In today’s WaPo, Ellen Knickmeyer reports that, “The Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction in the budget request going before Congress in February, officials say.”
And so, friends, this is the way that the end of the cataclysmic project the US government has pursued in Iraq over the past four years gets announced.
Evidently, if no more funds will be requested for “reconstruction” the Bush administration will be cutting Iraq loose to fend for itself. Once there is no more pretext of “reconstruction”, the US military footprint will almost certainly be radically reduced and, in effect, most of the country handed over to the Iranians. (Or, in a slightly better scenario, the Iranians and/or Ayatollah Sistani will see the wisdom of reaching some form of a new nationalist consensus with the Sunni Arabs and any Kurds who might care to join it… Which might not, actually, be very many at all.)
But anyway, by announcing the rapid winding down of the “reconstruction” project, the Bushies are signaling that the speeches the Prez made over the past six weeks were, indeed, the “declaration of victory” that was required before the administration implemented its plan for a “strategically wise redployment of the troop presence” in Iraq.
(Let the words “cut and run” never cross my lips.)
So this is the way the war ends. Not without many continuing bangs, certainly; but equally certainly with this damp squib of a whimper. Knickmeyer quotes Brig. Gen. William McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander overseeing the reconstruction work in Iraq, as saying: “The U.S. never intended to completely rebuild Iraq… This was just supposed to be a jump-start.”
Truly breath-taking, how they tried to sneak this latest declaration past an unsuspecting public while Americans were still dozing off their post-New Year’s hangovers, and while Congress is most assuredly out of session.
Still, all caveats having been taken into consideration, I have to breathe a massive sign of relief. Phew!!!! It looks as though they have finally decided they need to bite the bullet of a large-scale (if still not yet total) reduction of the troop presence in Iraq.
And even if the withdrawal envisaged is still not total, it is already appropriate to start to think about what this development means for US strategic doctrine and for Washington’s relationship with the rest of the world.
As I’ve written here before, any large-scale US withdrawal from Iraq will have ramifications far beyond the borders of that benighted country, and far beyond the Persian Gulf region, too. To start to think through some of these ramifications, I think it’s best to back up and see just what it was that Bushies were trying to achieve, back in late 2001 when– just a few weeks after 9/11– they decided they needed to invade and take over not just Afghanistan, but also Iraq.
Here is my first quick stab at this assessment…
https://vintage.justworldnews.org/archives/001657.html
In my judgment, the main thing that Cheney and Rumsfeld were seeking to do when they pushed for the invasion of Iraq was to put to an end, once and for all, the ‘Powell Doctrine’— that is, the essentially conservative doctrine for the use of US military force that Colin Powell first formulated in the run-up to the 1991 Gulf War, and that was reconfirmed as an important doctrine in the aftermath of the 1993 debacle in Somalia. (It was based, too, on the lessons Powell and his colleagues in the uniformed military had taken from their earlier experiences in Vietnam.)
The Powell Doctrine is/was a doctrine that required that, before any use of US military force should be authorized, national leaders and commanders should amass overwhelming military force around the targeted arena, and also be quite certain that (1) they had and could keep a rock-solid base of support within the US public for their project there, and (2) that they had a clearly defined and clearly achievable “exit strategy.”
Throughout the 1990s Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their neocon friends chafed under the widesread support that the PD enjoyed among the US political elite (and also, crucially, the leadership of the uniformed military.) They saw it as unnecessarily conservative and confining. So once those two nefarious plotters had come into positions of power in the Bush Jr. administration, they started laying the basis for an alternative. This was embodied primarily in Rumsfeld’s pursuit of a strategic-technical “transformation” in military affairs that, most crucially, would create “nimble”, highly maneuverable forces that could be deployed at short notice in distant theaters, and would greatly reduce reliance on heavy, slow “old” forces that also required large numbers of actual soldiers and, in the event of combat, would put them in harm’s way.
From January 2001 through 9/11, however, the two plotters couldn’t do too much to push their plans forward. US military planning and procurement is a notoriously sluggish process! Also, they had to deal with the fact that Gen. Powell himself was also in the Bush cabinet and was in a position to (1) guess what they were up to and (2) block some of their more egregious plans.
Then came 9/11. The psychology and the politics of the nation changed radically. Now was their chance!
The takeover of Afghanistan was easy. A cinch. Too easy, in fact. Everone around the world knew the country was on its last legs. “Beating” the Taliban was something that any fifth-rate army could have done– but who, other than the Bushies after 9/11, would have wanted to?? There would certainly be, after any whumping of the Taliban, many long, hard years of rebuilding needed if that badly battered, very under-infrastructured country could ever be made stable and secure…
But equally cruially, from the Cheney-Runsfeld point of view, beating the Taliban did nothing serious to inform other powers around the world– China must certainly have come to mind– that “the US under George W. Bush is now, once again, a force to be reckoned with!”
For that, they needed to whump something bigger than the Taliban. That was why they needed to take over Iraq…
(to be continued… here.)
Powerful stuff here. With painful conclusions. Look forward to more. Linked you on this at From the People Who Brought You the Slam Dunk in Iraq
Helena Cobban-
A number of serious memory errors have been noted on your website, “Just World News.” If not promptly corrected, these errors could pose a threat to national security. Please download and install the latest secure memory update version 2006.1.2, approved by the United States Government. Among other enhancements, this upgrade will remove or correct the following memory errors:
1. Any memory that the United States promised to “rebuild” Iraq.
2. Any memory that the United States promised to restore “security” in Iraq.
3. Any memory that the United States promised to leave behind a “democratic” government that would represent “all Iraqis” and respect “minority rights.”
4. Any memory that the President vowed to “defeat the terrorists” in Iraq.
5. Any memory of “Afghanistan.”
If you act now, we will include a special preview (beta) version of our upcoming major release: Iran 2006. Plus, we will register your memory to receive automatic downloads of all future security updates, bug fixes and program enhancements. This will insure that your memory is always compatible with the latest US Government guidelines.
Wishing you a happy new year,
Office of Memory Adjustment
Department of History and Information
United States Government
Just putting together your comments here with the comments bush made on Friday, while declaring himself “above” the McCain amendment as well as “above” judicial oversight.
So, he’s declaring himself dictator – and readying the military to come home? to enforce the dictatorship?
God help us if these paranoid thoughts are true.
…. I feel them ebbing away … as the memory adjustment takes effect…..
Hardly have e n er gy to press p o s t.
It’s not really the “Powell Doctrine”, though; it’s the “Weinberger Doctrine”, developed in the wake of the Marine Barracks bombing in 1983. Its opponents don’t want to associate it with the Reagan Administration, and certainly not with one of the biggest policy failures of that administration, so they try to pin it on someone they view as ideologically suspect.
John C.
That’s great John C., you speaks what I try to put about Helena post.
Helena looking forgot that US doing the good things any where in the world, just look to CNN news and NYT story of that guy his name Hussein and his Brave Mission IN Iraq!!! it just faking the laughing on the public audiences and readers its just really ”RRUBISH” its one of the stories and movies that use Iraq tragedy and Iraqi suffering for money collation in any away and easy way.
I think this is a peace of article nice to be remembered
” As a matter of fact, in the life of G. Washington, there are many anecdotes that should be remembered by the current residents of the US capital. And also there are lessons to be driven by relatively immature democracies such as Turkey. Washington, the commander-in-chief of the war of independence the US colonies fought against the British kingdom, rejected the request by a group of rebellious officers who had asked him to be their king and to rule them after the victory and thus prevented the republic from being deprived of democracy. Though he was a victorious commander and a public hero, he was virtually pushed into politics by faits accomplis and elected US president for two consecutive terms. In the end, he abandoned the presidential seat he occupied for eight years on his own freewill, with no hesitation whatsoever, and saved the US from starting in the form of a military dominant regime.”
Iraq will got his US made hero Ali Al Sistani as Helena said………. No comment!
Jarhead, you’re right. But it is generally known as Powell’s these days, and was well laid out by CP in his memoir as I recall.
John C., I couldn’t suppress a hearty chuckle at your comment which is oh so true. But the whole business is almost unspeakably tragic.
Happy New Year John!
I must part company with the others that salute your ingenuity. First because the style is on the cheesy side of sarcasm, and mostly because the US attempted to do what it stated. Specifically, Arab democracy and minority rights may well be impossible, or at least they are not feasible until proven otherwise.
My kudos to the US for giving each of those goals its best shot. That is more than can be said for other countries.
Davud
Hello Helena,
I agree with your analysis. Possibly the US is preparing to do an Irsay (pull your team out in the dead of night when no one’s looking). Hey it worked for the Colts.
Unfortunately a lot of Americans have been drinking the same kool-aid that davud imbibed, still clinging to the idiotic belief that we invaded for altruistic purposes.
And the reason they want our troops out is not because they have come to oppose an immoral war, or they are horrified by the incredible suffering we have inflicted on the Iraqi people. It is only because Americans are dying, they are indifferent to the rest of the world.
Helena:
I had a thought that you might be being optimistic in supposing that stopping reconstruction will necessarily and logically be followed by complete withdrawal. I could believe that in Washington they are cynical enough to stop reconstructing Iraq, and yet intend to keep troops there in the four permanent bases.
However I do believe, with you, that this is a major milestone on the way to complete withdrawal – which is the only possible end to the war.
I’ve been reading today Charles Tripp’s excellent book, A History of Iraq (which despite its title starts in the 19th century). I’d forgotten that resentment against the British bases was a constant factor in Iraqi politics in the 1930s and 1940s, and it brought down several governments. The bases (Habbaniya and Shu’ayba) were intensely disliked. It was not like in Jordan, where the British and the Jordanians got on quite well (no doubt partly because the British gave Jordan subsidies to finance the administration.)
Bound to be the same again, if the US tries to keep bases in Iraq. Agitation will continue until all US troops are out. Any Iraqi government which signs a treaty for permanent bases will just be undermined. I am speaking about Arab Iraq of course; the Kurds don’t have the same problem.
I think they’re even indifferent to the dying American soldiers and Marines. The real reason they’re pulling the plug is desparation. They’re beginning to realize that their only chance of avoiding impeachment is to prevent the loss of the House of Reps in the 2006 elections. Even then they may not, especially if enough GOP reps go down with Abramoff before then to cost them their majority, and/or a handful of conscientious Republicans finally put their oath of office ahead of their loyalty to or fear of the Republican Party.
Davud, why should Bush try to give genuine democracy to foreigners when he is a few crimes away from defeating it in America? If a man beats his own children, you don’t want him teaching yours. It frightens me that more Americans now oppose his war against Arabs than oppose his war against the Constitution. They can’t believe the latter war exists.
The rest of the world must see that an American leader who repeatedly disobeys the law when he isn’t twisting and rewriting it, who clearly is giving himself the tools to persecute his opponents, who now has the means to secretly accuse, arrest, try and disappear anyone without oversight is a far greater evil than a similar leader in any other country. Tyranny normally overcomes countries in a great internal crisis, so that even if that tyrant turns the country around and makes it a military threat, its neighbors have time to prepare themselves. But we are the wealthiest country in the world, with more nukes, heavy bombers, and carriers than everyone else put together. We can say what we want about Germans, but they didn’t give up their liberty until they faced mass starvation.
I’m guessing one of the first things the Iraqis will do after we’re gone is install metering equipment on those oil pumps.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/28/news/international/iraqoil/
Gee, I wonder why Halliburton never got around to that? They must have been too busy building schools and hospitals, right David?
hello!
hi helena its Eisa from pray4iraq.blogspot.com i was wondering whether you would mind putting me down under your links n i could so the same for you on my site?
regards
Eisa
Powell has always been a trimmer, since before My Lai and Lt. Calley. There is nothing fixed about this man other than his willingness to compromise anything and everything. Therefore it is grotesque to write of “Powell Doctrine”. The “pottery barn” doctrine was as much Powell’s and where is that today? The US has just now declared it is not going to fix anything.
All you can say about Powell is that you can dig up an expedient quote from the guy on any side of any question. Don’t make yourselves look stupid by talking about “Powell Doctrine”. Just leave the guy out of it.
Afghanistan was thought by all on the left and and center to be very difficult going in. The Cassandras were warning about the British experience in Afghanistan early in the 20th century and of course look what happened to the Soviet invasion!
That Afghanistan was easier than expected made the invasion of Iraq seem easy too. And if you define the invasion of Iraq as the toppling of Saddam Hussein it was easy. As easy as expected. I personally remember thinking that I hope the CIA has good connections with Saddams generals so that after the takedown the new strongman can lead the country in an orderly and possibly democratic path. It was a nice idea.
Cutting the budget for reconstruction may mean a reduction in troops and it may not. It may merely mean that Bush has decided that the relatively peaceful election process means that the current problem Number 1 is a nuclear Iran next door, which will get the attention previously focussed on Iraq.
Cutting the budget may just be a maneuver between the Bush administration and either Congress or the Iraqi government or the IMF. I guess.
The Washington Post article implies that by Iraqification of the effort the security costs may go down. It is simply more financially efficient to have Iraqis provide management and security if it reduces the number of insurgent attacks. Funding can be restored as foreign aid, if need be. It makes perfect sense that Iraqis would be better at rebuilding Iraq than Americans. We’ll see what happens.
With the Sunnis making deals with the Iraqi government the insurgency as a cost factor may reduce, if the effort is Iraqi-led. Look for the money to be put back in through a different channel.
2006-01-03 Ahmadinejad’s case for Khomeinist “democracy”
david,
using bullets and bombs to promote democracy and freedom is like raping a women until she decides she loves you…. or regularly beating your children until they behave properly.
Dominic,
Powell is nothing much more than a political lackey – he did and said what he was told to do, and now he is whining about it as if he is somehow the victim. A pox on his house along with the rest of the liars and opportunists.
He even got the so-called “Pottery Barn rule” wrong. First, Pottery Barn has no such rule and its executives were none too pleased with his attempted analogy. The Pottery Barn rule goes something like “you break it, we pick up the pieces and write it off as a loss”. Second, the rule he falsely attributed to the Pottery Barn is not “you break it you own it” – in fact, that is exactly what the Bushies had planned. They didn’t mind breaking it as long as they ended up owning it – and of course using Iraqi oil profits to pay for most of the lucrative contracts awarded to American corporations to repair the damage. The actual rule is “you break it you pay for it – exactly what the Bushies never intended and are not about to do.
I agree, Shirinq. “Pottery barn” was always a load of codswallop. In fact it amounts to a license to smash and destroy, if it means anything at all. As when the troops say they can smash doors down and destroy property because the USA will pay for it. And if the USA does not pay then they troops duck behind the treacherousness of politicians, saying it is not their own responsibility. I hate that attitude from the US troops as much as I hate it in Bush and Powell.
Arab democracy and minority rights may well be impossible, or at least they are not feasible until proven otherwise.
We still see multi-faces here and there.
Look to this report by Professor Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer about the democracy in Kuwait if believe it or not!!! David I think the democracy you talking about its just falls ward that used to manipulate the public and served the inertest of US.
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/Navariednews.asp?dismode=article&artid=1885472035
See what happened for the democracy that setup in Latin America by US, recent Bolivia elections and who got the power and what really the citizen of that country need needs not what US like is correct?
By stated democracy in Iraq and Middle East I think this another slogan that used by US, David did remember Michel Jackson song “Healing the World” the clips in that song showing US troops around the world to spreading peace, we saw the peace spared by US in ME you keeping same slogan over and over …..
I pick your attention to one of US expert George Friedman wrote about Iraq invasion while ago this what he said
Q. Why did we go into Iraq?
A. We went into Iraq to isolate and frighten the Saudi government into cracking down on the flow of money to Al Qaeda. Bush never answered the question for fear of the international consequences. Early in the war, the President said that the key was shutting down Al Qaeda’s financing. Most of the financing came from Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi government was refusing to cooperate. After the invasion of Iraq, they completely changed their position. We did not invade Saudi Arabia directly because of fear that the fall of the Saudi government would disrupt oil supplies: a global disaster.
http://www.americassecretwar.com/author_interviews.html
Arab democracy and minority rights may well be impossible, or at least they are not feasible until proven otherwise.
We still see multi-faces here and there. Look to this report by Professor Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer about the democracy in Kuwait if you believe it or not!!! David I think the democracy you talking about its just falls ward that used to manipulate the public and serve the inertest of US.
Promising future ahead for Gulf countries: US experts
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/Navariednews.asp?dismode=article&artid=1885472035
See what happened for the democracy that setup in Latin America by US, recent Bolivia elections and who got the power and what really the citizen of that country needs not what US democracy need?
By stating “Arab democracy” I think this is another slogan that used by US, David did you remember Michel Jackson song “ Healing the World ” the clips in that song showing US troops around the world spreading peace, we see the peace spared by US in ME, keeping same slogan over and over you believen like Michel Jackson…..
I pick your attention to one of US expert George Friedman wrote about Iraq invasion while ago this what he said
Q. Why did we go into Iraq?
A. We went into Iraq to isolate and frighten the Saudi government into cracking down on the flow of money to Al Qaeda. Bush never answered the question for fear of the international consequences. Early in the war, the President said that the key was shutting down Al Qaeda’s financing. Most of the financing came from Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi government was refusing to cooperate. After the invasion of Iraq, they completely changed their position. We did not invade Saudi Arabia directly because of fear that the fall of the Saudi government would disrupt oil supplies: a global disaster.
http://www.americassecretwar.com/author_interviews.html
“Abandoned Afghanistan”
Remember the “abandoned Afghanistan” story? The way neoliberals tell it ever after 9-11, Westerners “abandoned” Afghanistan in the 1980-1990-ies because. . . just because. As a result, Afghanistan fell under the Taliban rule, became a safe haven for Al-Queda and all this ended with WTC attack. Never mind that WTC attack was prepared mostly in the US and in the W.Europe, the way this story runs, West had to return to Afghanistan in order to rebuild it as a model third world democracy. To this neocons use to respond that they don’t do nation building, and all this results in typical neocon-neolib mud wrestling.
However, what happens on the ground is that general lifestyle and reconstruction disruption is a standard tool used by guerilla revolutionaries to kick foreign occupants aka “liberators” out of the region. Considering this, both Soviet and Western withdrawal from Afghanistan appears to be a natural stage of the guerilla conflict rather than neoliberal “humanitarian blunder” or neoconservative “lack of courage”.
From this prospective, WPost stories /1,2/ suggest that GWOT/GSAVE enter well familiar from Afghanistan lengthy and bloody “abandonment” stage.
1. WPost. Griff Witte. U.S. Cedes Duties in Rebuilding Afghanistan. NATO, Other Allies Take On New Roles
2. WPost. Ellen Knickmeyer. U.S. Has End in Sight on Iraq Rebuilding
3. Charles Krauthammer. No to nation building
4. Wiki on guerilla warfare
5. Kandahar (2001) Kandahar, crutches scene