Presidential Race

mini · January 30, 2007, 1:04pm

Frankly, I was most surprised by the fact that 1 out 6 Kurds, of whom we are the supposed protectors and saviors, want to kill us. And I expect that number would be much higher today, after the U.S. arranged that Saddam Hussein would never be tried for gassing them.

“The fact is Iraq is broken, unfortunately through our agency.”

When a petulant child breaks a pot in a store, you take him outside immediately, give him a good scolding, tell him he can’t go back in, and that the cost of the breakage will be taken out of his allowance. You DON’T send him back in to clue it together.

interesteddad · January 30, 2007, 1:39pm

Well, I’ve made it through the Brooking Institute’s paper published Sunday on all-out civil war in Iraq. Their recommendations are too numerous and complex to summarize very well. However, one of their key options following a US decision to pull out is for the US to deploy approximately 50,000 troups in refugee “catch-basin” camps along the Saudi and Syrian borders, with the largest of these camps near Basra in an effort to preserve the oil infrastructure. The purpose of these camps would be to provide humanitarian aid to millions of fleeing Iraqis and to attempt to minimize the destabilizing effect of these refugees on neighboring countries. A corallary effect is that these camps would serve as buffers to reduce the foreign support fueling the Iraqi civil war, combined with diplomatic inducements (large aid packages) to keep the neighbors at bay. The underlying assumption is that Iraq will only stabilize after the violence has run its course (2 years, 5 years, 10 years, whatever it takes).

Brooking went so far as to “war game” this scenario, using high level retired policy makers to play the roles of various countries. The computer simulation went reasonably well early on with the catch basin approach. Unfortunately, the logistical inability to position camps along the Iranian border caused the simulation to fall apart when Iran sent troops under the name “Hizzbollah in Iraq” across the border. The Sunni neighbors went nuts and the US ended up being forced to support the Sunnis in what became a proxi war with Iran. Not good.

I came away from the paper with two opposite thoughts:

a) We need to be pressing for regional diplomatic efforts with ALL of Iraq’s neighbors NOW. Not to avoid civil war, but to limit the damage when we pull out. Baker-Hamiliton had this exactly right. I also see that Baker-Hamilton was really a strategy for dealing with the next phase of the Iraqi civil war.

2) If we are unprepared to take those steps, then I think Kurth may have it right. That we just need to walk away completely and let things explode as Saudi Arabia and Iran square off in an Iraqi civil war. Without aggressive diplomatic efforts, it is pretty clear that the Sunni/Shi’ia friction in Iraq will suck in neighboring countries along sectarian fault lines – not because of the religious divides, but because of power positioning in the region between Iran and the Sunni governed Arab gulf states.

What concerns me is the Bush administration rhetoric against Iran. I have to conclude that the administration is seriously considering “throwing in” with the Sunnis in an all-out attack on Iranian/Shi’ia interests in an Iraqi civil war. This would violate the Brooking paper’s #1 recommendation regarding civil war: Don’t try to pick winners.

If the US opts to go all out against Iran, I don’t like where that could lead. I don’t think we have the troops to seal the Iran/Iraq border. Is Bush really considering an air war against Tehran?

interesteddad · January 30, 2007, 1:52pm

I’m not surprised. One of the points made in the Brooking Institute’s paper is that each of the three groups in Iraq (Shi’a, Sunni, and Kurd) is comprised of factions fighting for power within each sectarian group. They argue that it is misleading to think of any of these three groups as homogenous and that, in fact, there is open violence between militias and factions within each group. Even in the most stable region (the Kurdish north), there are two large factions in a very uneasy alliance.

They point this out in support of their warning Don’t try to pick winners. Even if the US wanted to support the Sunnis or the Shi’ia, there is no way to identify a viable sub-faction to support. As they analyze the history of recent civil wars, they point out that what looks like a strong faction in the beginning often falls by the wayside and that “winners” in civil wars often come down to the effectiveness of individual battlefield commanders who cannot be identified until there is a battlefield.

Allmusic · January 30, 2007, 2:29pm

Yes, I think that Bush is considering an air war against Iran.

There is great US mobilization in the Gulf. Cheney is hush-hushing it, but it’s in the small print of your local newspaper.

BedHead · January 30, 2007, 2:31pm

See: that’s what I’m talkin’ about. I read the Brookings report a long time ago, but I need to see the updates. I am actually learning from you interesteddad. We may not agree, but you’ve got some points. Sorry to be churlish earlier.

I guess another thing I need to get over is my anger about how predictable this outcome was with our invasion of Iraq in the first place. It really saddens me that the military was sent on a fool’s errand when we should have consolidated gains in Afghanistan.

I was really disappointed during the First Gulf War that Bush Sr. called upon Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and they did and then we did nothing. And then predictably Saddam went on a slaughtering rampage against the Shi’ites in the South in retaliation and drained the beautiful swamps of Babylon.

But I was unhappy not because we did nothing, but because that kind of reckless call was made in the first place. It was like telling the Hungarians to rise up against the Soviets in another era when the fact was they were on their own. In the end, though, Bush Sr. made the very sound judgement that we should not go into Iraq, that we didn’t want to own that problem as we do now. And the irony is that even Paul Wolfowitz was on record until that mid to late 90s saying the exact same thing, that we shouldn’t go there. Sigh.

hereshoping · January 30, 2007, 3:17pm

Hey, BedHead:
Just to set the record straight: I never said you were not a patriot; I never said you didn’t love your country; I never called you a traitor; I also never called you (as you called me) the “scum of the earth;” I never said (as you said to me) that you “make me sick.”

Re: my post 407:

Kerry was overseas calling the United States of America a “pariah” in the world last week. Democrats in Congress are being challenged on television all the time as to why they aren’t just calling to cut off funding for our troops; rallies are being held to protest the war; discussion is occurring right here on CC as to whether military recruiters should be allowed on high school/college campuses; right here on CC people have discussed endlessly the theocratic takeover of our country by the Bush and his “fundamentalist” cronies. For people who want us out of Iraq NOW there are many things that can be done.

One of the spanking new strategies seems to be to call Bush ISOLATED (LOOSING IT? - talking to the pictures on the wall in the White House?). I suppose you think I made this up? No, it’s been mentioned here on CC as well as on that purveyor of TRUTH: NPR (just a casual mention of Nixon in the same sentence as Bush, you understand - nothing intentional, I’m sure). Also on NPR this morning on my drive to work I heard from a talking head that --what do you know? --the Secretary of State’s cabinet seem to be leaving in droves. Of course, they’re not sure why- could just be end-of-term fatigue, but in this humble commentator’s opinion it’s because Condi, GWB and Dick are STRANDED there ALL ALONE in D.C. the ONLY PEOPLE holding out to support the troop surge.

I can see how if one lives in the world of NPR for a long time, or the world of mini, all of this becomes TRUTH.

Of course, there is the faint possibility that it is NOT truth. Contrary to your definitive opinion of me on the subject, I try to read/listen to different views of the war as I can.

Last night I watched Anderson Cooper’s special on the Fischer Houses built for vets. I watched the amputees and the burned and deformed. I listened to what the vets said. They said they are supporting the President. They said they want to continue in the military. They are NOT thinking like you and mini, BedHead.

So I’m taking my cue from them for the time being. Not from Jane and not from Susan and Tim. Okay? As are millions of other Americans - average Joes who just are not as educated about the subject as you are, and yet (so sadly to the high iq types like you and others here) are allowed in this country to have an opinion on the subject.

interesteddad · January 30, 2007, 3:27pm

This is a new one, just published two days ago. It’s the culmination of a year-long study of recent civil wars and a detailed look at what lies ahead once the US pulls out and Iraq disintegrates into full-scale civil war.

<a href=“http://www.brookings.org/fp/saban/analysis/jan2007iraq_civilwar.htm[/url]”>http://www.brookings.org/fp/saban/analysis/jan2007iraq_civilwar.htm</a>

Tell me about it. I supported the Iraq invasion and voted for Bush the second time around (not the first). I did so because, based on many decades of reading insider accounts of both Democratic and Republican adminstrations and the opportunity to attend a couple of Carter Center panels with, for example, all of the living Secretaries of State. I had come to the conclusion that, although they make mistakes and although I may disagree with their conclusions, these political leaders are very intelligent men who make a good faith effort to sort through all of the contradictory forces and conduct foreign policy in a rational way. I assumed that the same must be true for the experienced pros in the Bush administration. Specifically, I assumed that they actually had information about Iraq and, more importantly, a plan for reconstruction and to make good use of permanent military facilities. Shame on me.

I don’t think I can express the anger I feel. As the story emerges, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more shameful, inept approach to foreign policy. I have nothing but contempt for the whole crew. There is no doubt that GW has done more to harm the United States than any president during my lifetime (back to Ike). I thought Nixon would be tough to beat, but at least he had some real accomplishments to offset his shortcomings. Bush is like Reagan in his detachment, but with the Three Stooges for advisors. I have zero faith in this team.

hereshoping · January 30, 2007, 3:30pm

Well, no one put you in charge of the team, did they? More’s the pity. Then everything would have been puurrrfect.

mini · January 30, 2007, 3:35pm

“Last night I watched Anderson Cooper’s special on the Fischer Houses built for vets. I watched the amputees and the burned and deformed. I listened to what the vets said. They said they are supporting the President. They said they want to continue in the military. They are NOT thinking like you and mini, BedHead.”

No one wants to feel that they’ve lost limbs and friends in a lost cause, or a cause that wasn’t worth fighting for.

Hindoo · January 30, 2007, 3:43pm

Reading these posts, one can really feel the rage and division in this country. So much for Bush being “a uniter, not a divider.”

hereshoping · January 30, 2007, 3:47pm

That’s right mini: and no one who has lost limbs and friends in a “lost cause” or a cause “that wasn’t worth fighting for” wants to be told WHAT TO THINK, either. How, as usual, utterly condescending of you.

mini · January 30, 2007, 3:50pm

I call it as I see it - if you actually knew and talked to some wounded vets, you’d find heaps of them that would tell you just the same. (But, from what you write, I more than suspect you haven’t bothered.)

TheDad · January 30, 2007, 3:52pm

I converse regularly on-line with a number of majors and colonels, some active, some retired, mostly Reserve but I think a few Regulars are salted in. A few very quietly do not say anything in support of the war. But the dead-enders that continue to defend it are very brittle becasue, as Mini notes, once you come to the conclusion that a big mistake has been made, a true sense of tragedy is awoken.

Bush politically is like a drunken gambler hoping that just one more throw of the dice will make things finally pay off. A lot of the military defenders of Bush are just hanging on hoping that somehow things will turn out okay…but if you press them for a definition of achievable “victory,” things start to go down hill very fast, with conditions that don’t map in any way to what the realities of Iraq are.

I could have written that as well, ID.

hereshoping · January 30, 2007, 4:05pm

Ok. I’ll take tomorrow off and go out and find some wounded vets who will tell me exactly what I want to hear (or did you hear ANY contrary opinions among your wounded Iraq vet friends, mini?).

sjmom2329 · January 30, 2007, 4:47pm

Well, here is the voice of one soldier. All you have to do is google “military blog” and this is the first one to come up. <a href=“http://www.military.com/blog/blackfive#blog2[/url]”>http://www.military.com/blog/blackfive#blog2</a>

I’ve got permission to go hot with this. This is typical of what I’ve been hearing. 

It’s a manifesto of sorts from a Staff Sergeant in the fight in Afghanistan. He had an experience recently while on mid-tour leave to see his wife and baby boy that was the last straw:

Things that I am tired of in this war:

I am tired of Democrats saying they are patriotic and then insulting my commander in chief and the way he goes about his job. I am tired of Democrats who tell me they support me, the soldier on the ground, and then tell me the best plan to win this war is with a “phased redeployment” (liberal-speak for retreat) out of the combat zone to someplace like Okinawa.

I am tired of the Democrats whining for months on T.V., in the New York Times, and in the House and Senate that we need more troops to win the war in Iraq, and then when my Commander in Chief plans to do just that, they say that is the wrong plan, it won’t work, and we need a “new direction.”
I am tired of CNN claiming that they are showing “news,” with videotape sent to them by terrorists, of my comrades being shot at by snipers, but refusing to show what happens when we build a school, pave a road, hand out food and water to children, or open a water treatment plant.

I am tired of Code Pink, Daily Kos, Al-Jazzera, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CBS, the ACLU, and CAIR thinking that they somehow get to have a vote in how we blast, shoot and kill these animals who would seek to subdue us and destroy us.

I am tired of people like Meredith Vieria from NBC asking oxygen thieves like Senator Chuck Hagel questions like “Senator, at this point, do you think we are fighting and dying for nothing?” Meredith might not get it, but soldiers do know the difference between fighting and dying for something and fighting and dying for nothing.

I am tired of hearing multiple stories from both combat theaters about snipers begging to do their jobs while commanders worry about how the media might portray the possible casualties and what might happen to their career.

I am tired of hearing that the Battalion Tactical Operations Center got a new plasma screen monitor for daily briefings, but rifle scope rings for sniper rifles, extra magazines, and necessary field gear were disapproved by the unit supply system.

I am tired of out of touch general officers, senators, congressmen and defense officials who think that giving me some more heavy body armor to wear is helping me stay alive. Speed is life in combat and wearing 55 to 90 pounds of gear for 12 to 20 hours a day puts me at a great tactical disadvantage to the idiot, mindless terrorist who is wearing no armor at all and carrying an AK-47 and a pistol.

I am tired of Rules of Engagement being made by JAG lawyers and not Combat Commanders. We are not playing Hopscotch over here. There is no 2nd place trophy either. I think that if the enemy knew some rough treatment and some deprivation was at hand for them, instead of prayer rugs, special diets and free Korans; this might help get their terrorist minds “right.”

I am tired of seeing Active Duty Army and Marine units being extended past their original redeployment dates, when there are National Guard Units that have yet to deploy to a combat zone in the last 40 years.

I am tired of hearing soldiers who are stationed in safe places talk about how hard their life is.
I am tired of senior officers and commanders who look first in their planning for how many casualties we might take, instead of how many enemy casualties we might inflict.

I am tired of begging to be turned loose so that this war can be over.

It is only possible to defeat an enemy who kills indiscriminately by utterly destroying him. He cannot be made to yield or surrender. He will fight to the death by the hundreds to kill only one or two of us.

**And so far, all of our “games” have been “away games,” and I don’t know about the ignorant, treasonous Democrats and the completely insane radical leftists and their thoughts on the matter, but I would like to keep our road game schedule.

So let’s get it done. Until the fight is won and there is no more fight left.**

Feel free to denigrate the opinion of one who is actually in the field – these aren’t my words, or those of a “political hack” or “neocon.”

Hanna · January 30, 2007, 5:19pm

“Well, no one put you in charge of the team, did they?”

hh, I thought you said that everyone was entitled to an opinion on the subject. According to you, you don’t have to be in charge for your opinion to matter.

“STRANDED there ALL ALONE in D.C. the ONLY PEOPLE holding out to support the troop surge.”

Well, their own party has abandoned them, and that’s news. I heard the same NPR story. In a story about government, you look at what members of the government are thinking and saying. It wasn’t a story about popular support for the war, or what the soldiers think, or what our (former?) allies have to say. It was a story about what’s going on in Washington. And in Washington, the group standing by the president’s side keeps dwindling away.

Here’s my question: what is new about the surge? What aspect of it has not yet been tried? It’s returning troop levels to where they were earlier in the conflict. Can you name one factor that has changed that explains why another ~20k troops will work now, when it didn’t work then?

hereshoping · January 30, 2007, 5:39pm

idad:

HH:

Sorry, Hanna: I guess I really lost my head there for a minute.
And I used to take NPR “reports” as gospel truth too.

fundingfather · January 30, 2007, 5:56pm

Hanna, if you really want to know the answer to this, I suggest that you listen to the John Burns interview that InterestedDad posted. While he does not claim that it definitely will work, he does indicate that there is a chance that it will work. However, to answer your question, he explains how it is different than anything that has been tried before. Most of all he explains the dire ramifications of what will happen in the region if we withdraw now. If you listen to it with an open mind you may have a change of perspective. While it is long, it is a very educational hour from someone who has been on the ground in Iraq since before the war even started.

interesteddad · January 30, 2007, 6:17pm

Wow. Interesting stuff with Baker and Hamilton’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations committtee today. Particularly the conversation between Chuck Hagel and Jim Baker on opportunities for diplomacy in the region.

Baker was VERY specific about his recent meeting with the Foreign Service chief in Damascas, Syria. Baker (who made 16 trips to Syria as Sec of State) believes that Syria is LOOKING to work with the United States and is willing to:

a) get Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist

b) limit the flow of arms to Hezzbollah through Syria

c) drop the Golan Heights as a precondition for re-opening talks with Israel

d) support a pluralistic government in Iraq

Baker says that there is a clear, unmistakable opportunity to distance Syria from Iran and that we are dropping the ball by not opening serious dialog with Damascus on a wide range of issues.

Baker and Hamilton are less optimistic about a dialog with Iran, not hopeful at all, really. But, they both stated that it is important to talk to Iran, to – at the very least – avoid misperceptions by either side that could lead to unnecessary conflict.

GRRRRRR. I just want to scream. Baker’s not my favorite guy in Washington, but I have a lot of respect for his experience in the Middle East and in dealing with realpolitik dynamics. How hard would it be to send him to Damascus as a special envoy? The guy can make things happen. I just don’t understand the administration’s fascination with “demonizing” countries. It’s like it’s some kind of weird “faux-Reagan” bravado when the whole world can see that we have a real mess on our hands.

BTW, reopening channels for Israeli peace talks (or even the promise of future talks) is a BIG deal to our Arab allies.

PS: Baker had limited praise for the limited diplomatic efforts Rice is making. However, he characterized her efforts as focused on generating support among our Arab and European allies for further isolating Iran. My opinion: just as we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and missed an opportunity to get Bin Laden, we are now taking our eye off the ball in Iraq in favor of a preoccupation with Iran.

conyat · January 30, 2007, 7:53pm

Out of curiousity, the people who think we should escalate the war in Iraq, would you support a tax to make the war pay as you go?

Everyone but military families–who are already sacrificing for the war–has to pay his or her families’ per capita share, every year of the occupation and every year thereafter that we’ll be supporting disabled veterans? Would you still think the escalation was a good idea if it was your family’s future on the line? What if it wasn’t a tax…what if it was a voluntary contribution that you could dedicate to defray the national debt accrued for the war–would you contribute?

I am asking this not to be confrontational, but because I think the real problem with the war is that to the average person with no relatives serving over there, it doesn’t feel like we’re at war, because there is no privation on the home front. WWII, there were shortages, rationing, and a whole generation of men overseas. Vietnam, Korea, unless you had the pull to get your child in a champagne unit, the fear of the draft was always with you. But today, there are very few reminders of the war in many households.

If we had to sacrifice more, who knows? Maybe more would feel invested, and agree with the escalation…or maybe more would worry about the long term consequences and disagree.

Presidential Race

CONNECT WITH US