Gen Petraeus, Amb. Crocker, Briefing on Iraq…

[amicus]

During the fall of 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I cringed at the treatment given the several CEO’s of energy companies by House and Senate Democrats during committee hearings. Those men dared not object to the browbeating political agenda as left wingers assaulted both the oil companies in specific and free enterprise in general.

I watched the entire House committee session today as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were assaulted by left wing, anti war democrats, again and again. The Ambassador, a politician at heart, took the beating silently and without complaint. The General however, did not, over-riding flamboyant democrats again and again as they made their political posturing and posed their insulting questions.

The left wing, anti war democrats did not like what they were hearing. That the surge of troops to nearly 170,000 men, was indeed working and they liked it even less when the General announced that troop numbers would decline over the next several months to pre surge levels.

Despite a full page advertisement in the NY Times calling him General Betray Us, and eight interruptions in the House chambers by pink clad anti war nut cases, the General made note that the report was his, and was not submitted to either the Pentagon or the White House for approval or editing.

On the political front, Ambassador Crocker gave a full picture of the actual events of Iraqi liberation and rebuilding and documented it each step of the way. The democrats were not happy with that either.

Both gentlemen met and defrayed the anti war rhetoric with grace and factual replies, virtually destroying any value the democrat anti war posturing might have gained.

Both will meet with a Senate Committee on the morrow and that should be an even more interesting slug fest.

Amicus…

 

[Belegon]

Interesting how Georgie is throwing out his generals to be sacrificial lambs to the congress...

first time I can remember a commander-in-chief doing that.

Gee, and he was so manly when he was landing on that aircraft carrier and declaring victory.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I don't intend to argue the Iraq War. For one thing, it kicks my depression into overdrive. Besides, I'm convinced no amount of fussing and bad feelings will change anyone's mind.

But after four years, nearly four thousand deaths, and uncounted billions of dollars, both the American people and their elected representatives have every right to question, even with extreme prejudice, those calling for more time, money, and lives.

To quote Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La) "...America is not tired of fighting terrorism; America is tired of the wrongheaded and boneheaded leadership of the Republican party that has sent six and a half billion a month to Iraq while the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. That led this country to attack Saddam Hussein, when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden."

Rumple Foreskin

 

[amicus]

Interesting how Georgie is throwing out his generals to be sacrificial lambs to the congress...

first time I can remember a commander-in-chief doing that.

Gee, and he was so manly when he was landing on that aircraft carrier and declaring victory.

~~~

Not sure I follow your meaning at all. The Petraeus Report on the progress on the 'surge' of troops has been expected all summer long and was intended to be presented to Congress.

The only unexpected event was that the Iraqi situation seems relatively stable and looking better all the time, regardless of what the left and the media constantly harp about.

Amicus...

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

The only unexpected event was that the Iraqi situation seems relatively stable and looking better all the time, regardless of what the left and the media constantly harp about.

Amicus...

9 GIs die in Iraq, military reports
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD - The U.S. military reported the deaths of nine soldiers Monday — including seven killed in a vehicle accident — and Iraq's prime minister said the nation's armed forces were not ready to fight without American help.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[amicus]

Rumple Foreskin]I don't intend to argue the Iraq War. For one thing, it kicks my depression into overdrive. Besides, I'm convinced no amount of fussing and bad feelings will change anyone's mind.

But after four years, nearly four thousand deaths, and uncounted billions of dollars, both the American people and their elected representatives have every right to question, even with extreme prejudice, those calling for more time, money, and lives.

To quote Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La) "...America is not tired of fighting terrorism; America is tired of the wrongheaded and boneheaded leadership of the Republican party that has sent six and a half billion a month to Iraq while the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. That led this country to attack Saddam Hussein, when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden."

Rumple Foreskin

[/I]

~~~

Not necessary to 'argue the war', Rumple, but tomorrow is the 6th anniversary of the Twin Towers attack on the homeland.

Six years of terrorist attacks all over the world by Islamic Fundamentalists, but no more attacks on America. I think that says something about our entire preparedness and intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Millions of people in both countries now have at least a chance to enjoy human freedom, we are giving them that chance, what they do with it, is another matter.

You and whoever chooses to ignore the global threat of Islamic expansion, can do so at your own peril, but people all over the world have gathered forces and are meeting the threat as best they can.

My hat is off to all the efforts to preserve freedom and liberate those under oppression.

Amicus....

 

[mikey2much]

why do you want a war?

Both gentlemen met and defrayed the anti war rhetoric with grace and factual replies, virtually destroying any value the democrat anti war posturing might have gained.

Both will meet with a Senate Committee on the morrow and that should be an even more interesting slug fest.

Amicus…

Why would you want us to be in a war in Iraq? They did nothing to us. They even asked for our permission before they invaded back in 1990 and our female ambassador told them that we were not concerned with their petty border squabbles. Women were treated pretty well by Moslem standards, and they were opposed to the radicals running Iran, A counrty who has done something to us.
I don't understand why you take such a negative view of enyone against the war. I don't understand why you aren't against the war.

 

[amicus]

Why would you want us to be in a war in Iraq? They did nothing to us. They even asked for our permission before they invaded back in 1990 and our female ambassador told them that we were not concerned with their petty border squabbles. Women were treated pretty well by Moslem standards, and they were opposed to the radicals running Iran, A counrty who has done something to us.
I don't understand why you take such a negative view of enyone against the war. I don't understand why you aren't against the war.

~~~

Americans have traditionally had a wide yellow streak of isolationism and pacifism running down the middle of the back; I am not one of those.

As a people, we did not have the courage to come to the aid of the Brit's in 1940, when their backs were to the wall after the fall of Europe. It took Pearl Harbor before we were forced to act.

I suggest, that as a people, we learned something from that and began to combat international communism with the Berlin Airlift and containment of the Russians in the late 1940's and continued containment in Korea in 1950, and Vietnam in the 60's.

In other words, we took our proper place in world affairs as a protector of human rights and liberties and have done our best to liberate the oppressed as best we can.

The middle east has a curious history in the past century as European Colonial powers, England, France, Italy and Spain, waned in power and influence and Russia and the United States became players on a world wide scale.

The Islamic/Muslim plague had began to spread and infect long before even the first Iraq and liberation of Kuwait. The Israeli's have been under constant attack from the Arab world since the birth of that nation in 1947.

Your feigned mispellings and pretended ignorance of history notwithstanding, I guess you depend on the historical ignorance of others as a means of bypassing reason and self defense.


Amicus....

 

[Pure]

George Will, conservative columnist; the military, on Iraq.

Will talks to some soldiers about iraq:

Letting Soldiers Do the Thinking

By George F. Will

Sunday, September 9, 2007; Page B07

CARLISLE BARRACKS, Pa. -- Officers studying at the Army War College walk the ground at nearby Gettysburg where Pickett's men walked across an open field under fire. They wonder: How did Confederate officers get men to do that? The lesson: Men can be led to places they cannot be sent.

Today's officers lead an Army that was sent into Iraq in 2003, and by 2004 the operation became, as an officer here says, "a deployment in search of a mission." Since then, missions have multiplied. Today's is to make possible an exit strategy. Gen. David Petraeus's Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual says counterinsurgency's primary objective is to secure the civilian population rather than destroy the enemy.

This inevitably involves the military in organizing civil society, a task that demands skill sets that are scarce throughout the government and have not hitherto been, and perhaps should not be, central to military training and doctrine. Nevertheless, the War College is coming to grips with the fact that what soldiers call "nonkinetic" -- meaning nonviolent -- facets of their profession are, in Iraq, perhaps 80 percent of their profession.


For soldiers, the tempo of change, technological as well as intellectual (and technological change is a driver of intellectual change), is accelerating. For centuries, nations assumed that they could be seriously threatened only by other nations; that terrorism was a weapon of the weak and therefore a weak weapon; that wars are won by large, decisive battles.

America's Weinberger-Powell doctrine of the 1980s seemed vindicated in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm: Force should be used as a last resort, overwhelmingly and on behalf of clearly defined objectives. That doctrine was jettisoned in 2003, when forces less than one-third the size of those deployed in 1991 for the modest objective of liberating Kuwait were sent into Iraq to implement grandiose nation-building and democracy-implanting objectives.

Today, those who believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom was well-named and wise also believe that Petraeus's surge is succeeding and that criticism of Iraq's dysfunctional government is primarily a ploy by war critics to distract attention from that success. Petraeus, however, says his mission is to buy time for political reconciliation to occur.

The recent National Intelligence Estimate said that although the surge is producing real if uneven security improvements, progress toward political reconciliation has been negligible and might be perishable. Hence the surge is a tactical success disconnected from the strategic objective it is supposed to serve.

Americans awaiting a report from the studious Petraeus should know that, as Maj. Gen. David Huntoon, War College commandant, says, Petraeus's intellectual qualifications (a Princeton PhD) "are remarkable but not anomalous." The officers here -- 71 percent have served in Iraq, 34 percent in Afghanistan, many in both -- are doing something their civilian leaders did negligently five years ago -- thinking.

They think America needs, in the words of one officer, "an expeditionary capacity other than military." Officers here especially admire the introduction to the University of Chicago's edition of the Counterinsurgency Field Manual. Written by Sarah Sewall of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, it says:

We see in Iraq "military doctrine attempting to fill a civilian vacuum." In counterinsurgency, "nonmilitary capacity is the exit strategy," which is problematic when "more people play in Army bands than serve in the U.S. foreign service." Counterinsurgency "relies upon nonkinetic activities like providing electricity, jobs, and a functioning judicial system. . . . But U.S. civilian capacity has proved wholly inadequate in Afghanistan and Iraq." The military is "in a quandary about the limits of its role" as it is forced "to assume the roles of mayor, trash collector and public works employer."

The Army has, and must have, a "can do" attitude. One of the things it must be able to do, however, is speak truth to America's civilian leaders about what it cannot do. "That," says one "can do" officer here, "goes against our military culture." But another participant in a freewheeling discussion stresses the importance of "communicating risks to our civilian masters."

One certainty is that America's enemies understand what kind of war -- protracted and inconclusive -- saps America's patience. An officer fresh from Afghanistan notes a Taliban axiom: "Americans have the watches but we have the time." Some officers here recently visited Appomattox to help them think about "war termination."

Fortunately, thanks to the services' institutions such as the War College, America's remarkably reflective military services, their burdens promiscuously multiplied by civilians down the road in Washington, are up to another challenge that civilians have devolved to them: thinking.

georgewill@washpost.com

 

[amicus]

"...talks to some soldiers about iraq:..."

That was your entire intellectual input.

Puny.

Occupation forces in Japan in 1945 and Liberation forces in Europe in 1945, perhaps set the stage for a change in military objectives following the end of a military campaign.

The Civil War in the US is not a valid comparison to the US Liberation of Iraq, at least we spoke the same language, albeit with a southern accent.

The pacifist and isolationist policy of the democrats, i.e. the Clinton years, reduced the size of the military by twenty five percent. That is in addition to not increasing by recruiting, which means that many middle and upper level military people, facing no promotions, retired to civilian life.

Eight months in office, Commander in Chief Bush, left with a gutted military, little R&D during the Clinton years, and an intelligence service also hamstrung by the Clinton democrats, was faced with the necessity of a response following September 11, 2001.

The shrunken military commanders were faced with a dilemma, the 'massive force' involvement preached by the War College had been destroyed as Clinton eviscerated the armed forces of the US.

Thus a smaller, more technically proficient, 'precision' military, was left to find a way to carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief.

As Islamic fundamentalist terrorists suffered no meaningful retaliation during the Clinton years, they did not expect a new President to alter course, but he did.

Hindsight is useless, except as a lesson, but had the '91 war evicted Saddam Hussein and set the Iraqi people free, an entirely different scenario would have occurred. Thanks to the United Nations and the pacifists during the 90's, the United States left Iraq and Hussein continued the terror and the oppression.

There was no kitchen recipe available to follow to hold and modernize West Germany during the cold war. No recipe either for the remnants of the Japanese Empire. Nor previous plans to draw upon for South Korea, rescued and held from Communist occupation.

But today, Germany is a Democracy, Japan is a powerful trade nation of free people and South Korea is a player in the world of free nations.

Will Baghdad and Iraq once again be a player on a world stage of economics and culture?

We can only give our best to make that happen.

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

unfortunately, ami, as the article suggests, there is little evidence that the civilian side of iraq is coming together; that the civil society will start functioning. continuing reports of police unreliability are an example.

i agree with the authority who said that military "success" without this underpinning, will not do the trick overall.

The recent National Intelligence Estimate said that although the surge is producing real if uneven security improvements, progress toward political reconciliation has been negligible and might be perishable. Hence the surge is a tactical success disconnected from the strategic objective it is supposed to serve.



We see in Iraq "military doctrine attempting to fill a civilian vacuum." In counterinsurgency, "nonmilitary capacity is the exit strategy," which is problematic when "more people play in Army bands than serve in the U.S. foreign service." Counterinsurgency "relies upon nonkinetic activities like providing electricity, jobs, and a functioning judicial system. . . . But U.S. civilian capacity has proved wholly inadequate in Afghanistan and Iraq."


i remind you that in post war Japan, hardly any US occupying soldier was killed. there was 'hospitality' in a sense, and that is not the case in iraq.

 

[Handprints]

Occupation forces in Japan in 1945 and Liberation forces in Europe in 1945, perhaps set the stage for a change in military objectives following the end of a military campaign.

There was no kitchen recipe available to follow to hold and modernize West Germany during the cold war. No recipe either for the remnants of the Japanese Empire. Nor previous plans to draw upon for South Korea, rescued and held from Communist occupation.

But today, Germany is a Democracy, Japan is a powerful trade nation of free people and South Korea is a player in the world of free nations.

I think there might be a distinction to be drawn that separates Iraq and Afghanistan from Germany and Japan. The latter two both had high social and cultural cohesion before, during and after the war; all of their populations put nation/state ahead of region or tribe as identifiers.

In fact, you can argue that this cohesion was/is so high that for 50 years Germany and Korea's main post-war domestic political preoccupation was how to arrange reunification (for what it's worth, that's why the South Korean president nearly stroked out at George Bush's throwaway line about ending the war.)

Iraq and Afghanistan really don't have that kind of cohesion at all, even compared to immediate neighbours like Turkey, Iran, Pakistan or even Turkmenistan. Country is a very long way behind tribe, region and political affiliation as a personal identifier. Under that circumstance, inhabitants are a lot less likely to be interested in contributing to "common good" projects like infrastructure repair, establishment of services or even broad social order. Why waste time on "national" efforts that will, however indirectly, benefit someone you have absolutely no affinity with?

Petraeus and others argue that counterinsurgency requires the military to direct and facilitate such rebuilding efforts as the necessary parallels (and possibly prerequisities) to the emergence of civil control. They don't say - and we're finding out by watching - whether or not that can be accomplished in an environment where few people have any real interest in nation-building.

Are there historical examples that suggest how all of this ends? When you think of post-war, low-social-cohesion/no-sense-of-nation places where the lid came off and left a power vacuum, Yemen and Yugoslavia come pretty quickly to mind.

I'm not in any way attempting to advise Americans what to do or commenting on the morality/good intentions of their efforts in Iraq but I think one can fairly ask if there's actually an Iraq to be rebuilt? Maybe places like Iraq are the ones where the British habit of permanent partition actually makes sense?

Hope that's of interest,
H

 

[amicus]

I think there might be a distinction to be drawn that separates Iraq and Afghanistan from Germany and Japan. The latter two both had high social and cultural cohesion before, during and after the war; all of their populations put nation/state ahead of region or tribe as identifiers.

In fact, you can argue that this cohesion was/is so high that for 50 years Germany and Korea's main post-war domestic political preoccupation was how to arrange reunification (for what it's worth, that's why the South Korean president nearly stroked out at George Bush's throwaway line about ending the war.)

Iraq and Afghanistan really don't have that kind of cohesion at all, even compared to immediate neighbours like Turkey, Iran, Pakistan or even Turkmenistan. Country is a very long way behind tribe, region and political affiliation as a personal identifier. Under that circumstance, inhabitants are a lot less likely to be interested in contributing to "common good" projects like infrastructure repair, establishment of services or even broad social order. Why waste time on "national" efforts that will, however indirectly, benefit someone you have absolutely no affinity with?

Petraeus and others argue that counterinsurgency requires the military to direct and facilitate such rebuilding efforts as the necessary parallels (and possibly prerequisities) to the emergence of civil control. They don't say - and we're finding out by watching - whether or not that can be accomplished in an environment where few people have any real interest in nation-building.

Are there historical examples that suggest how all of this ends? When you think of post-war, low-social-cohesion/no-sense-of-nation places where the lid came off and left a power vacuum, Yemen and Yugoslavia come pretty quickly to mind.

I'm not in any way attempting to advise Americans what to do or commenting on the morality/good intentions of their efforts in Iraq but I think one can fairly ask if there's actually an Iraq to be rebuilt? Maybe places like Iraq are the ones where the British habit of permanent partition actually makes sense?

Hope that's of interest,
H

~~~

Uhm, harrumph, aargh, jeez and egads, Handprints....

Thas me gurgling in my Boodles....

Usually I can sense the motivation of most who post here and parse their ideology or empty places in their knowledge of things.

Seldom, anywhere, do I run across someone who so well prepares, sets up and delivers a killing blow so adeptly as you. (except me, and it usually goes un-noticed)

You make an excellent case for your argument and my response is not confrontational in any aspect, but interrogatory, if I may.

Your main thesis, as I understand it, troubles me, from an abstract direction; that of other 'tribal' and sectarian gatherings that have indeed, congealed into a nation state status over time.

If memory serves, one can go back even to China and the Dynasty's that evolved into wider and wider associations, yet still became, over time, identifiable as a unified entity.

Quite the same with Persia, in essence, and ancient Russia, and the European 'Barbarians' that separated into nation states, and the many invasions and conquest of the British Isles.

There is an identifiable Iraq, by borders at least, although I do understand the sectarian differences within the whole. There is also an identifiable Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Turkey and even Greece, all of whom, under your conceptualization, that could be determined to be basically, 'tribal' and not amenable to nationhood.

I, also, am not bound to ideological mutterings to support an agenda, I simply wish to understand.

I might support an American Colonization of the entire backwards world if that were the intent of my country, but, insofar as I can determine, that is not the intent.

I, personally, do not expect an amicable outcome to US involvement in the Middle East, or even in Asia in general.

Although it can be technically argued in opposition, the United States did not conquer or gain a single square inch of real estate based on the outcome of World War one, two, Korea or Vietnam and, I suggest, will not gain an inch by the pacification of Iraq or Afghanistan.

The age of colonization by conquest is over. What then, is the purpose of the United States in terms of involvement in foreign affairs?

There are books and books and books discussing those issues and I suspect you have read as many as I have concerning the motives of a 'super power' that does not wish to expand its territory of control by occupation.

Were it not for the events that happened six years ago to this day, 9/11,01 the United States would not be in either Afghanistan or Iraq, although our support for Israel would be constant and our efforts to combat international terrorism would continue.

We lost almost as many men on the forgotten island of Tarawa, in two days, as we have lost in Iraq in four years. Not that that justifies the loss of life in warfare, but it does draw an analogy.

It may well be, as you intimate, that there is no Iraq, to 'rebuild', and thus the effort is a lost cause from the beginning, as many suspect.

However, permit me to disagree, as I purport, that the innate human desire for individual freedom is an absolute with all peoples and that may be the 'congealing' factor in the Iraqi people disdaining tribal and sectarian loyalties and joining the rational, objective, human race.

I ain't holdin' my breath, or investing a farthing, as I am not fond of long shots or penny stocks...but then...ya never know.

Amicus...

 

[S-Des]

[
However, permit me to disagree, as I purport, that the innate human desire for individual freedom is an absolute with all peoples and that may be the 'congealing' factor in the Iraqi people disdaining tribal and sectarian loyalties and joining the rational, objective, human race.

I heard a reporter for the NY Times who covers Iraq (I think his name was Damian Kaye) talk about this last week. He offered a very reasoned opinion that pointed out that people in Iraq do yearn for freedom and stability, but are so steeped in tribal differences that it overwhelmes all. He was asked if partitioning was the answer and replied that fighting was not limited to Shiite vs Sunni, and had seen violence breaking out in a number of areas within different branches of the same sects. With so much hatred and bloodshed, I can't imagine anything Iraq could find to pull together around and rebuild their country. From what I've heard, General Petraeus has admitted that the troop surge wasn't effective in helping the political structure of Iraq. I think the best that can be hoped for is to provide people enough stability in their daily lives that it encourages them to push for more from their government.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=S-Des]I heard a reporter for the NY Times who covers Iraq (I think his name was Damian Kaye) talk about this last week. He offered a very reasoned opinion that pointed out that people in Iraq do yearn for freedom and stability, but are so steeped in tribal differences that it overwhelmes all. He was asked if partitioning was the answer and replied that fighting was not limited to Shiite vs Sunni, and had seen violence breaking out in a number of areas within different branches of the same sects. With so much hatred and bloodshed, I can't imagine anything Iraq could find to pull together around and rebuild their country. From what I've heard, General Petraeus has admitted that the troop surge wasn't effective in helping the political structure of Iraq. I think the best that can be hoped for is to provide people enough stability in their daily lives that it encourages them to push for more from their government.[/QUOTE]


~~~

Good points all, S-Des, heard the same thing, that even if partioned, internecine conflict could still occur.

Petraeus however, refrained, in most instances from offering a political veiwpoint and deferred to the Executive and Legislative branches of government to formulate and dictate policy.

It isn't quite a 'crapshoot', the future of Iraq and the region, but the variables might make a preacher cuss for those of us on the outside looking in.

You would think, as technology and ideas progress, that some third world nations could take advantage of the hard won discoveries of others and 'shortcut' to the 21st Century, perhaps it just can't work that way...dunno...

amicus...

 

[scheherazade_79]

Zade's Briefing on Iraq:

Snafu

 

[Handprints]

There is an identifiable Iraq, by borders at least, although I do understand the sectarian differences within the whole. There is also an identifiable Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Turkey and even Greece, all of whom, under your conceptualization, that could be determined to be basically, 'tribal' and not amenable to nationhood.

No argument from me, just the observation that each of those countries took several hundred years to get from an Iraq-like state to a proto-nation/state. In the more typical, say, post-1500 country that started with low social cohesion - pre-1917 Russia's not a bad example - somebody every bit as nasty as Saddam grabbed the reins, founded a dynasty and forged a nation.

It may well be, as you intimate, that there is no Iraq, to 'rebuild', and thus the effort is a lost cause from the beginning, as many suspect.

I think neither the current US strategy nor, from what little we know about it, the abandoned State Dept plan, offer many ideas about what to do if insufficient nation-building will can be found to encourage.

However, permit me to disagree, as I purport, that the innate human desire for individual freedom is an absolute with all peoples and that may be the 'congealing' factor in the Iraqi people disdaining tribal and sectarian loyalties and joining the rational, objective, human race.

I think the fear that someone from another tribe/region/affiliation will try to kill you simply because you're a member of a different tribe/region/etc is a wholly rational one in Iraq right now. The military activity is reducing the killings but I doubt it's having much effect on the fear. Nation-builders usually start off by giving the people something much more concrete to fear - themselves, for instance.

I can't offhand think of any examples of nations that spontaneously decided that tribal/religious differences were worth putting aside. I don't think the US could or should stomach the sorts of measures that, in past, have been employed to persuade them.

EDIT: I thought of one (sort of): Singapore. But they had enormous social cohesion stemming from British treatment of them as a separate colony from Malaya. When Malaya decided that Malaysia would work better without the S, they had something to fall back on. I think the problem here is that - USSR excepted - the 20th-century trend has been for countries splitting and getting smaller, perhaps an unexpected outcome of WW1's fight for the rights of small nations...

Regards,
H

 

[amicus]

Hello Handprints, thanks for the thoughts again. I usually get email notification of action on a thread, not so on your post. But I was also watching and listening for most of the day, to the continuing interview of the General and the Ambassador, this time by the US Senate.

Strangely enough much of the content was relevant to your last post.

The general question was: "Is their an Iraq aside from the competing religious factions and can it survive as a 'federal' state."

Both gave reasons based on their expertise for 'hope' that the Iraqi people could rise above the sectarianism. It included, 'inclusion' into the parliamentary system and adjacent nations renewing trade and cultural liasson's the have been absent for over thirty years and a beginning of re-establishing ties to European nations.

But the curious example of the Iraqi Soccer team that apparently won the Asia Cup that was celebrated by the Iraqi's as a whole, without sectarian divisions.

Interesting...


amicus...

 

[Handprints]

The general question was: "Is their an Iraq aside from the competing religious factions and can it survive as a 'federal' state."

I thought the answers (I've just read through a few papers' coverage of the questioning) were interesting on a couple of fronts. Petraeus, as you'd hope for a commander on the ground, has a specific set of objectives in mind and a clear idea of how he wants to achieve them: make sectarian/political violence prohibitively costly in terms of lives and give cooler heads a chance to start the reconciliation/nation-building process. I think very few people would disagree with the notion that this strategy is an appropriate and well-intentioned one for a benevolent occupier. It's not a stretch, in my view, to describe it as a version of the UN policing playbook, albeit one that's bristling with teeth.

To me, it doesn't seem to be contiguous with the American people's goals for Iraq: to see a free, functioning society emerge that, with luck, will become an ally in the region. The army is confining itself to ensuring that the preconditions for such nation-building can exist.

Who's doing the rest of the work? From my reading - and I'm not criticising his efforts by saying this - Amb. Crocker was pointing to some fairly minor advances: the odd tribe that wants a central government relationship, contact but not progress with Iran, hope but not confidence that the existing Iraqi leadership has the swingweight to drive reconciliation. Perhaps its optmistic to hope for more internal progress but I was very surprised not to hear an extensive laundry list of efforts that are being made to bring other regional powers' influence to bear on the problem.

I'm not being willfully naive here, I hope, about America's reputational standing in the region: it's no accident that I know how to say "I'm not American" in Arabic, Turkish and Farsi. That said, the idea that you can achieve significant political change in landlocked nation without local, multilateral efforts is clearly more widely held in Washington than elsewhere.

I think many of America's allies are, if not surprised, then at least frustrated that there have been so few attempts - and so little compromise offered - to bring neighbouring nations around the table to help drive the nation-building process. And if America really can't stomach a multilateral approach (ie making nice with Iran), where is the army-sized detachment of State Dept organisers in there helping to restructure and rebuild?

I had some sympathy for Sen Hagel's question: "Buying time for what?"

Both gave reasons based on their expertise for 'hope' that the Iraqi people could rise above the sectarianism. It included, 'inclusion' into the parliamentary system and adjacent nations renewing trade and cultural liasson's the have been absent for over thirty years and a beginning of re-establishing ties to European nations.

I think hope is the right word. I think many of America's formal allies and many of its informal admirers doubt that this will happen on a timescale America can live with: no-one really believes America will sustain the kind of expense - in lives and cash - it's running now for the decade(s) such organic development is likely to take. In that light, it's all the more puzzling why measures that might accelerate the nation-building process aren't being pursued.

The cynical answer (and to be fair, the one I really hope isn't true) often given is that America wants unilateral, minimal-non-military involvement nation-building to blossom as it would be the perfect in-your-face contradiction to countries in the area who deny that their own people want a country that is more like America. Not my view, I hasten to add, but one that offered commonly enough to explain both American unilateralism in Iraq and the absence of non-military structure-builders.

But the curious example of the Iraqi Soccer team that apparently won the Asia Cup that was celebrated by the Iraqi's as a whole, without sectarian divisions.

Never underestimate the totemic power of football (outside the US, natch.) Without wanting to sound overly cynical, they beat the Saudis in the final, which fuelled a good proportion of the national happiness. It's a similar dynamic to the one which makes large portions of America happy whenever the Yankees get spanked in a Series...

Hope that's of use,
H

 

[sr71plt]

Why would you want us to be in a war in Iraq? They did nothing to us. They even asked for our permission before they invaded back in 1990 and our female ambassador told them that we were not concerned with their petty border squabbles. Women were treated pretty well by Moslem standards, and they were opposed to the radicals running Iran, A counrty who has done something to us.
I don't understand why you take such a negative view of enyone against the war. I don't understand why you aren't against the war.

A. April Gaspie was a colleague and is a friend of mine, and she's always contended that she neither was asked in any way for concurrence in the 1990 Iraq invasion of Kuwait nor told Saddam Hussain the U.S. would approve of such a move. In fact, she says she didn't get as close to doing this as her instructions from the State Department told her to be--her appointment with Saddam Hussain was cut short. She repeatedly testified to this (that if she went off instructions, it was in the opposite direction) to Congress, and I've seen the transcripts. We did not want them to invade Kuwait at the time; we wanted them to tire themselves and the Iranians out by fighting with each other. But we didn't back Kuwait's foreclosure on all sorts of loans to governments in the region either. We would have been happy to see Kuwait slapped down; not invaded. (We still wouldn't mind seeing Kuwait slapped down--they are ingrates on top of everything else.)

B. Did the U.S. commander and ambassador sugarcoat (read: lie) the situation in Iraq to Congress these last two days? You betcha. Did the Democratic (and Republican) senators pin them down on this? You betcha. Is this going to lead to a realistic policy? Probably not. It's all stalling tactics--with American bodies piling up needlessly (the Iraqi bodies are going to pile up regardless of what happens from here--if we didn't want to see that happen, we shouldn't have invaded in the first place).

C. Is Iraq viable as a state? Only with control like Saddam Hussain gave it (which is why less dumb administrations--including that of Bush Sr.--didn't rush to replace him). It never was intended to be a viable state. The British cobbled it together to be internally unstable and thus not a problem to the British.

D. Do the Iraqis want the kind of government/society our administration says they want? No. They have their own ideas what they want (and can't possibly agree among themselves what that is)--and that never has nor ever will look "pretty" to an American. Hussain would have been knocked off (and much more cheaply, I might add) a long time ago if there'd been a chance there was a more acceptable (to Americans) system likely to replace him.

E. Where do we go from here? Who the hell knows. We're where a succession of administrations was told would be an impossible situation if we were dumb enough to go there. But just staying on there is one of the dumbest choices, so that's probably what we'll do.

 

[amicus]

Handprints, sr71pl....

Forced myself to watch the entire Senate grilling of Petraeus and Crocker today, the, don't ask me why, forced myself to watch the anniversary presentations of 9/11 documentaries and even a Nicolas Cage film about being trapped in the debris, which I had not seen before.

In a pensive mood after all that, I am enjoying a PBS two hour broadcast of "Anuna, Celtic Origins, combining River Dance, Celtic Woman, Irish, British, Middle English, Scots Gaelic, Medieval Irish, Latin and Greek Choral music.

Since the creation of the United Nations, somewhere about 1947, the word 'unilateral' seems to be politically incorrect in any usage.

I was not appreciated in my graduate level pursuit of Political Science as I questioned the efficacy of the very concept behind the League of Nations and the United Nations and a 'multi-level' approach to world problems.

It is a lovely concept that a multi national insistence upon justice be applied in all international conflicts; unfortunately it has been shown not to work particularly well.

There has never before in the modern world been such an event as a single 'super power', the United States, that essentially dominates every aspect of human endeavor from business and the arts to science and medicine, and of course superlative military preparedness and skill.

(damn, PBS is begging for contributions again, interrupted my train of thought)

It is difficult to condense my thoughts, not knowing what level of understanding or reception might greet my thoughts. I don't think a knowledge of the Middle East, going back to Pre Christian times is essential for understanding the region, but perhaps it is. In any case, I cannot relate that history in brief and do justice to any of it.

Nor can I relate the Crusades, the Middle Ages, European colonization and influence, the discovery of petroleum, the second world war, the rise of the Soviets, the decline of the Soviets, the emergence of a desire for Jihad and the burning desire to recreate a 'Caliphate' without borders for the rebirth of a Muslim world and what part all that plays with Israel stuck right in the middle and strong US support for that Jewish Nation, survivors of the Holocaust....

But all of that, in one way or another and in a logical and rational manner, plays minor and major roles in current events.

On one hand, America is a very young nation and an even younger nation of global influence and power. On the other hand, America carries the tradition and the culture, the best parts of it, of all of the civilized world; and that makes it, I think, a very old nation, carrying the hopes of the entire history of mankind forward into the future.

Who could have known at the time at the conclusion of world war two, if Patton's ideas and Churchill's also, to confronting the Soviets, directly, at the time would have been a proper course of action? Was the Berlin Airlift and the Partition of Germany the right thing to do? The Marshall Plan? The Greek problem? Those men who made those decisions at that time...do you think they knew they had chosen the 'right' course of action?

When MacArthur wanted to take on the Chinese Communists in 1950, was Truman right in holding him back? When the French asked for help in Indonesia, was the United States acting correctly by not engaging to the full extent to preserve a Colony, or re-establish the British in, 'the sun never sets on the British Empire', or let it become a thing of the past?

'Rambo' and the Russians had a helluva fight in Afghanistan. Was it the right thing to do to confront the Taliban and liberate that nation?

The Israeli's took out a Nuclear facility in Iraq in the 80's and may do the same any day in Iran; was that a 'wrong' thing to do, would it be wrong in Iran? Israel will defend itself, I think, regardless of American preferences.

There is a very strong and firm opinion at the highest levels, that the Middle East must be stabilized. Was Iraq a proper first step or should it have been Iran? And who should have done it? The United Nations? Hardly. NATO, no chance, in bed with the economics of the region. Russia, China? Japan?

Then who?

Handprint, sr71, your objections are all good ones and I can't, perhaps no one can, refute them in a logical manner.

I suggest there is a 'larger picture', a hangin', on the wall, if only we could see through the glass less darkly.

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

Congrats on taking the time to see all of the coverage on the congressional testimony and the 9/11, Amicus. I've only caught snatches of the testimony coverage and none of the 9/11 coverage. I don't want to wallow in 9/11, and I am working book editing deadlines and hosted a writer's salon tonight--which combine to be my excuse for not following the testimony more closely.

Just a few comments on your last posting.

The League of Nations was pretty much a nonevent, because the sponsor (the United States) backed out. EXCEPT that there are commissions of that body on specific issues that continue to today (folded into new organizations) and that do vital coordination work that few realize is going on but that provides the glue for a world that usually functions rationally.

And, as far as the UN, yes, it was launched with grand, eye-candy assignments, but that was known diplomatic icing to keep the general public pleased with themselves and feeling noble from the very beginning. It too has vital subbodies that keep the world (mostly) regular. There's been considerable corruption and pork barreling in some of these bodies in recent decades--which, unfortunately, doesn't make them all that much different from the governments they serve, including the United States.

The UN General Assembly and Security Council have always served vital functions of providing a venue for governments to conduct their day-to-day relations. On the surface, the general public thinks they are primarily (or soley) legislative bodies--but this isn't and never was their primary function (just like it isn't with the U.S. Congress, but most Americans don't seem to fathom that).

The bottom line is that if these organizations never existed or if all of their components now stopped to exist--you'd likely know something was different and wrong by 9 am tomorrow, and you wouldn't like the effect. (And wouldn't know what hit you.)

Lastly, the statement that the United States (or the United States plus Europe) is the cradle of civilization is just a lot of Jingoist crap. There are civilizations in continuous existence elsewhere in the world that not only were civilized before the Americans and Europeans crawled out of the water but also have done loads better on being civilized up to today.

So, I'll just let you hang on that typically ugly American belief.

If you asked any practitioner of conducting government how they like running the only superpower, dollars to donuts you'd hear moaning about how nice and tidy and steady the cold war was.

The countries that are pleased with themselves and having a good time (closing for the "holidays" the entire months of August and December) are countries like Norway. Offer them the role of superpower and see how fast they run away from you.

 

[amicus]

Congrats on taking the time to see all of the coverage on the congressional testimony and the 9/11, Amicus. I've only caught snatches of the testimony coverage and none of the 9/11 coverage. I don't want to wallow in 9/11, and I am working book editing deadlines and hosted a writer's salon tonight--which combine to be my excuse for not following the testimony more closely.

Just a few comments on your last posting.

The League of Nations was pretty much a nonevent, because the sponsor (the United States) backed out. EXCEPT that there are commissions of that body on specific issues that continue to today (folded into new organizations) and that do vital coordination work that few realize is going on but that provides the glue for a world that usually functions rationally.

And, as far as the UN, yes, it was launched with grand, eye-candy assignments, but that was known diplomatic icing to keep the general public pleased with themselves and feeling noble from the very beginning. It too has vital subbodies that keep the world (mostly) regular. There's been considerable corruption and pork barreling in some of these bodies in recent decades--which, unfortunately, doesn't make them all that much different from the governments they serve, including the United States.

The UN General Assembly and Security Council have always served vital functions of providing a venue for governments to conduct their day-to-day relations. On the surface, the general public thinks they are primarily (or soley) legislative bodies--but this isn't and never was their primary function (just like it isn't with the U.S. Congress, but most Americans don't seem to fathom that).

The bottom line is that if these organizations never existed or if all of their components now stopped to exist--you'd likely know something was different and wrong by 9 am tomorrow, and you wouldn't like the effect. (And wouldn't know what hit you.)

Lastly, the statement that the United States (or the United States plus Europe) is the cradle of civilization is just a lot of Jingoist crap. There are civilizations in continuous existence elsewhere in the world that not only were civilized before the Americans and Europeans crawled out of the water but also have done loads better on being civilized up to today.

So, I'll just let you hang on that typically ugly American belief.

If you asked any practitioner of conducting government how they like running the only superpower, dollars to donuts you'd hear moaning about how nice and tidy and steady the cold war was.

The countries that are pleased with themselves and having a good time (closing for the "holidays" the entire months of August and December) are countries like Norway. Offer them the role of superpower and see how fast they run away from you.

~~~

Hmmm...okay...


"...The UN General Assembly and Security Council have always served vital functions of providing a venue for governments to conduct their day-to-day relations. On the surface, the general public thinks they are primarily (or soley) legislative bodies--but this isn't and never was their primary function (just like it isn't with the U.S. Congress, but most Americans don't seem to fathom that).

The bottom line is that if these organizations never existed or if all of their components now stopped to exist--you'd likely know something was different and wrong by 9 am tomorrow, and you wouldn't like the effect. (And wouldn't know what hit you.)..."

So you like the United Nations and thas just peachy. Perhaps you would like to name some of those important and essential functions of the UN you value so highly?

I suppose that if you have a 'one world government' in mind and it would no doubt be Socialist, then I suppose the UN is your stepping stone to that realization.

I do see a global community as a functional necessity in world affairs, but not even with the current UN Charter or philosophical and political directions embedded in current believers. One does not grant equality or even membership in such an organization to 'slave states', that pay no heed to human individual rights and liberties.

"...Lastly, the statement that the United States (or the United States plus Europe) is the cradle of civilization is just a lot of Jingoist crap. There are civilizations in continuous existence elsewhere in the world that not only were civilized before the Americans and Europeans crawled out of the water but also have done loads better on being civilized up to today.

So, I'll just let you hang on that typically ugly American belief...."

"Jingoist crap, ugly American..." Grins...name one.

Norway...ahem...Viking land? Land of Odin and the God's of War, that pillaged and plundered Europe and then froze to death in Greenland when global cooling 'naturally' occurred? Them folks?

Or was that the Amsterdam or the Rotterdam, or the Goddamned Dutch? Sighs, memory fails me.

You're funny, sr71 (wasn't the SR71, a high altitude spy plane?)

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

~~~

Hmmm...okay...


"...The UN General Assembly and Security Council have always served vital functions of providing a venue for governments to conduct their day-to-day relations. On the surface, the general public thinks they are primarily (or soley) legislative bodies--but this isn't and never was their primary function (just like it isn't with the U.S. Congress, but most Americans don't seem to fathom that).

The bottom line is that if these organizations never existed or if all of their components now stopped to exist--you'd likely know something was different and wrong by 9 am tomorrow, and you wouldn't like the effect. (And wouldn't know what hit you.)..."

So you like the United Nations and thas just peachy. Perhaps you would like to name some of those important and essential functions of the UN you value so highly?

I suppose that if you have a 'one world government' in mind and it would no doubt be Socialist, then I suppose the UN is your stepping stone to that realization.

I do see a global community as a functional necessity in world affairs, but not even with the current UN Charter or philosophical and political directions embedded in current believers. One does not grant equality or even membership in such an organization to 'slave states', that pay no heed to human individual rights and liberties.

"...Lastly, the statement that the United States (or the United States plus Europe) is the cradle of civilization is just a lot of Jingoist crap. There are civilizations in continuous existence elsewhere in the world that not only were civilized before the Americans and Europeans crawled out of the water but also have done loads better on being civilized up to today.

So, I'll just let you hang on that typically ugly American belief...."

"Jingoist crap, ugly American..." Grins...name one.

Norway...ahem...Viking land? Land of Odin and the God's of War, that pillaged and plundered Europe and then froze to death in Greenland when global cooling 'naturally' occurred? Them folks?

Or was that the Amsterdam or the Rotterdam, or the Goddamned Dutch? Sighs, memory fails me.

You're funny, sr71 (wasn't the SR71, a high altitude spy plane?)

Amicus...

You seem literate, Amicus. I think you can find a library on your own. (By the way, nothing I posted indicated a blame thing about supporting "one world government"--which only the naive think is what the UN represents or was constructed to represent.)

Yes, the SR71 (Blackbird, Habu--take your pick) is (not "was"--it still flies hre and there) a high-altitude photoreconnaissance plane. The next generation after the U2.

 

[amicus]

You seem literate, Amicus. I think you can find a library on your own. (By the way, nothing I posted indicated a blame thing about supporting "one world government"--which only the naive think is what the UN represents or was constructed to represent.)

Yes, the SR71 (Blackbird, Habu--take your pick) is (not "was"--it still flies hre and there) a high-altitude photoreconnaissance plane. The next generation after the U2.

~~~

Perhaps you are tired or pressed for time, thus I excuse your failure to give even one essential service of the UN that, 'I/we' would miss, the morning after. And your failure to provide an identification for the civilization or society, still existing, with roots prior to Europe or America, that carries forth the culture of humanity.

And I know precisely what the 'Blackbird' is, I only thought perhaps you did not as I did not expect your screen name to reflect that...but....spy plane...hmmm...perhaps that is how you see yourself?

Amicus...