POTUS Speech Open Thread
[Kris Alexander,
Wednesday November 30, 2005 at 7:07am ]
I just finished listening to the president’s speech. I think it was one of the better speeches of his administration. He did a good job of explaining some of what is happening in Iraq.
The first third of the speech was standard administration boilerplate. It’s the standard Iraq “chicken or the egg argument”. Was Iraq more of a thread before or after the invasion? Either way, we’re there, and we have to figure out a way to win.
The middle part of the speech was the real meat of what he had to say, and he told me some things that I did not know about what the Iraqi security forces have accomplished. And that’s a problem. I’m a fairly well informed person. I should know these things. If the Iraqi security forces are doing as well as the president says, the administration better figure out a way to start showing that progress in order to instill confidence in both the Iraqi and American people. Why are there no embeds in Iraqi military units? We ought to be publicly pressuring media outlets like Al Jezzera to start showing what is happening. What the president had to say has an interesting juxtaposition to James Fallow’s story in this month’s Atlantic.
The final third of the speech was more boilerplate, but I did like what the president had to say about embracing the debate about Iraq. I also agree that the debate over Iraq is disconcerting for those in uniform. When I was deployed, there were protests in Austin, my home town. It made me angry, and I’m fairly left-leaning for a military guy.
My main fault with the president (hope I’m not violating the UCMJ here) is why did it take so long to start making these speeches? Why did it take so long for them to publish a public “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”? Maybe the political bruising that they’ve taken in the last few weeks has convinced the administration to finally engage with American people over this issue.
I’ve downloaded the Iraq Strategy and will post on it after I’ve read it. That I just typed that sentence speaks volumes about the age that we live in and the freedom’s we enjoy.
What are your thoughts on the speech? Personally, I’m wondering how long it will take before somebody accuses me of “drinking the kool-aid”. And Phil Carter is actually engaged in training the Iraqi Army so I'm hoping that he'll be able to post about this as well.
The first third of the speech was standard administration boilerplate. It’s the standard Iraq “chicken or the egg argument”. Was Iraq more of a thread before or after the invasion? Either way, we’re there, and we have to figure out a way to win.
The middle part of the speech was the real meat of what he had to say, and he told me some things that I did not know about what the Iraqi security forces have accomplished. And that’s a problem. I’m a fairly well informed person. I should know these things. If the Iraqi security forces are doing as well as the president says, the administration better figure out a way to start showing that progress in order to instill confidence in both the Iraqi and American people. Why are there no embeds in Iraqi military units? We ought to be publicly pressuring media outlets like Al Jezzera to start showing what is happening. What the president had to say has an interesting juxtaposition to James Fallow’s story in this month’s Atlantic.
The final third of the speech was more boilerplate, but I did like what the president had to say about embracing the debate about Iraq. I also agree that the debate over Iraq is disconcerting for those in uniform. When I was deployed, there were protests in Austin, my home town. It made me angry, and I’m fairly left-leaning for a military guy.
My main fault with the president (hope I’m not violating the UCMJ here) is why did it take so long to start making these speeches? Why did it take so long for them to publish a public “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”? Maybe the political bruising that they’ve taken in the last few weeks has convinced the administration to finally engage with American people over this issue.
I’ve downloaded the Iraq Strategy and will post on it after I’ve read it. That I just typed that sentence speaks volumes about the age that we live in and the freedom’s we enjoy.
What are your thoughts on the speech? Personally, I’m wondering how long it will take before somebody accuses me of “drinking the kool-aid”. And Phil Carter is actually engaged in training the Iraqi Army so I'm hoping that he'll be able to post about this as well.
3 Trackbacks /
The speech seemed a typical load of BS to me. The reality disconnect continues unabated, and the only people moved by this sort of blather would be those in that percentage of the population that believe anything their beloved War President tells them.
The years keep passing, soldiers keep dying, and any real progress seems to be measured in milimeters and announced with bullhorns.
1) The Iraq Strategy document
2) Fallows' article on "Why Iraq Has No Army"
3) The recent reports of Shia death squads wearing uniforms
of Iraqi forces, abducting/torturing/murdering Sunni men.
Quick summary of the Iraq Strategy document: stay the course,
what we're doing is working, it just takes time. Eventually
Iraq will have a "just" government which will happen to be
an ally against terror.
Matthew Yglesias on tpmcafe.com made two shrewd comments,
which I'll paraphrase. If the Iraq government is sovereign,
there's no reason to believe it will do what the US wants.
And there's a "glaring disconnect" between the goals of the
strategy, which concern the structure of Iraqi society and
government, and the means available, which are killing
people and blowing things up. All in all, it still makes
no sense.
A few points from the Fallows article:
1) The units which are "effective" are basically converted
Kurdish or Shia paramilitaries. Their loyalty to an
"Iraqi" government is very much in question
2) The Iraqi army lacks tanks, armored cars, even good
guns. Any funds or equipment given to the army risks
ending up in the hands of insurgents. So we don't
trust them with anything good - e.g. they get AK47's
rather than M4's. On this course they'll never have
any tactical advantage over the insurgents.
3) The Iraqi army also lacks effective leadership - NCOs
and officers, logistics, artillery, air power. If you
take away the US support in the form of advisers,
logistics, and firepower, then you've got nothing.
Conclusion: we aren't planning for full withdrawal.
Ever.
4) The rotation of US forces is terrible for both training
and counter-insurgency. You need to establish long-
term relationships, and moving people every year makes
that impossible.
5) The US is still not serious about Arabic-language
training or recruiting Arabic speakers. And the lack of
language skills just screws up everything.
Finally, the Shia death squads.
Many people predicted this when Negroponte was sent to Iraq.
And here it is. I *hope* this isn't a deliberate US plan.
But I fear it is. And damn, it's stupid. Incredibly
stupid to be at best arming and training Shias who are
murdering Sunnis in their spare time; and at worst
encouraging them; when most of the Middle East is Sunni,
and the only big Shia state is already our long-term
enemy.
It almost makes me nostalgic for the realpolitik of
Kissinger et al, when the idea was that we'd support
a brutal dictator because "he's a bastard, but he's *our*
bastard". Now the policy seems to be to support our
enemy's bastards, in the hope that maybe they're just a
little better than our other enemy's bastards.
All in all, it's becoming increasingly clear that there
are no good guys in Iraq: the Kurds want out, to have
their own (corrupt) mini-state; the Sunnis would have the
Baath party back if they could manage it; the religious
Shia are largely genocidal thugs; and the secular Iraqis
on whom the neocons pinned their hopes, such as Chalabi
and Allawi, are utterly corrupt. If there's a silent
majority which deserves better, then they're too downtrodden
to do anything about it.
And did anyone else read the disagreement between Rumsfeld
and Gen Pace. Pace said, if our troops see torture going
on, it's their duty to stop it. And dear old Rummy said,
oh no, surely all they have to do is walk away and make
a report. Aaaagh. Someone wake me up from this nightmare
please.
In other news, Israel's foremost military historian,
Martin van Creveld, described the venture as "the most
foolish war since 9 B.C.". And Col Wilkerson told the
BBC that in his opinion Cheney may be guilty of war crimes
for his enabling of torture.
No matter how cynical you get, you can't keep up.
of failure are incalculable". Which brings me back to the
point I made to JD, which is, how would losing Iraq to our
enemies be any worse than losing Iran was ? We lost Iran
to fundamentalist Islam, and have lived with the consequences
just fine for 25 years. Why would losing Iraq be any worse ?
I mean, for sure, no-one likes to admit defeat, and if we pull
out we'll go sit in the corner for a while and pout. But
we'll still be able to bomb the hell out of anyone we don't
like - even without land bases we can do it with long-range
bombers and carrier aircraft. And the oil will still get
pumped and sold - probably more than it is now with the
current instability. So what's the problem ? It seems
rather easy to calculate the cost of defeat, and it isn't
any worse than we've had before.
this:
1) losing Iraq wouldn't be terribly bad for the USA
2) it *would* be terribly bad for US oil companies, which
would lose the profits from selling Iraqi oil
3) it *would* be terribly bad for Bush, and war supporters
of both parties - i.e. pretty much all Republicans, and
about half the Democrats, including most leaders. So
few political leaders are interested in looking at this
question honestly.
4) it would have disruptive consequences for the US
military, probably with many losers and some winners.
Broadly speaking, bad for the Army, possibly good for
the Navy and Air Force.
I'm reminded of a quote from a British politician, talking
to a young member of parliament he said, "Your enemies are
in your own party; the other party are your opponents".
And I think it's interesting to analyze the US military
from that perspective: the Army's "enemies" are the Navy,
Marines, and Air Force, which compete for all-important
funding; the "opponents" are whoever we're fighting, e.g.
the Iraq insurgency. From this perspective, the doctrine
of Air-Land Combat can be seen as kind of truce between
the different services - with that doctrine, everyone gets
an agreed slice of the pie and no one service ever tries
to grab a whole operation, or all the funding. But then
counter-insurgency is really a huge problem for this
political settlement between the services, because how do
the Navy and Air Force justify their funding in a
counter-insurgency fight ? Answer, just go ahead and
treat it like a regular war, even if that doesn't actually
*work* in the sense of defeating your opponent.
No offence to those in junior positions who are slugging
it out on the ground, but I think some of what's happening
at senior levels may be best explained by this kind of
Byzantine inter-service politics. Why else would an Air
Force guy be put in charge of a land operation at Tora
Bora ?
I commend you on your fortitude and constitution to be able to listen to the current POTUS for longer than 15 seconds. I'm curious how you were able to withstand his mindjarringly horrible grammer, and his patrician hubris.
For me, I will wait till I can review a quick synopsis of the speech, but anything more than that threatens my sanity.
First off remember that the Fallows article was put to bed three months before it was printed, and several of his sources were several months old. However, as a military guy what's interesting about the current argument(s) in the article and the public debate about the Iraqi military is that within the last few weeks it's evolved to include C2 issues, which implicitly means that the tough issues for the squaddies on the ground are being solved and we now have to work on the next step.
As to why we're not hearing about the successes of the Iraqi's you sort of answered your own question: we can't get the press to embed with our own guys, much less the Iraqi's so where's the story going to come from?
Before I was laid up and back in my civvie job my experience was that I NEVER saw a reporter outside of the Green Zone who didn't have a huge security detail during daylight, and only in "go" areas. In fact, some, (like the NYT) weren't allowed to leave the Green Zone at all, and relied on stringers for their stories. Invariably, what wound up in print wasn't the positive stuff that was said, but the negative, even if it was taken out of context.
Over the holiday I was down in Fayettevile with my little 'bro's family and one of the people I got to meet and talk with was THE former press officer for CentCom. In his experience he said that not only would the press bait him, (report something that was unsubstantiated to force an official denial) but they'd flat out tell him that they needed to be objective in reporting on good things in order to avoid sending out propaganda, but there was no such consideration for bad things, even if it wasn't wholly true.
Anway, there were two interesting views of what's going on with the press in my morning reading that was speak to the point, first by a thinker from a liberal/independant tank:
[o.k., it won't let me post the link. It's O'Hanlon's article in yesterday's WaPo and I'll quote part]:
"In recent months a civil-military divide has emerged in the United States over the war in Iraq. Unlike much of the Iraq debate between Democrats and Republicans, it is over the present and the future rather than the past. Increasingly, civilians worry that the war is being lost, or at least not won. But the military appears as confident as ever of ultimate victory. This difference of opinion does not amount to a crisis in national resolve, and it will not radically affect our Iraq policy in the short term. But it is insidious and dangerous nonetheless. To the extent possible, the gap should be closed. ...
The military's enthusiasm about the course of the war may be natural among those four-star officers in leadership positions, for it has largely become their war. Their careers have become so intertwined with the campaign in Iraq that truly independent analysis may be difficult. But it is striking that most lower-ranking officers seem to share the irrepressible optimism of their superiors. In talking with at least 50 officers this year, I have met no more than a handful expressing any real doubt about the basic course of the war.
Contrast that with the rest of the country. The polls are clear; the American public is deeply worried and increasingly pessimistic. The numbers are not (yet) abysmal; 30 to 40 percent still seem bullish on trends in Iraq. But even among those who strongly support the Bush administration, doubts are emerging. Among defense and Middle East analysts, my own informal survey suggests at least as negative an overall outlook, with decidedly more pessimism than optimism. Even among centrists who supported the war or saw the case for it, optimism is now hard to find. Many expect things to get worse, even much worse, in the coming months and years."
He goes on to say that even if the military officers there have too rosy a view there's a disconnect between them and public perception and without calling the press responsible for it, says that there's grave consequences for that dis-connect.
And later by some Marines in the Cristian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s02-usmi.html
My point is that I'm not surprised we're not getting the stories in the speech, as we're not getting the whole story in the first place, (for whatever reason). I was upset over the coverage I came home to after my second tour, and everyone I know feels the same. I mean seriously, can anyone but guys in the military name someone who was awarded a medal for Valor at any level in this war? And yet every Joe Everyman knows who Spc. Englund is.
I am a liberal democrat (surprising to no one I am sure). I am a veteran. And I opposed the invasion of Iraq with all my might, and I support victory with all my might. Because this isn't about the president, or the republicans, or the next election. It is about the United States of America, and what is best for all Americans. That the president can't give a speech about Iraq without mentioning 9/11 or attacking the democrats is really cowardly and shameful. He needs to lead, not snipe and simper. He needs to be the president for ALL americans, not just his "base." Dammit, we are at war. His job is to explain it to the people. Lincoln faced resistance in the North, with copperhead dems and Horace Greely attacking him in the NYTs. He had McClellan running for office. But he did the best he could in serving not the republican party, but the United States - and enough people from all parties rallied around the cause to save the Union.
We need the president to attend funerals - and explain why the sacrifice was worthwhile. We need him to give his own Gettysburg Address, a non-partisan speech if there ever was one. Re-read it. Nothing in there about Lincoln's critics, about how his political opponents are mis-guided, about how protests against the war or draft riots or peace movements (and there were many) are "betraying" the cause or weakening troop morale. No, it was all about what the mission was, and why it was worthwhile.
Victory in Iraq is worthwhile too, but if we lose I won't blame the press (who were probably more vicious and one-sided in Lincoln's day than we see today, with multiple sources of information, many openly partisan in support of the republican agenda), I won't blame the democrats, because Lincoln faced political opposition too, including those who wanted to let the South secede, and I damn sure won't blame anti-war protestors, who rarely are the majority and rarely convince anyone of something they don't want to be convinced of already. No, it will be the fault of the president of the united states, who led us into a war, and then with his party controlling Congress and giving him anything he asked for, including the largest spending binge in US history, failed to win.
You’re dead on – what on earth took the president so long to make this speech and present this plan? This is exactly the sort of presentation that needed to happen the minute we started to see the looting in the wake of the invasion, and we needed regular updates from that point on. Better late than never, I suppose, but I’m still pissed.
Now, down to brass tacks. I haven’t had a chance to hear/see the president’s speech yet, but I have downloaded and read the Strategy for Victory. It’s pretty boilerplate, but it’s more, in writing, than the administration has been willing to share and promote to the broad public thus far (the info was out there before but you had to hunt it down, instead of seeing it on the White House home page, where it has always belonged). This is a good thing.
On the plus side, I appreciate the fact that the administration has started to see, and publicly discuss, the divisions amongst the groups opposing us and the interim government. I’m uneasy with referring to the bulk of the insurgents as “rejectionists,” although I can certainly understand why the administration wouldn’t want to refer to them as “patriots” or “anti-imperialists,” eh? So I can live with rejectionists, for now – in all likelihood I think it’s closer to the mark, anyway, than the latter two descriptors.
On the down side I think the plan is entirely devoid of a Cultural Track. There is too much emphasis on, and there is a base assumption under, the Political, Security, and Economic tracks. Is is really valid to assume the peoples of the area consider themselves to be Iraqis more than they consider themselves to be Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds? And if they do consider themselves to be the latter more than the former, I think we need to adjust our strategy accordingly, and begin to contemplate three stable and peaceful nations in the area rather than one unstable one. I’m not saying I know which way the folks there are thinking – I just think it would behoove us to consider the possibility and elevate the discussion to a strategic level.
To that end I would like to see a Cultural Track added to the strategy, and an honest and open debate around how we might want to modify both our strategic and tactical approaches in the area. I agree with Richard on one thing – we need a LOT more folks in theater who can speak Arabic and Kurdish and who are a LOT more culturally saavy to what is going on in that part of the world. Such a cadre would be invaluable in further developing and more realistically refining the intel we obtain and use to both isolate the enemy and to reach out to the friendlies are nearly friendies.
And Sigma I’m with you – the reason we haven’t had this kind of document and speech before is in all likelihood extreme arrogance. So I’m still pissed – where does arrogance get you in such a debate? It’s gets you to a 38% approval rating, that’s where it gets you. ‘Bout time the man got off his horse and started talking to us.
Tom
I'll bet that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between Fallow's article and the military assessment. The big question is how good is good enough in terms of the Iraqi military. They will not be a Western army, but non-MSM (bloggers, etc) are reporting out of Iraq indicates progress in ISF training and preparedness.
POTUS raised an interesting point about creating a self-sustaining Iraqi military. Investing in things like NCO academies pays long-term dividends. This is similiar to the way we have been training the Afghani Army which seems to be working out.
Like I've said before, we're in a race. Can we pull this off before we wear out or welcome...if we already haven't?
Got a question for Richard, our ambasator from the "extreme far left": What are the domestic consequences for failure in Iraq? Let's say we do "cut and run", and the Iraq endevour fails. How soon before the right-wing noise machine hangs that albartros on the collective necks of the left? What happens when a generation of military officers, blooded from the GWOT, begin to "swift boat" the entire left side of the political spectrum. I think a large segment of the American population will be willing to blame failure in Iraq not on the administration, but on those evil liberals. And with that you can kiss any progressive domestic agenda goodbye. I think failure in Iraq ultimately leads to the collaspe of the left and not the other way around. What do you think?
JD, you bring up some good points, and I agree with ALL of them, but I was answering Kris's statement specifically:
"I’m a fairly well informed person. I should know these things. If the Iraqi security forces are doing as well as the president says, the administration better figure out a way to start showing that progress in order to instill confidence in both the Iraqi and American people. Why are there no embeds in Iraqi military units? We ought to be publicly pressuring media outlets like Al Jezzera to start showing what is happening."
To conflate your issue with Kris's I agree with your point(s) and I'll state again that I think the reason POTUS hasn't done it is arrogance, and I get this from his own words when he said regarding the war that, "people have a different opinion, and I think they're wrong."
In his world, people who disagree with him on this one are wrong. Case closed. That's hubris.
What I recognize, (because of my experience) is that if there's a battle for public perception to be fought, not only does POTUS have to be more agressive in stating the case for victory, but the press has to take a more honest role in shaping public opinion by actually trying to present not only the bad, but the good.
Like I said, I came back from my second tour and read everything I could get my eyes on, (I was in the hospital so I had lots of time) and the reporting was so far removed from the reality I experienced that even when the reporter was reporting from the same battlespace I was in that I thought that they were in a different place. Unfortunately my experience is typical, and I know of no 2nd or 3rd tour vets who does not think the same thing and feel the same way.
Hi Kris,
Interesting question. Certainly that's what the right-wing
noise machine will attempt, but I don't think it will fly.
People remember that when this whole thing started, it had
(roughly) support of 95% of Republicans and only 50% of
Democrats; they've already decided that Bush and Cheney
told some big fibs to get the war; and in the Hurricane
Katrina debacle they've seen precisely the same kind of
carelessness, laziness, lack of planning, and cronyism that
contributed to the Iraq mess. Add to that the corruption
scandals and the Plame affair, and the mainstream of
public opinion feels this administration has gone way off
course. And the "Bush never takes the blame for anything"
meme is now quite widespread, which really makes it an
uphill battle to sell more excuses.
Now to some extent you're right, the true believers on the
right will believe whatever the drug-addled Rush Limbaugh
tells them, and the "stab in the back" story has stood
the test of time through many conflicts. So you're going
to have an embittered group of hard-core right-wingers
blaming "the left" for failure. But based on the latest
polls, that hard-core group is only 35% or less - and
frankly, they *already* blame liberals for everything
that goes wrong, even before Iraq. So who cares ? Nothing
liberals do is going to make them happy. The
Lieberman-Cheney love-fest in the 2000 VP debate sure didn't
help Gore.
By the way, I'm sure you could find people a lot further
left than I am, I wouldn't want to try to claim any
leftier-than-thou prize, or to suggest that I represent
any wider segment of opinion than just myself :-)
Now are any "pro-victory" commenters going to answer my
question: why would losing Iraq be any worse, for the USA
as a whole, than losing Iran was ?
Whether or not the reportng is accurate, the raw facts of
daily deaths of coalition troops, and even more so Iraqis,
just look really bad, and have kept on getting worse with
only brief intervals of relative calm. And those figures
are hard to reconcile with any claims of "progress".
I think Fallows remarks that while the Iraqi forces have
become more capable and numerous, they haven't kept pace
with improvements in the insurgent forces. That explanation
would fit with the statistics. It seems as though you're
trying to fill a bathtub, but the insurgents have taken
the plug and can empty it faster than the inflow.
I'll take a quick stab at the Iran question although I'm no expert.
1) Times have changed. AQ, or a Shia equivalent, wasn't around back then to exploit the chaos of the Iranian Revolution.
2) The Iranian revolution was a "popular" one in many regards that did not rely on the type of violence that we are seeing in Iraq to sustain itself and spread. Plus, we never "lost" Iran into the type of chaos that we saw in Afghanistan. We lost them as a trading partner, etc., but the revolution didn't destroy the country like a sectarian civil war might in Iraq.
3) Iran was never in danger of being a failed state and was not "lost" to Europe. There are Versace billboards in Tehran. Iran was still able to trade with much of the world, just not us. Expanding chaos in Iraq would spell economic collapse. The rest of the world can get by without Iraqi oil, but Iraq can't sustain itself without the revenue.
4) The "Shia" Iranian revolution didn't have too many other places to spread other than Iraq. A "Sunni" Iraqi revolution can grow and potentiall topple regimes in Saudi Arabia, etc.
5) Iran isn't Iraq. There are less pronouced cultural splits. So loosing Iran didn't automatically mean the begining of sectarian violence. In Iraq its already started.
6) The "loss" of Iran is still playing itself out. The ultimate consequence of the Iranian revolution may end up being the Iranian atom bomb. What does that do for the stability in the region?
How's that?
Kris
Also, I think you underestimate the resonance that the "liberals stole our victory" meme/frame or whaterver the hell else you want to call it has. Not to get too personal, but I'm wondering where you live. Here in Texas, people still demand a reckoning for "liberal failure" in Vietnam.
I think Red America is doubting the war in terms of loss versus the relative worth of those "crazy Arabs". There is a very nice college student who works at my son's day care. (Actually, everybody calls its "school" these days, but I think mostly he's learning how to fill diapers.) A friend of hers is getting sent to Iraq, and we talked about her concerns. She told me something like this: "I'm a Bush fan, but I'm really begining to wonder if this is all worth it. You can't teach a dog to talk so why are we even bothering to try to teach these people to be free."
Of course, I disagree with this. I think they can rule themselves in a pluralistic and humane way. It may not look like Western/American democracy, but I think they can come up with something that fits their culture while insuring basic human liberties.
But, her comments are telling. So, I would caution reading too much optimism into the poll numbers. A slip in Bush's popularity does not translate into an embrace of the other side.
You comment(s) echo what was said in the CSM article I linked to:
"Like many soldiers and marines returning from Iraq, Mayer looks at the bleak portrayal of the war at home with perplexity - if not annoyance. It is a perception gap that has put the military and media at odds, as troops complain that the media care only about death tolls, while the media counter that their job is to look at the broader picture, not through the soda straw of troops' individual experiences."
Which begs my point sort of... What I inferred but didn't state is that it's an issue with the 2nd and 3rd tour guys because the for the rush into Baghdad embedding was widespread. Now it's not, and vets think the press is one-sided in part because of it. So maybe Kris has a point when he says embedding should be required?
As always, I'm skeptical. For a long time Iran was our
Emmanuel Goldstein - taking hostages, promoting terrorism,
making hostile statements against the US. Now we're being
told AQ is the big threat. But what we're being told is
not necessarily backed up by any rational analysis.
And meanwhile we have as allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia -
one nuclear-armed, the other massively wealthy, neither
the least bit "free" or "democratic", and both
at least half in bed with radical Islamism and AQ. The
focus on Iraq seems excessive.
"In Iraq its already started"
Well, that's the key really. All the bad stuff you're
talking about has already happened: the country has dissolved
into sectarian chaos, the economy is screwed, the oil isn't
flowing. If there's a long civil war and a failed state,
that's just about what we have right now. If somebody wins,
then they'll get round to selling oil, because they have to.
The force we have there now clearly isn't sufficient to
prevent all the bad stuff. Which makes it even more
unlikely that it will be enough to reverse the process.
"A "Sunni" Iraqi revolution can grow and potentiall topple regimes in Saudi Arabia, etc."
A regime which thoroughly deserves to be toppled. And
whoever takes over still has to sell oil. I'm not in favor
of widespread Islamist revolution, but I don't really
understand why anyone outside the oil companies thinks
it would be so disastrous. Saudi Arabia is terrible already
with zero freedom of religion, and little freedom for women.
"The ultimate consequence of the Iranian revolution may end up being the Iranian atom bomb. What does that do for the stability in the region?"
Why do we believe in the theory of deterrence between
the USA and USSR, but not between Israel and Iran ?
Everyone knows Israel has about 300 nukes, it's entirely
understandable that other regional powers would want to
deter against that threat. Having said that, the
evidence against Iran doesn't seem very strong at this
point. But nukes are so terrible that deterrence really
does seem to work: if Iran had nukes, that would probably
make the situation *more* stable. But maybe what we want
is not stability, but a weak Iran which we might possibly
attack in the future - and if that's the goal, then yes,
we don't want to face nukes.
In general, the non-proliferation argument is simple: in the
NPT the USA undertook to pursue disarmament, in return for
the non-nuclear nation agreeing to accept restraints.
If we really *want* non-proliferation, then we should keep
our end of the bargain. If we don't stick to the agreement,
then it's a bit feeble to whine about others breaking it
when the USA has about 15K weapons and other countries
are struggling to acquire 1 or 2.
Hell, the military ought to be embeding its own journalists with the Iraqi military or at least encourage the advisors to blog about it. Hell, they ought to encourage the Iraqi soldiers to blog about it.
So what if somebody reports some bad news or if some people call it propoganda? Bad news can drive results too. I will never forget the one and only lukewarm officer evaluation report that I ever earned. I remember that better than all the subsequent good ones. Why? Because and honest and frank assessment of what I wasn't doing as well as I could/should be was sobering and motivating.
Right, the free press should be told where to go and what
to report ... The thing is, the dangers for reporters in
Iraq have been unprecedented. An astonishingly large number
have been killed. Quite a few by US forces, and I'm sad to
say, some of those were in rather suspicious circumstances.
But also many by insurgents. So it just isn't safe to leave
the security bubble. What can be done about that ? Really
nothing - until there *is* security, casualties are all
the reporters are going to see. And on the casualty
figures, well, you are what you are. If bombs are going
off and 20-50 Iraqis are killed each day, then it's bad.
Period. No matter what else is happening.
I don’t understand how the intensity of the danger would affect them. When you’re getting shot at/bombed/strafed you’re still, well, getting shot at/bombed, and strafed, no? I thought it was supposed to be about getting the story, the bullets be damned, no?
Tom
Only fault with your AQ analysis is the big smoking holes where the world trade center used to be. The Iranian revolution was never really for world export. AQ's is.
And sure, Saudi Arabia is a mess, but would its failure be good or bad for the world? Let's be realistic about the disruption of the world's oil supply. Part of this conflict is about oil, and until we're living in the hydrogen utopia, Saudi Arabia remains important. Does that mean that we can't encourage reform in that country? Sure. But, the chaos spilling over from isn't going to make things better. Do 20 million Saudis have to pay the price for their ill-fated birth into the tragic kingdom but for our failure in Iraq as well?
Your nuclear deterance arguement only holds water if you can safely assume that both sides don't want nuclear destruction. Proliferation in the Middle East through state and non-state means could lead radical Islamists getting the bomb. I know that seems a little "Clancy", but what happens to Pakistan if Musharaf chokes on a pretzel and dies? Chaos.
So if the radicals get the bomb, are they not going to use it? What is our deterance against that? Will the West really answer a nuclear attack with the same? So if AQ nukes Tel Aviv or New York, where do we nuke back? Mecca? So there is no nuclear deterance with a non-state actor.
I believe that the less nuclear weapons loose in the world, the better.
Now, you are right that it works with states. Was Saddam's WMD a threat to the continetal US? No. Why? Because giving it to AQ to use on us would have invited retaliation. Job #1 for any regime is preservation of the regime. Why serve your own death warrant? The only realistic way that I could see Saddam deploying WMD against the US was when the regime was directly threatened by the US. And even then with what we thought he had, he could only do it in the tactical sense. The 3rd ID's thunder run through the "Red Zone" and into Baghdad should have been enough of a threat to trigger a WMD use...only problem was there was none to use.
Now this is not to say that the Iraqi aquisition of WMD in some sort of post-sanction scenario might not have ended up being a threat to the US. If left in place, imagine what would have happened to Iraq after Saddam's death. But, we were years from that.
I don't think this danger is unprecedented.
Ernie Pyle was killed by a Japanese machinegunner. I don't thing that I'd ever be able to write anything as good as this.
journalists embedded with the (apparently) Iraqi army units
which have been abducting Sunnis who later turned up dead
with signs of torture. Be careful what you wish for, it
seems there's plenty of really terrible news which doesn't
get fully reported because of the security situation, above
and beyond the just plain bad news we see every day.
Returning to the question of whether an Islamist takeover
of Iraq would be really terrible, there are three issues:
1) Humanitarian concerns
2) Economic effects
3) Military/terrorism effects
On 1), let's get honest for once. Most of Africa is ruled
by brutal corrupt dictatorships, even genocidal in some
cases, and we don't give a damn. We don't care enough to
do anything about it. We don't care that in Pakistan, a
rape victim is pressured to commit suicide. We don't care
about women's rights, anywhere: or at least never enough
to do anything about it. Saudi Arabia is terrible, and we
support it. Saddam was terrible, and we supported him for
a long time.
So if a brutal Islamist regime takes Iraq, we'll shrug
our shoulders and live with it. Because that's what we
do everywhere else.
2) Economic effects.
As long as they pump the oil, it doesn't make any
difference.
3) Military/terrorism effects
If you control a country, then you can be deterred.
So what's the big deal really ? I'd like to believe 1)
was a factor, but it just doesn't seem plausible.
Wrong. That *was* remarkably safe. The casualties amongst
journalists happened later. And the statistics show that
reporting during the insurgency has been much more dangerous
than in other recent conflicts. Partly becuause the
insurgents don't respect journalists as non-combatants; but
also because US forces have been trigger-happy (suspiciously
so in some cases).
Tom
I guess the big deal is that I don't like the idea of glibly writing people off to live in despair. Now, I'm no neo-con utopian, but I do believe that the West has a role in spreading liberty and human rights. This doesn't necessarily have to be by military intervention.
But if we shrug and say "Fuck 'em, should have been born somewhere better" do we end up saying that about the people in New Orleans? "Fuck 'em. Sucks to be poor."
For better or worse, manipulated intelligence or not, lying thief for a president or savior of the world--we are in Iraq. We are in it up to our necks in blood and treasure, and I don't think we can afford to fail. We can't predict the outcome of failure. We might not be able to contain the consequences of failure.
Yes, we tolerate the pit of misery that is Africa, but does Africa's ruin threaten to disrupt the world's economy? No. But, do we stand of chance of doing anything about the misery in places like Sierra Leone if the wheels fall of our economy because of $10 a gallon oil. You think anyone is going to be in an AIDs vaccine, debt forgivness state of mind when that happens?
To me, liberalism, in its best sense, is about making the world a better, more free place. I'm not ready to turn my back on that value and on the Iraqi people just because I fall on one side of the political spectrum.
You're talking about this speech as if it's actually sincere? C'mon.
So... I don't think the US embedding their own people will be met with anything but long wails of protest from the "real" press.
The roll into Baghdad is still a good indicator of my point. At the time I was climbing hill and dale in Northern Iraq and embeds were no where to be found, but my girlfriend in DC would switch on CNN at two in the AM and even if the only picture was of the camera picking up the dust from the vehicle fronts tire she could derive some comfort from having a window, however small, into what was going on, (at least this is what she tells me) regardless of the "big picture."
Now nobody knows what's going on on the ground, and the guys come home and go "WTF?" when they pick up the papers.
While I can respect Richard's point about the danger, I've lately been reading Michael Yon's reporting on the 2/4 in Mosul. I remember the Mosul he writes about in the beginning, but how it ended up was a suprise to me, and there would be no surprise at all if I relied on the "real" press because they haven't reported it, (for whatever reason).
We aren't getting the whole picture, and there has to be a balance other than this war's version of the "Saigon Follies" where the press reports on numbers and second-hand accounts.
Regarding journalists killed in Iraq:
icasualties.org
There's 77 names listed as killed here by my count.
Several media organizations have reported that the total is considerably higher than losses over 20 years in Vietnam. It also exceeds the Freedom Forum's estimate of total journalists killed in World War II.
cpj.org
But if we shrug and say "Fuck 'em, should have been born somewhere better" do we end up saying that about the people in New Orleans? "Fuck 'em. Sucks to be poor.""
I don't like it either, but that's what US policy has been,
Dem almost as much as Republican. And yes, for the poor of
New Orleans as well.
"For better or worse, manipulated intelligence or not, lying thief for a president or savior of the world--we are in Iraq. We are in it up to our necks in blood and treasure, and I don't think we can afford to fail. We can't predict the outcome of failure. We might not be able to contain the consequences of failure."
I keep hearing this, but none of you will make any attempt
to put numbers either on the cost of success, or the cost
of failure. Without numbers, it's just rhetoric.
"Yes, we tolerate the pit of misery that is Africa, but does Africa's ruin threaten to disrupt the world's economy? No. But, do we stand of chance of doing anything about the misery in places like Sierra Leone if the wheels fall of our economy because of $10 a gallon oil. You think anyone is going to be in an AIDs vaccine, debt forgivness state of mind when that happens?"
We weren't in that mood in the 90s with $20/barrel oil and
a booming economy, so what difference does it make to
Africa. If you want to help Africa, you do it by helping
Africa, not spending all your effort elsewhere.
Anyway, the oil price is determined by global supply and demand. It doesn't matter who is pumping it, as long as
they pump it tat the same rate. And for Iraq to pump less
would hurt us, but hurt them more. So it's unlikely.
1. Kill the 3000 or so terrorists currently in Iraq
- easy if the population likes us otherwise tough
2. Stop new terrorists from entering Iraq
- tough but killing them easy if see 1
3. Prevent the Iraqis from killing US troops
- impossible unless see 1
- only short term solution is withdrawal outside cities
4. Prevent the Sunnis from trying to kill the rest
- impossible
5. Prevent the Sadr brigades/Kurdish militias from trying to kill the Sunnis
- impossible
6. Force all parties to kiss and keep the peace
- impossible
There has been an extremely useful movement here to trying to understand the real guts of the problem. How much is victory/withdrawal going to cost?
Let's break it down to a more personal level.
We'll posit a cell of Sunni insurgents (ex. military) who are plotting to kill Shia leaders and/or US troops. How much will it cost, either carrots or sticks, to get them to stand down?
The Sunnis ruled Iraq and had it all. They have memories of the good old times and a clear view of the payback to come.
One thing about the President speech however, is that if the situation were to change so that withdrawl were the best means to victory, we would not be able to take it under this President. He would not be willing to hear it as it would not be staying the course. Being inflexible on Iraq has its drawbacks as well.
I think the problem that no one - least of all the current administration - wants to grapple with is 1) that are probably not going to be able to have it both ways, and 2) the actual costs of doing the whole "liberty and human rights" thing in Iraq may well be insuperable.
First: if we actually intend to set up a "free, democratic" Iraqi government, we need to be prepared to accept that the will of the majority of the Iraqi people may not - hell, probably will not - match what is in the best interests of the American people. If intend an Iraq that helps us crush Islamic jihadism, we may have to settle for a pliant client state ruled by a useful idiot. And I'm sure that if we end up with a Shah-like meat puppet who gives way to coup after coup down the road we'll wind up REALLY getting nostalgic for Saddam...no matter how I look at this I can't be too hopeful the notion that counterinsurgency = liberal democracy for the reasons detailed below.
(I can't see selling the counterinsurgency if all it does is produce another Guatemala or El Salvador or Haiti or The Philippines. A lot of good GIs and Marines fought in all those places and none of them is exactly a beacon of hope and promise today. Iraq is going to be a hard sell if you can't promise something better than the places listed above.)
Second, the problem I see here is that what we're dealing with is a desperately poor, shattered semi-state that is pre-broken into pieces by regional and sectarian differences. A state and a people without a tradition of secular, humanistic Enlightenment (or even living memory or decent government). To try and make this broken mess into a liberal democracy is a monstrous task. I'm not saying it isn't a noble cause. But this is a HUGE cause. This is a Marshall-Plan-on-steroids kind of job. And no one - certainly not Mr. Bush, either in this speech or any other - is willing to level with us about what it will take to produce a long-term victory, if by victory we are sincerely talking about providing Iraq with "liberty and human rights".
We're talking about essentially kicking in enough money to provide the bulk of Iraqis with regular access to decent food, clean water, waste disposal, electricity. Pay for everything from honest policemen, judges, building and poultry inspectors and politicians. To provide a living wage for a substantial chunk of Iraqis to bolster the middle class. Crusading newspaper reporters. Union leaders to fight for decent working conditions, an end to child labor, disability insurance. Everything from working traffic lights to an Arabic version of "Meet the Press"...
Because without all of this stuff what we're going to get isn't going to be "liberty and human rights", at least not the North American/Western European kind. It's going to be the kind of widespread, grinding poverty and political dissaffection that is a global standard from Calcutta to Rio to Moscow. And we're gonna get the blame for it. The Pottery Barn rule, remember?
My problem with all this is that nobody is giving me (or anyone I know) a plan - a real plan, not the staff weenie "Victory" .pdf I downloaded today - for doing all the things above - to help turn Iraq from a tribal sub-nation with a history of violence and brutal government into a functioning Western-type democracy. A plan with a situation, mission and execution. A timetable. A budget. And until I see those things, I am still skeptical.
As usual, I disagree. AQ wants to foment a civil war in
Islamic nations, leading to a pan-Islamic caliphate.
How to get that started ? By tweaking America's nose in
the most photogenic way possible. AQ doesn't have any
real desire to conquer the USA, nor even to destroy it,
in my opinion. If they really wanted to kill lots of
Americans wouldn't they have attacked the WTC at 11am or
2pm, not early in the morning ? The intention was to make
a spectacular attack on symbols of American power, and
the intended audience was in Islamic countries, to say
"if you don't like America, come join AQ" - because
recruiting people on the basis of anti-American sentiment
is easier than recruiting them to restore the caliphate,
a basically crazy project.
"But, the chaos spilling over from isn't going to make things better. Do 20 million Saudis have to pay the price for their ill-fated birth into the tragic kingdom but for our failure in Iraq as well?"
Well, as I say, we've already got that chaos. The question
which has been hanging out there for all the pro-victory
commenters is, do you have an actual plan to win, with a
reasonable chance of success ? JD offered up a number of
options, but each of them seemed to have fatal flaws -
and several bad plans don't add up to a good plan. Bush
has offered his strategy, which is just more of the same.
If we don't have a good plan - and I haven't heard one yet -
then we might as well get out sooner rather than later.
Or as somebody put it, there are two choices: we can lose,
or we can lose and destroy the army.
"Your nuclear deterance arguement only holds water if you can safely assume that both sides don't want nuclear destruction. Proliferation in the Middle East through state and non-state means could lead radical Islamists getting the bomb. I know that seems a little "Clancy", but what happens to Pakistan if Musharaf chokes on a pretzel and dies? Chaos."
Indeed, you've put your finger on the worst risk, and guess
what, it's nowhere near Iraq!! It's Pakistan, which is
supposedly our ally. That's the trouble with all the
"Iraq is the central front" rhetoric - it assumes that we
face one big threat at a time, and can do whatever it
takes to deal with that and pretty much ignore everything
else. But the world isn't like that. Even if you think
Iraq is the biggest threat (I don't) - then you need to
keep resources in reserve to cope with potential crises
in Pakistan, North Korea etc. And the places with nukes
have the scariest consequences - which for the moment
doesn't include Iraq, Iran, or Syria.
If we *really* want to stop proliferation, then we should:
a) keep our side of the NPT and do serious disarmament
b) give lots of funding to Nunn-Lugar efforts to secure
ex-Soviet nukes
c) pressure the Israelis to scrap their nukes
d) do something serious about Pakistan's sale of nuclear
technology
We're not doing any of those, so let's not shed crocodile
tears over increasing proliferation. It's our fault as
much as anyone else's - we've got 15K nukes, why wouldn't
others want a few ?
Sounds like a "Fuck 'em" to me. Hey, if they aren't going to drain the world's economy, you're saying "fuck 'em"
Don't know the total number of journalists, but it seems
possible that being a journalist is more dangerous than
being a US soldier ?
FDChief - spot on, what's the plan, how many troops for
how long ? and what is the price of failure ? And further,
is this the best place to be spending those resources ?
For example, maybe we'd be better off trying to make
Pakistan prosperous, stable, and democratic - they at least
have a history of democracy, plus any instability there
could put actual existing nukes in the wrong hands.
as a way to decide whether to withdraw. It's usually true
that you don't have sufficient resources to pursue all
the projects which have a positive benefit-minus-cost.
So you can't take this decision in isolation from all the
other security problems you face (or indeed, from domestic
problems). There's a limit on how much money you can spend,
and there's a (probably even more stringent) limit on how
many effective military personnel you can find. You need
to assess resource-usage and risk/benefit of the Iraq
project in relation to all the other security risks
(even including homeland-security issues - in the aftermath
of Katrina, there were stories that the National Guard was
ineffective because all the working satellite phones and
high-water vehicles were in Iraq).
In other words, you'll be really sorry that your troops
are stuck in Iraq if you need them to face down a threat
to Taiwan, or a bust-up in the Balkans, or a hurricane
in Houston, or a pogrom in Pakistan. Apologies for the
alliteration.
You're right that AQ has no desire to "conquer" the US. With three times as many guns as people in my home state, they'd have a tough time establishing the Texas Caliphate. But, they did have the intent of making us abandon the Middle East in order to reach their goals. A US cut off from acess to Middle East oil is a severely weakened country. Now if we could figure out a way to ween ourselves off the oil...
I also don't buy the Iraq is the central front in the GWOT arguement. Its central because we made it that way. Despite the heated rhetoric, Iraq sure as hell wasn't an AQ hangout before the war.
Josh,
My comment isn't "fuck Africa". The real politik of the situation is that the Middle East is more important because of oil. Disrupt the oil flow, you screw with the world's economy. The end result is that aid to Africa becomes too much of a cost burden. Of course, the slow motion collapse of the African continent will end up being another problem for the world to solve.
FDC Chief,
Concur. Not done with it yet, but it looks like death by powerpoint to me. (And I am expert at inflicting pain with Microsoft Office products) It also seems like a hasty product with some holes. The executive summary should be thirty pages long, and the plan more like three hundred. But, its better than nothing.
Gryph,
Spot on.
"Good" things happen every 15 seconds here in the States, but if car bombs were going off left and right with bodies everywhere do you think any American would give two hoots in hell about a school being built???
How do the good things many keep mentioning rate when matched up with dead American soldiers?? Or dead Iraqi's for that matter, but I've yet to see any war supporter shed a tear for dead Iraqi civilians.
It's a sad state of affairs.
Do you know how much the US spends on aid to sub-Saharan
Africa ? I just looked it up, for 2002-2003 the figure was
just over $3.5B. Or putting it another way, about enough
to run the occupation of Iraq for 13 days. So please
get real: numbers matter! The US aid to Africa is pathetic,
and your elaborate argument doesn't make sense when you
put the numbers in: we have to spend $100B/year in Iraq to
keep the oil flowing to keep the economy healthy so that we
can keep paying $3.5B a year to Africa. Makes no sense.
The aid to sub-Saharan Africa is less than the interest
on a single year of Iraq costs. Pull out of Iraq a few
months early, you can pay the aid with the interest on the
savings.
I'm somewhat left-wing, but I also have a math degree, so
have a rather acute awareness of the enormity of the
financial costs of Iraq.
Read some economics sometime. They'll need to pump the oil
and sell it, because what else can you do there ? And as
long as they're pumping it and selling it to somebody,
the US can buy what it needs. The only thing that makes a
difference is if they pump the oil slower, because then
supply and demand would be mismatched and prices would rise.
However, that hurts them more than it hurts us - we can still
buy oil, just at a higher price; but they don't get any
revenue for the oil they don't pump.
It might be plausible that their production will be
reduced involuntarily, either due to damage to the
infrastructure, or inadequate investment and poor technology
causing deterioration of the fields. But if that's what
you mean, you'd better say so and quantify the effect.
It's definitely true, on the other hand, that if the
hypothetical caliphate was pumping the oil they'd
try to cut US oil companies out of the profits: and that
would hurt the oil companies - but wouldn't make any
difference to the consumers of oil. So the "no blood for
oil" slogan is not quite right - it should be "no blood
for oil companies".
You can run this by a friendly economist if you think I'm
making it up.
While some "effort" was expended, I do not expect results.
Al
I don’t think most folks are really debating that it’s a sad state of affairs. ‘Tis. All the way around.
In the discussion on should we stay or should we go, is progress being made or not does come into it, tho. All the points being made about the position of Iraq in the global scheme of things are all valid as far as I’m concerned. It’s in trying to weigh how to best use our resources that I think a bunch of us are trying figure what we ought to do, in this one place, at this one time.
For me, it’s particularly frustrating because when you’re trying to figure out a plan for anything – building a house, completing a database, going on a vacation, you can reasonably expect that, if you put forth the effort, you can gather the information you need and come up with what you’re gonna do.
Iraq presents some obstacles to coming up with just the raw data than many other foreign policy issues do not. I can learn all I want about genocide in Darfur – there are folks there reporting on it, there is information available if I care to dig into it (and it is depressing, I’ll say!)
But I think there’s a genuine lack of raw data on Iraq that utterly confounds any attempt to come up with what we ought to do with the situation in which we find ourselves. In a situation in which we ought to have maximum data to develop our ideas and plans we have monstrously little. The administration, whose brilliant idea all this was, is only now publishing a plan. It’s not much of a plan, either – as FDChief sez, “long on goals, short on methods.”
The press, who are normally crawling all over the least little controversy, have retreated to the walled enclosures and can’t give us even a clue what is going on in the streets because, for whatever reason, they can’t get protection while out there (tanx for the links, RIchard).
The military, who is out there on the streets, comes back home and is baffled by the information we’ve got here, causing a distinct and mindboggling disconnect between what our society sees and what our returning soldiers see.
Of the perspectives taken here – leave now or try to tough it out – none of them has the benefit of real time, accurate, and useful intel on what the hell is happening over there. Even tho our response processes all broke down, at least we knew there were people stranded at the Superdome. Here, we don’t really know diddly. Well, maybe not totally true – we do know that people are still getting blown to hell over there.
Richard has pulled his data together and has reached his conclusions, and he presents his case well. I’m not real comfortable with the amount of information I have, but I’m trying to get up to speed. I’ve been thinking for a while now that the costs outweigh the benefits, and that we ought to find some way to exit (i.e. I think Murtha ain’t all that far off).
But I’m willing to hear the other side. But damn, I wish I didn’t have to hunt, and search, and correlate, the most basic elements of information that ought to be available, given our technology and our society.
Tom
I don't think you're doing the math. Let's say Saudi falls, Iraq is in chaos, and the flow of Middle Eastern oil is either physically disrupted or simply cut off by the caliphate or whatever else emerges. There won't be anywhere else to buy the damn oil.
I'm just old enough to remember the oil embargo, and the effects on our economy. Heck, one of my additional duties when I worked for the State of Texas was the energy emergency planner. When you're writing those doomsday plans, you develop a keen interest in the flow of energy.
But, I think its silly to pin this dicussion completely on oil. Its a factor, and we could probably survive the disruption of Middle Eastern oil just like we survived the great depression. But, I don't want my son to end up in a Hooverville to prove your point. Okay, that's probably too dramatic, but you get my point.
I'm concluding that me, you, and JD can type ourselves in cirlces without reaching any accord so I'm throwing in the towel.
Nice post, Tom. I like the way you're thinking this through
and hunting down whatever information you can find.
On the "progress" question, I think one enormous piece of
the puzzle which is completely missing - how large and
effective is the insurgency, how fast is it growing, and is
there any limit on its growth ? We hear various hints/reports
of "good things"that are happening, such as standing up more
Iraqi forces. But a general rule of thumb is that you
need 10-to-1 superiority to defeat an insurgency. So any
growth of the insurgency could be just too much. How big
is it - 10000, 20000, 30000 ? We don't know. I guess at
leasy 20000. If it's shrinking, all well and good. If it's
growing significantly, then those Iraqi forces won't keep
pace with the 10-to-1 ratio.
This may explain the disconnect between the apparent
feeling of soldiers over there that "good things" are
happening, and the impression here that it's getting worse.
If the insurgency is growing, then lots of "good things"
can happen but the net result can still be deterioriating
security.
Physical disruption or chaos would indeed be bad - and for
Iraq, that's what we've got already. But having Iraqi oil
sold by a resurgent Baath government, or even (improbably)
a Zarqawi/AQ government, would be no problem. And any
government will want to sell that oil.
As for regional chaos, I'm not at all sure that having our
troops tied up doing nation-building in Iraq is the best
way to keep Kuwait and Saudi Arabia safe. Especially not
if we end up failing and pulling out with a weakened and
weary force. Maybe Murtha's QRF is a better approach.
In general, the idea that fixing Iraq solves all other
problems is just absurd. Whatever happens in Iraq, we're
going to have a problem in Saudi Arabia at some point.
And another in Pakistan. And I expect that 5 years from now
our biggest worry will be something completely different
from Islamist terror.
Well, that's true. Which is partly why I like to find
numbers, they can actually sometimes settle an argument.
This link gives world oil production breakdown:
GlobalOilProduction
When I add up Saudi, UAE, Oman, Kuwait, and Iraq it's
about 22% of world production. That's a big slice, but
perhaps not as big as you might have thought. Iran is
another 5%, but should be safe (unless the USA does
something stupid).
On the other hand, we may not have any money if the Republicans are allowed to go on stealing from all of us like this much longer.
Oh, that'd be Iran.
We can't effectivley invade them with our troops tied up in Iraq, can we?
My comment isn't "fuck Africa". The real politik of the situation is that the Middle East is more important because of oil. Disrupt the oil flow, you screw with the world's economy. The end result is that aid to Africa becomes too much of a cost burden. Of course, the slow motion collapse of the African continent will end up being another problem for the world to solve.
To a point, you're right, but an obvious case can be amde that our constant meddling in the Middle East has a long and distinguished history of making things worse.
Just imagine if we'd left Afghanistan to the Soviets, kept out of Saudi Arabia, and even further back in history, not propped up the Shah, and then not propped up Saddam against Iran.
Explain to me how we'd be fighting a global war on terror if we'd just kept the hell away from the area. Every time we stick our hand in, things get worse.
"Oh, but this time will be different!" cry the Koolaid drinkers.
Agree with you up until a point about meddling in other countries and making them worse. I think the big problem is that we've abadoned all notions of exercising non-invasive influence. Sanctions, threats, and bombs seem to be our default mode. There are other means with which we can exert positive influence in the world. Here is an example of some meddling that is pay some divendends.
I heard an interesting story on NPR a couple months ago about a State Department jazz tours in Africa in the 60's. Its covered in this book. We still do stuff like this, but its underfunded and low key. The "Voice of American" used to really be something. Does it matter now? Perhaps we should replace it with free dial up internet service that operates independtly of other nations.
So there is meddling and then there is meddling. I agree that too many people "cry this time it will be different" without exercising all of our options first.
Kris
I lied. I'm back. You're baiting me. : )
You're thinking too narrowly. Don't have time to google all the data so here's a quick comment.
How much are other nations dependent of Middle Eastern oil? We live in a global economy, no? So what happens when Japan's economy is disrupted? China's?
You're argueing that cutting/disrupting ~25% of the oil supply is no big deal. I think diffently.
Anyway, you're probably right in that we would still have access to the oil no matter who is in charge. We'd probably pay more, but still be able to get it. And we'd adjust.
Many people agreed with the invasion of Afghhanistan. But again it was astonishingly short-sighted in its implementation, leaving bin Laden on the loose and Afghaniztan in the hands of our druglord allies. It is stable only to the extent the US military is there to make the mayor of Kabul the nominal President of Afghanistan. And its long term stability probably depends on the other factions making their peace with the Taleban. Something that won't happen so long as we are there.
We can discuss what strategy might work in Iraq, but the truth is this administation is incapable of effectively implementing even the best conceived strategies. You can call it arrogance, but the truth is these are people for whom success has rarely been measured in tangible outcomes. Their success has always been based on their ability to influence public perceptions. Thus the answer to a real crisis in Iraq ia a Presidential speech declaring we are making progress. And the crisis is defined, not the on-the-ground disintegration of Iraq into civil war but, as the public perception of that failure by the American public.
Maybe a little :-) But just trying to give us all some
perspective on how big these various issues are. Losing
22% of world oil production would hurt, no question.
But losing 50% would hurt a lot more. It's important
for everyone to know the figures and then they can make up
their own minds about the likely consequences.
Of course the figures for oil *reserves* are much more
heavily skewed towards the Middle East - so a long-lasting
disruption of supplies there would bring all the "peak oil"
problems very much closer.
I think it can be argued that the US is less vulnerable to
oil price rises than it was in the 1970s:
- electricity generation is now mostly gas, not oil
- many people drive more efficient import cars
- oil consumption per dollar of GDP is much lower
- manufacturing industry (presumably oil/power intensive)
is a smaller slice of the economy - actually a
frighteningly small slice, but that's another issue
"How much are other nations dependent of Middle Eastern oil? We live in a global economy, no? So what happens when Japan's economy is disrupted? China's?"
It hurts everyone: those who have high oil consumption per
unit of GDP get hurt worst - and China probably falls in
that category. In general, the global price goes up
and consumption falls as a result until supply and demand
are back in balance.
"Anyway, you're probably right in that we would still have access to the oil no matter who is in charge. We'd probably pay more, but still be able to get it. And we'd adjust."
If they pump the same quantity, we would pay the same price.
It's a global oil market, and the price is set by global
supply and demand. If Iraq says, we're going to sell oil
to the US at $70/barrel, but to China at $60/barrel, then
the outcome is that the Chinese buy from Iraq, and the US
buys somewhere else at $60.01/barrel.
Economics is a little counter-intuitive at times -
especially the principle of comparative advantage, but it's
worth figuring out.
The most general point I'd like to make is that everything
you've been told over the last 5 years should not be
trusted. Some of it happens to be true; much of it is
complete garbage. Everyone should throw out all their
assumptions, gather all the hard data they can, as Tom is
doing, and make up their own minds. What may be hardest
for military folk to accept is that the Global War on Terror
is NOT A WAR!! We've been doing our darnedest to make it
into a "war" since 9/11 (actually since 9/12, because all
anyone did on 9/11 was futz around in confusion) and
global terrorism has increased. A lot. So we need to
throw out that concept and start again from scratch.
Charly says,
This is irrelevant and wrong. First, there's no crime in not recusing yourself; it might, at most, give the other party a right to appeal. I challenge you to find a criminal statute related to recusal. Second, this area is governed by the CFR regulation on special prosecutors, which leaves that discretion in the hands of the Attorney General. You've ignored this citation and the language of the rule. Third, govenrment agencies have "conflicts of interests" vis a vis themselves and other branches all the time, not least when courts decide whether or not they have jurisdiction. These conflicts—the heart of most "political question" cases—are resolved by each of the branches using their power in favor of their branch. They are not and cannot be resolved by criminal enforcement, particularly when theal alleged offender is the executive branch. There is absolutely no procedure, tradition, or way that executives can be criminally prosecuted by federal prosecutors for official acts without the acquiesence of the President and the Attorney General. It is literally not possible. So your whole argument is rhetorical; it has no real relationship with the statutes, policies, and structures in place. As a result, you sound like an idiot.
There is no longer an independent counsel statute. There is absolutely nothing that can be done, short of impeachment, to reach so-called war crimes by the President and the Secretary of Defense. No one is above them and the Attorney General in making regular prosecutorial decisions. No one can force them to act in this area. It's a well established area of law relating to prosecutorial discretion. I see you missed that part of law school—along with the rest of law school.
I disagree with your major premise; I don't concede the President or anyone else in the upper echelons of the adminsitraiton have broken the law. And it's not a question of "courts enforcing the law," it's a question of no one to prosecute the alleged crime. Further, your view of the law is too narrow. Discretionary authority, political question and other doctrines of deference, and the various immunity doctrines are also "part of the law." Prosedutorial discretion matters and is an important sense part of the law, even in cases of formal breaches of a statute. As I said, I reject your interpretation of the law and so has the Executive and the DOJ. There is a lot of debate on the meaning of Geneva in this context, and your view has been rejected by the adminsitration, its expert legal advisors in teh OLC, and the American people. But even assuming it's correct for the moment, part of "law" are proseuctorial decisions to ignore certain breaches of law for pragmatic and political reasons. Sodomy and anti-birth control statutes, for instance, were rarely enforced and various "test cases" had to be found to challenge their constitutionality. The non-enforcement formed part of the practical body of law. Likewise, in this context, there are concepts of "official immunity" that come into play in making judgment calls on matters of law, including treaty law. This doesn't put officials beyond the law, it says what the law is. The usual official immunity rule requires some kind of preestablished precedent saying something is clearly illegal before civil and crfiminal penalties can ensue against that official. In light of Quirin and Eisentrager, you'd be hard pressed to say that your interpretation of Geneva is "clearly established" to warrant prosecution. At best, there is an arguable case for your view of things.
Once again, your lack of legal education hinders you from making sen