts to do so unilaterally and on the cheap have been such a disaster. In a remarkable interview last week, Gen. John Abizaid, head of the Central Command, told The New York Times that he needed more troops. This seems to contradict what Donald Rumsfeld said two days earlier, which could be a sign of more internal wrangling, or could mark the beginning of a turnaround.
Zakaria is unique among public intellectuals by nature of the fact that he is about the only self-described "Reagan Republican" who I ever feel like taking serisouly. Zakaria has become a bit of an Iraq war apologist, but even when trying to gloss over the monumental failures of American policy in the Middle East, he always manages to make concrete points. In his latest Newsweek piece, he again carries the mantle of those who still advocate for the Bush Doctrine, but it is also perfectly clear that Zakaria knows a disaster when he sees one.
Last Friday’s bomb blast in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, presumably by Baathist terrorists, might mark the beginning of internal violence among various groups in Iraqi society. If so, we may be in for a hellish ride....
Saddam, who took brutality to an entirely different level, destroyed whole villages of Kurds and Shiites during his reign. The memories of most Iraqis are filled with stories of terror, torture and murder. If score-settling among these groups begins, that would mark a new phase in Iraq’s blood-soaked story—potentially one that will prove even more destructive.
To make matters worse, Iraqis have proven to be strong nationalists. In every war in which Iraq has participated over the last half century, Iraqis have fought tenaciously—even when they knew they were going to lose. Americans who had fought in Vietnam, and then again in the first gulf war, recalled that their fire fights with Iraqis were more intense than anything they had experienced from the North Vietnamese.
Keeping peace in a country like this cannot be easy. That is why the Bush administration’s attempts to do so unilaterally and on the cheap have been such a disaster. In a remarkable interview last week, Gen. John Abizaid, head of the Central Command, told The New York Times that he needed more troops. This seems to contradict what Donald Rumsfeld said two days earlier, which could be a sign of more internal wrangling, or could mark the beginning of a turnaround.
Another in the line of retired military and intelligence personnel who are coming out against the Iraq war. Former Navy Secretary James Webb has joined Wesley Clark, Ray McGovern, David Hackworth, and a host of others in national service who have dared to speak their minds. Like most of the others (Clark being a notable exception), Webb appears to be without political will or ambition.
Former Navy secretary blasts Bush on Iraq
Former Navy Secretary James Webb blasted the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, saying it was sold to the American people on false premises.
``I am very troubled by the fact that we went into Iraq and very troubled about how we're going to get out of Iraq,'' Webb said Thursday to about 200 naval officers, veterans and civilians at the Radisson Hotel Norfolk. The lecture was sponsored by the Hampton Roads Naval Museum and the Naval War College Foundation. ...
Webb said the troops in Iraq are facing combat experiences similar to those he saw as a platoon leader and company commander in Vietnam, where he was awarded a Navy Cross, a Silver Star and two Bronze Stars for heroism, and two Purple Hearts for wounds.
Webb, who resigned as Navy secretary in 1988 to protest cuts in the size of the fleet, said military leaders have an obligation to their troops.
Not only does Webb have no apparent political agenda, he has been an outspoken advocate of increased defense spending, making him hardly a natural ideological enemy of the Bush administration.
As I always say, I understand the potential for futility when one practices history by analogy. That being said, when top military brass began comparing Iraq to Vietnam--and keep in mind that these are people who were in Vietnam, unlike Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Libby, etc.--the rest of us would be wise to listen. At this point whether things on the gorund resemble Vietnam or Yugoslavia more seems like a pretty useless distinction, but getting the public on board with a conceited push for a new approach in Iraq is of unmatched importance.
And, oh yeah, have they found the WMD yet?
Former Navy secretary blasts Bush on Iraq
Former Navy Secretary James Webb blasted the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, saying it was sold to the American people on false premises.
``I am very troubled by the fact that we went into Iraq and very troubled about how we're going to get out of Iraq,'' Webb said Thursday to about 200 naval officers, veterans and civilians at the Radisson Hotel Norfolk. The lecture was sponsored by the Hampton Roads Naval Museum and the Naval War College Foundation. ...
Webb said the troops in Iraq are facing combat experiences similar to those he saw as a platoon leader and company commander in Vietnam, where he was awarded a Navy Cross, a Silver Star and two Bronze Stars for heroism, and two Purple Hearts for wounds.
Webb, who resigned as Navy secretary in 1988 to protest cuts in the size of the fleet, said military leaders have an obligation to their troops.
Not only does Webb have no apparent political agenda, he has been an outspoken advocate of increased defense spending, making him hardly a natural ideological enemy of the Bush administration.
As I always say, I understand the potential for futility when one practices history by analogy. That being said, when top military brass began comparing Iraq to Vietnam--and keep in mind that these are people who were in Vietnam, unlike Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Libby, etc.--the rest of us would be wise to listen. At this point whether things on the gorund resemble Vietnam or Yugoslavia more seems like a pretty useless distinction, but getting the public on board with a conceited push for a new approach in Iraq is of unmatched importance.
And, oh yeah, have they found the WMD yet?
Number of Wounded in Action on Rise
Vernon Loeb of the Washington Post reports that:
U.S. battlefield casualties in Iraq are increasing dramatically in the face of continued attacks by remnants of Saddam Hussein's military and other forces, with almost 10 American troops a day now being officially declared "wounded in action."
The number of those wounded in action, which totals 1,124 since the war began in March, has grown so large, and attacks have become so commonplace, that U.S. Central Command usually issues news releases listing injuries only when the attacks kill one or more troops. The result is that many injuries go unreported.
The rising number and quickening pace of soldiers being wounded on the battlefield have been overshadowed by the number of troops killed since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations May 1. But alongside those Americans killed in action, an even greater toll of battlefield wounded continues unabated, with an increasing number being injured through small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades, remote-controlled mines and what the Pentagon refers to as "improvised explosive devices."
WaPo Graphic:
Indeed, today another large improvised bomb went off in Baghdad, this time in front of the new police station:
A car bomb exploded near the headquarters of U.S.-trained police in Baghdad on Tuesday, killing one policeman and wounding many bystanders. Separately, a U.S. soldier was killed in a helicopter crash, a day after a roadside bomb killed two American soldiers....
On Monday, two soldiers from the U.S. Army’s 2nd Battalion of the 220th Military Police Brigade were killed when a bomb went off beside their convoy in southern Iraq. Another soldier was wounded.
The U.S. military provided no other details. In all, 286 U.S. soldiers have died in the Iraq war, 148 since the end of heavy fighting.
Maybe this is how Russians felt about Afhganistan in the late 70's? In any case, one would hope that the public will only allow their children to be sacrificed for so long without hearing a detailed plan. Currently, there isn't even the loosest of plans, just a slew of platitude and base fearmongering.
Vernon Loeb of the Washington Post reports that:
U.S. battlefield casualties in Iraq are increasing dramatically in the face of continued attacks by remnants of Saddam Hussein's military and other forces, with almost 10 American troops a day now being officially declared "wounded in action."
The number of those wounded in action, which totals 1,124 since the war began in March, has grown so large, and attacks have become so commonplace, that U.S. Central Command usually issues news releases listing injuries only when the attacks kill one or more troops. The result is that many injuries go unreported.
The rising number and quickening pace of soldiers being wounded on the battlefield have been overshadowed by the number of troops killed since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations May 1. But alongside those Americans killed in action, an even greater toll of battlefield wounded continues unabated, with an increasing number being injured through small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades, remote-controlled mines and what the Pentagon refers to as "improvised explosive devices."
WaPo Graphic:
Indeed, today another large improvised bomb went off in Baghdad, this time in front of the new police station:
A car bomb exploded near the headquarters of U.S.-trained police in Baghdad on Tuesday, killing one policeman and wounding many bystanders. Separately, a U.S. soldier was killed in a helicopter crash, a day after a roadside bomb killed two American soldiers....
On Monday, two soldiers from the U.S. Army’s 2nd Battalion of the 220th Military Police Brigade were killed when a bomb went off beside their convoy in southern Iraq. Another soldier was wounded.
The U.S. military provided no other details. In all, 286 U.S. soldiers have died in the Iraq war, 148 since the end of heavy fighting.
Maybe this is how Russians felt about Afhganistan in the late 70's? In any case, one would hope that the public will only allow their children to be sacrificed for so long without hearing a detailed plan. Currently, there isn't even the loosest of plans, just a slew of platitude and base fearmongering.
Monday, September 01, 2003
Killing of Ayatollah Is Start of Iraqi Civil War
The assassination of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim in Najaf on August 28 is the opening volley in the coming Iraqi Civil War. The United States will reap the whirlwind.
One of the most consistent and ominous prewar warnings to the Bush administration by Middle East experts was that removal of Saddam Hussein without the most careful political and social engineering would result in the breaking apart of Iraq into warring factions that would battle each other for decades.
The hawks in the White House would not listen. They were so wedded to the fantasy scenario that the removal of Saddam in an act of "creative destruction" would result in the automatic emergence of democracy. They brushed aside all warnings.
Every one who I knew with half a brain who opposed the Iraq war was concerned foremost by this development. Remember the constant talk of the Yugoslavia parellel? I remember getting laughed at and ignored when I voiced concern about the historical precedents for large political power voids.
Every time that one looks at poll numbers about popular support for the war, they have decreased. This must mean that somewhere there are people who dismissed us as anti-American when we voiced concerns who now have been won over by the same concerns. In any case, Iraq is absolutely screwed. We have assumed to unenviable position of officiating a civil without international help.
The assassination of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim in Najaf on August 28 is the opening volley in the coming Iraqi Civil War. The United States will reap the whirlwind.
One of the most consistent and ominous prewar warnings to the Bush administration by Middle East experts was that removal of Saddam Hussein without the most careful political and social engineering would result in the breaking apart of Iraq into warring factions that would battle each other for decades.
The hawks in the White House would not listen. They were so wedded to the fantasy scenario that the removal of Saddam in an act of "creative destruction" would result in the automatic emergence of democracy. They brushed aside all warnings.
Every one who I knew with half a brain who opposed the Iraq war was concerned foremost by this development. Remember the constant talk of the Yugoslavia parellel? I remember getting laughed at and ignored when I voiced concern about the historical precedents for large political power voids.
Every time that one looks at poll numbers about popular support for the war, they have decreased. This must mean that somewhere there are people who dismissed us as anti-American when we voiced concerns who now have been won over by the same concerns. In any case, Iraq is absolutely screwed. We have assumed to unenviable position of officiating a civil without international help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)