December 11, 2006
Iraq Study Group Response
:Washington was ablaze this week with the release of the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s findings on how to improve the situation in Iraq. Democrats and Moderate Republicans lined up to lavish praise of the ten wise men that have given us a “New Way Forward”. And despite the excitement, there is very little in this report that gives much hope for the future of Iraq. Not only does the report speak to a “grave future,” it provides few substantive realistic proposals. I will address these flaws in the next couple days; I first wanted to address the current critics of the report.
There is plenty to criticize in this report – lack of boldness, lack of a coherent overall strategy, and lack of honesty in the true difficulties in getting things back on track – all of which have been attacked. Ironically, these attacks have come from leading neoconservative thinkers.
Richard Pearle, a Reagan-administration defense official who strongly supported the invasion said, “The report is a monumental disappointment… The recommendations are either wrong or of no consequence. There is no magic bullet, but in their desire to find something, they found the wrong things.”
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon aide and now a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute said, “Sometimes realists have to deal with reality. Iran and Syria will press to exploit every advantage they have.”
And Kenneth R. Weinstein, chief executive of the conservative Hudson Institute said that “It’s preposterous, period.”
Of course, the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s findings are not what really got this group of neoconservatives mad. What really angers them is that there were only two neoconservatives among the 40 or so experts that briefed the Commission. Apparently that was not enough. Again, Michael Rubin, “Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush’s war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy… [the Commission] gerrymandered [experts] experts to ratify predetermined recommendations. Rather than prime the debate they sought to stifle it.”
The neoconservatives may be totally right in the specifics – the Commission may be wrong (I’ll argues as much this week) and they may have been left of the Commission – but they are wrong on the overall picture. The Commission really shouldn’t have had a single neoconservative on the briefing board. It really makes no sense to have their input.
For one, the President has endorsed their vision of the world and he met with the Commission. He is in the best position to articulate that vision and his views were well represented. Thanks to the President, the Commission never really considered an immediate withdraw despite large evidence in support of such a move. In addition the Commission was to address alternative paths to victory. It is hard to see how having the architects of the war as chief experts helps to provide a path other than the one we are currently on.
Truthfully, though, what’s concerning to me is that there were even two neoconservatives on the Commission staff. It would be as if a big group got together for a study group in College that was dominated by one person. The group later receives its test grades and found they all failed. Come the next test, I guarantee, that the group will not invite or listen to the person that dominated the last conversation. Unfairly, after all that person may have some good thoughts to add to the discussion for the next test. But that person was responsible for your failure on the last test and you would be a fool to listen again.
Likewise, it would be foolish to give any credence to people like Rubin, Weinstein, or Pearle. They failed this nation. They believed that we would be greeted with flowers and that the oil would pay for the invasion. They still believe that permanent bases are needed to take care of Israel and put pressure on Iran. While full responsibility is on the President, the neoconservatives have a large share of the bloodshed and failure on their ideas. And for that, pardon me, if I do not care if they feel that they are now not being listened to – don’t we all wish that we hadn’t listened to them three years ago.
(Filed under: Iraq, America at War, Bush Administration, Middle East, Commentary, America)
December 6, 2006
Iraq Study Group
:Do you have your copy yet? I hope to finish it by this weekend and will begin posting my thoughts soon after. Get your copy at Amazon by clicking on this link: Iraq Study Group
(Filed under: Iraq, America at War, Bush Administration, Middle East, Commentary, Politics, America)
January 18, 2006
Feeling Completely Hopeless - The Iranian Nuclear Problem
:Iran’s decision this past week to restart their nuclear program appeared to come out of nowhere. Many have recently speculated as to how the European Union’s talks with Tehran failed or how the United States can get the Russians and the Chinese on board for new sanctions. But this is a distorted conversation. Iran’s re-started nuclear ambition was easily predictable with the events ongoing in neighboring Iraq.
At the outset of the invasion of Iraq, conservative columnists lined up to praise the invasion as a way to demonstrate to other dictators what would happen if they “misbehaved.” When, five days after Saddam Hussein was arrested, Muammar al-Qaddafi announced his intention to give up a WMD program, conservatives saw this as proof. Charles Krauthammer, at the time, wrote that it could not be a coincidence. Dictators were feeling the “aftershocks of war.” For the sake of argument and ignoring many scholars who point to Qaddafi offering the same thing for four years to end Western sanctions, let’s assume that Krauthammer was right - the invasion of Iraq did make nations more civil – then we are in store for a difficult few years.
The problem with this conservative view that a successful invasion would be a message to the rest of the world is what happens when the invasion fails or at least bogs down. The invasion tied up our military. Over 100,000 troops are stationed just across the border in Iraq but none of them can be spared to threaten Iran. Effectively the United States does not have any teeth. If the Iraq invasion was supposed to be a message, a rogue state now knows they have until the United States leaves Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons. If you accept the argument, then you also accept that the rest of the world gets the opposite message if the invasion fails.
And that is where we are with a failed invasion. If you agreed with Krauthammer’s views three years ago, you would have assumed that if Iraq failed you would end up where we are today. That is why I was so surprised today when I read Krauthammer’s column in the Washington Post where he blamed the European Union’s misguided and naïve talks with Iran. It was a complete red herring argument.
While, the European Union’s talks with Tehran may have been imperceptive of the true Iranian desire, one should not hold the EU accountable for that. They had little choice. If there are two ways of dealing with the situation a) diplomacy and b) military, they had no choice when the US invaded Iraq. And when the wheels came off the US military in Iraq, there was no threat. Of course, the Iranians pulled out of their commitments to arms inspections and seals. They always wanted a nuke and now they had their chance.
All of this angers me. I share this administration’s desire to limit the nuclear club and do not feel comfortable with a Tehran hot button. But it isn’t surprising. After all we have been hopeless to do anything about it since we tied up our military for a decade in invading Iraq. That Krauthammer and other conservatives didn’t see it coming doesn’t make it unexpected. Just them blind to the problems of invading Iraq.
(Filed under: Iraq, Bush Administration, Middle East, Iran, Commentary, Europe, America, Global Issues, Nuclear Proliferation, European Union)
October 31, 2005
Deadly Week in Iraq
:The American casualty count exploded over 2,000 this week in Iraq. For the month, ninety-six Americans lost their lives making it the deadliest month since January. The attacks also seem to be getting larger and more explosive. A coordinated attack on Monday nearly breached the walls of two prominent foreign hotels in Baghdad.
(Filed under: Iraq, Middle East)
Iraq Constitution and Politics
:Iraqi voters approved the constitution during a referendum two weeks ago despite Sunni Arabs effort to vote no. The Sunnis had come close. They needed two-thirds majorities in three Iraqi regions, they received that amount in two provinces and over half in a third. By Thursday, three Sunni political parties had formed an alliance for the December 15th parliamentary elections, with the Shiite parties agreeing to a similar alliance a day later. The election is very important in American efforts to end the insurgency. It also is important as the elected Parliament will have the ability to modify the constitution.
(Filed under: Iraq, Iraq Constitution, Middle East)
Syria
:The US, France, and England are threatening action (most likely economic sanctions) in the UN against Syria’s government, which a UN report last week accused of having a hand in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. The resolution would take effect if Syria does not give full cooperation to investigations and does not provide suspects in the killings. Negotiations are under way to make sure that China or Russia do not block the resolution with a veto.
(Filed under: Iraq, Middle East, UN, Europe, America, Global Issues)
Food for Oil Scandal
:The UN released the fifth and final report in an investigation of a scandal resulting in the UN and Iraq’s food-for-oil scheme. The document described how more than 2,400 businesses (many of them French and Russian) from over sixty countries paid nearly $1.8 billion in illegally kickbacks to the Hussein regime through the plan. The scandal has been a huge embarrassment to Secretary General Kofi Annan, whose son played a role in the kickbacks.
(Filed under: Iraq, Middle East, UN, Global Issues)
October 24, 2005
Iraq
:Nine days after the vote for the Iraqi Constitution, there are still no official results for the election – unofficial results suggest that many provinces saw 90% of Iraqis favoring the constitution. Officials are investigating allegations of election fraud and inconsistencies, although, they strongly caution that there is no evidence for this. Meanwhile, in Washington Secretary of State Condelezza Rice faced a tough crowd at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. She put the Bush Administration’s agenda in a warm light but conceded that “it may not work.? All eight Democrats and most of the six Republicans at the hearing criticized the war in Iraq among continued violence.
(Filed under: Iraq, Iraq Constitution, Middle East)
Saddam Hussein Trial
:The former President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein appeared combatively before an Iraqi court on Tuesday. Hussein refused to confirm his identity, telling the Iraqi judge that “If you’re an Iraqi, you know me.? The trial of Hussein and seven fellow defendants, accused of executing 143 men in Dujail (a Shia village north of Baghdad), was postponed until November 28 because witnesses were too scared to show up. This fear is not unfounded. Later in the week, an attorney for one of Hussein’s associates was assassinated.
(Filed under: Iraq, Middle East)
Commentary - Counting the Dead
:In the past, this report has strongly advised the Bush Administration to count the number of Iraqis that have died during the War in Iraq and use an independent body to clarify responsibility for their deaths. The Washington Post reports this morning that the military has put more emphasis lately on body counts of dead Iraqi insurgents in an effort to show that the war is working. While this is a good step towards accounting for dead Iraqis, it does not go far enough.
As military officials suggest, it is impossible to determine the number of enemies to show that deaths are making a dent in the insurgency. In addition, it is difficult to determine the difference between insurgents and civilians – which Arab media quickly points out about such numbers. Instead, the military is using dead insurgents as a propaganda tool, similar to its purpose in Vietnam. And, while, it sounds great to have numbers as evidence of success, like in Vietnam, counting the killing fields does not justify the war. It simply accounts for our sins since the count began.
(Filed under: Iraq, America at War, Middle East, Commentary, Politics, America)
/ Older Reports