This is, of course, the kind of question that few in the US public discourse yet dare to ask… (As for me, I’d put it a little differently. I think that a failure of the Bush administration’s project in Iraq could constitute a net victory for the US citizenry, in terms of starting to re-balance our relations with the rest of the world away from imperial hegemony and back towards basic human equality.)
But anyway, how interesting that Roni Bart, an analyst at Tel Aviv University’s prestigious Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies should be the one now publishing a short analytical paper titled What if the United States fails in Iraq?
Bart judges that:
- the specter of failure is there, significantly enhanced by the repercussions from the Samarra bombing. Even if Shiites and Sunnis avoid an all out civil war this time, there is a reasonable chance recurring provocations will, in the end, succeed in undermining the American project in Iraq. It would therefore do well to prepare for a scenario of failure: an American evacuation before the mission is completed, and before Bush vacates the White House in January 20092. True, given the president’s determination such a scenario is highly improbable. Nevertheless, a “what if” speculation is useful in explicating what is at stake.
An evacuation-in-failure could take place due to a protracted political deadlock in Iraq, ongoing guerilla warfare and terror activities with no end in sight, or deterioration into a full scale civil war (perhaps resulting in an increase in American casualties). Such circumstances might force American decision-makers to realize that the mission cannot be achieved and/or that potential fallout, in terms of foreign policy or domestic politics, is too risky. Arguments along these lines are already being made not only by Democrats but also by various Republican groups…
None of this analysis is ‘rocket science’, folks… Bart writes,
- Internationally, American stature will suffer. Osama bin Laden will declare victory… Europeans will claim, yet again but with renewed vigor, that their Venus outshines the American Mars; that the American failure in Iraq proves that use of force exacerbates problems rather than solves them; that even as a last resort force must be agreed upon multilaterally by the Security Council; and that such an international consensus, possible only through American patience, might have made the difference in a successful reconstruction of a stable Iraq. A failure in Iraq will also strengthen the balancing-containing-obstructionist attitude of Russia and China vis-à-vis the United States. American prestige will hit a new low; American ability to deter might be undermined, at the very least in cases with potential for long-term military engagement. The United States will be perceived not just as a “Texan cowboy,” but an ineffective one at that. And the weakening in American resolve will project to the world – states and dictators and terrorists – that the United States not only can do less but also wants to do less.
Regarding the implications of an American failure in Iraq for Israel, he writes:
- Given that the United States is Israel’s greatest friend and ally, it is safe to say that as a rule, any American failure is bad for Israel. Any global constellation in which the United States is weakened cannot bode well for Israel, because other (strengthened) international actors will be less favorably inclined toward Israel. That said, were the United States to partially disengage due to impatience with Palestinian rejectionism and terrorism (along the lines of Bush’s impatience with Arafat), Israel’s position will be strengthened.
Beyond the immediate Palestinian issue, any American attempt to forge some kind of regional response to a Shiite potential ascendancy and/or to a Sunni terror center will not include Israel. As the prelude to the 1991 Gulf War proved, Israel is perceived as a coalition breaker. Nevertheless, Israel will have to prepare itself for increased security threats, such as a Sunni terror center (with ties to Hamas?) and/or a Shiite-empowered Hizbollah in Lebanon. There may well be ground for covert cooperation with Jordan and Kurdistan against common threats.
The conventional threat posed to Israel by Iraq was removed in 1991; the nuclear one proved to be non-existing. An American failure in Iraq would transform the once ominous “eastern front” from a relatively minor threat to a new source of terror and instability.
Actually there is almost literally nothing new, let alone earth-shaking, here. Bart’s little piece has all the signs of something rushed off at the last minute, under deadline. But still, I find it interesting and noteworthy that the Jaffee Center folks have decided to start thinking and writing about this.
As I wrote elsewhere recently– never mind about the American pols, but I hope to heck the US military has started producing some sensible plans for a speedy and peaceable total evacuation of Iraq, under a number of different but increasingly possible scenarios…
IMO, basically everything Roni Bart writes is pretty obvious for those who watch the ME attentively. The only trick is that Israeli author is allowed to discuss the failure in Iraq in the 1st place.
bush and israel lose? what are we waiting for?
I really don’t know at which point is it permissible
in academic-speak to use the term “imbecilic.” But it
seems clear to me that America has set itself on a
past-practice clause of allowing itself to take out
its manufactured political anxieties on nations that
it could find precedence or neo-reasons for deeming
complicit in the generation of the anxiety.
Our Iran policy is a case in point. The recent article
by Seymour Hersh– a journalist I loved to hate but
came to hate to love but can’t help it because he’s
been so good– wrote in NEWYORKER an article, the
second, that intimates prospects for US attack of
Iran.
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact
Before commenting on the above article, let me recall
a previous article in NEWYORKER in which Hersh was
used by the Pentagon to scare Tehran: he predicted an
attack, based on “inside” sources, but it never
happened. In both articles Hersh– whom I hated since
Vietnam War days but came to totally respect, even
love, since 9/11– is a leftist who became Wash. DC’s
most respected journalist. Keep in mind that a Hersh
journalist is like an FBI agent: all he can do is ask
and ask and ask…. But Hersh had this way of coming
back at you, of double checking and then returning,
etc– he was not just a detective but an intelligence
genius. And, he had a feel for what American democracy
is all about (something we East Euros obsessed with
Commies kept forgetting about). Sure he was a scoop
hound, very competitive, but he had a mission and
TRUTH was to be his weapon for the press, for America,
for the world and for freedom.
Now he despairs over how the press has capitulated in
fear of “access” cut-off since the 2004 re-election of
Mr. Bush. And so, he has widened his net inevitably
sacrificing the depth through revisiting and
double-checking of sources that made him so famous.
Now he is a known entity and people who talk to him
talk to him more deliberately to transmit a message
and/or work a cause. Also, Hersh cannot believe that
the larceny of this regime is as shallow and
“imbecilic” as it really is. So here he is putting
together dozens of one-pad interviews into a cogent
picture. So to him it looks like we have to go after
Iran but he misses what’s driving us there.
Anyone who knew Cheney and Rumsfeld over the last
several decades knew that they thought leadership
depended more on what you seem to have below the
umbilicus more than what you seem to have above it
(ie. balls matter more than brains!). And so, many
deemed them both the Fix-it Keystone Cops of
Republican Administrations in that they took total
control and totally screwed up. Just look *carefully*
at their accomplishments. As for the presidency, I can
only avoid being bleeped by quoting EJ Dionne who
expressed it better than anyone: this Administration
is on a long holiday from complexity. What has this
wrought?
First of all, it has made real admission of error
impossible since the errors have been so massive and
so devoid of any rationale that no one can admit to
them for fear of the consequences. Bush was honest at
least when he said that he always follows his gut. As
a result, we are up against foreign policy by
speechwriters trying to make gut-reaction seem cogent.
So Bush is stuck with the speechwriters’ words; it is
reminiscent of how the Soviet speechwriters, editors
at Pravda all, described the “Brezhnev Doctrine”:
What’s this “doctrine,” with my name on it comrades?–
asked Brezhnev. Well, O.K., comrades, since you wrote
it, I hope it goes over well because I just don’t
understand it. And so, when next faced with a
decision, Brezhnev was stuck with the “Brezhnev
Doctrine” because, after all, he himself enunciated
it!
The Bush doctrine is much the same. But rather than
explain and debate it with newsmen, as is expected in
a democracy, Bush protects himself by expressing
himself as only acting from his gut. And, the only
explanation his gut can offer is an odoriferous thing
most would rather skip.
Hersh’s problem is that he got exclusive access to a
lot of bureaucratic ladder “climbers” or off the
ladder retired “fallers.” They are Pentagon
practitioners of the art of sycophancy who are being
rewarded by Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld (Mr. Cheney only
appears as the “terminator” to those who fail to
comply) or victims of mis-steps who had been visited
by what Bush calls the “Vice,” hence recently retired.
Then, Hersh tries to give all these little vignettes a
cogent string of beads arty necklace-like unity,
spiced by the “juicy” quotes in order to make it
appealing to the editor of NEWYORKER.
In truth, there is no Iran policy, just a “Bush
Doctrine” derivative that insists on: when in doubt
hit and hit and hit again. It’s called “preemption”;
but most miss the second part of its definition: “from
the gut.” This means that a careful reading of Bush’s
last 20 speeches will give you a clear picture of what
the precedent created by the words-smiths will cause
him to do (as he said). However, don’t forget that
there’s also Rove who speaks for what’s “politically”
good for the Republican Party and Cheneny who tries to
force on Bush the promises he made to the Israeli
lobby, AIPAC.
My fear is that when the Republicans are swept from
power in Congress this Fall 2006, the Christian Right
will look for someone to blame. Because of the
neocons’ obsession with their geriatric surge of
testosterone through their incestuous “think-tank” and
publication outlets, “the Jews” will be a very
convenient outlet for blame. After all, didn’t they
crucify Jesus? Sounds dumb, but be ready to hear it a
lot!
Don’t ask for too much reason or realism in this
reaction. It is only a cover-up by the leaders to
cover their incompetence. After all, the Bush
phenomenon is a phenomenal lowering of the bar for
smarts. This is what is reminiscent of Germany circa
1930s: “Triumph of the Will” and the 2004 Scripted
Republican Convention are similar cases of showmanship
(purple band-aids and all that) showcasing homogeneity
for the Fatherland under attack– substituting, not
light, but glitz and blinding glare for brains. Since
then, our government has known little serious debate,
just the “imbecility” of polarized screeching. But
with an AIPAC front supporting an anti-Arab blare from
Congress, the neocons managed to make Likudnik and
Republican seem synonymous, according to the JERUSALEM
POST. In fact, the MASS MAJORITY of Jews are as
frightened of this phenomenon as any one else in
America. But they kept quiet for fear of making things
worse, according to the FORWARD, the Jewish newspaper
I always read for its sheer genius and prescience. For
insight, I offer the following Meirsheimer and Wald
academic paper on the AIPAC LOBBY:
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
For those not so much into academic reading with
endnotes, I offer the shorter version from the LONDON
REVIEW OF BOOKS:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
Below is an attempted retort from David Gergen, a
White House aide for several presidents:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060403/3edit.htm
The Likud perspective goes so far as to shadow US
polices with a suggestion that America adopt Israeli
ones. In that way, how can the US complain about
Israel doing the same thing that America is doing?
I offer two examples:
(1) Daniel Byman’s collaborative argumentation with
ex-Mossad (Israeli Secret Service) Chief, Dichter, on
“TARGETED KILLINGS”:
http://www.brookings.edu/printme.wbs?page=/fp/saban/analysis/byman20060324.htm
(2)The Center for Immigration Studies argued in a
Congressional “hearing” it set up that the problems in
Paris are attributable to Islamic “false loyalty” to
West as immigrants:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/frenchriotstranscript.html
As Anne Norton in her study of the Neocons suggests,
there is an “anti-Semitic” campaign by A FEW Jews–
the neocons– directed at Arabs and their access to
political influence in the US for fear that they might
balance off AIPAC. Somehow it is “kosher” to make that
an issue but not to discuss Zionist-right influence.
In the end, the mix of “imbecility” at the top and
censorship at the bottom suggests a possible repeat of
the worst– anti-Semitism– of the 20th Century as
backlash to the testosterone surge of a few
irresponsible advocates of “WW IV.” That all this is a
testosterone geriatrics (prostatitis, if you will) of
a few old guys who, contrary to their claim, speak
only for their belated hormonal surge has been more
that documented by the famous words quoted in the
media from a leading neocon, Norman Podhoretz, upon
the start of the Iraq War: Now I no longer feel like
the scrawny Jewish kid in the schoolyard always beat
up by the black kids. Whatever he may feel, he speaks
only for himself, not as the Jewish leader he pretends
to be; but as a self-avowed leader he has the
obligation to responsibly consider the backlash from
the Fundamentalist Christians when they lose power and
the Mideast goes from bad to worse for the US thanks
to neocon influence through Cheney and Rumsfeld on
Bush. The so-called “Christian Zionist Coalition”
should have been seen for what it is: a momentary tool
of political convenience that could easily backfire on
the innocent Jewish population in America, all at the
hands of the Christian Right leadership looking for a
scapegoat for their bad predictions.
Daniel E. Teodoru
Daniel Teodoru’s statements seem closer to reality as I see it than any postings in the press or on radio. One thing that he doesn’t say, but that I will, is that Bush et al are quite satisfied with the way things are going in Iraq and for that matter in the ME as a whole. They are getting what they want: control of resources and extended (personal) wealth. As far as they are concerned, there is a lot of static, but underlying the babble of voices, events are going in their favor.
I do not think at this stage it feasible to continue positing American failure in Iraq as a contingency statement (What if) rather than a factual one (What then). I also think your call for rapid, peaceful withdrawal is not feasible (and this is coming from someone who much desires it), not because it is undesirable but because the American polity has gambled so much on the Iraq project that its position in the entire gulf region and beyond would be compromised by such a withdrawal anytime soon. The genesis of this dilemma may trace back to the 1991 Gulf war, itself a culmination of a ruinous long-term policy. The American intervention then, while militarily successful, has fatefully compromised the stability of the Arab states in the region. After that, only direct American military presence could sustain the status quo. I suspect that withdrawal from Iraq would upset the entire cart and pave the way for civil strife in a number of countries in the region (Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia). Of course this domino hypothesis is similar to the one posited for South East Asia in the wake of the Vietnam war but here I think its chances of realization are much higher. There is no easy fixing of the debacle I am afraid, hence the allure of further adventurism in Iran, escape by running forward so to speak. As to the Israeli position, I think its organically tied to the American one: its fortunes would rise or fall as that of its sponsor.
Quite frankly, the issue here is what the definition of “failure” really is. In my view, the fact that the US military is on its way to establishing at least 4 at a minimum “hardened bases” in central Iraq, and the US government is building what can only be described as a city within a city that will serve as “Embassy Iraq” certainly tells me that the Americans have succeeded in establishing a permanent military and spying capability next door to Iran, where none existed before. Anyone who speaks of eventual “total withdrawal” by the US just doesn’t understand what is at stake for the Americans, and what a boon this “failed” invasion/occupation has been for their long-term “strategic interests”. I’m not even speaking of the enormous potential of Iraqi oil concessions either, although this could be taken surely as a key “success” indicator in time as well. Failure? I wonder.
I agree entirely with Helena’s view:
“I think that a failure of the Bush administration’s project in Iraq could constitute a net victory for the US citizenry, in terms of starting to re-balance our relations with the rest of the world away from imperial hegemony and back towards basic human equality.”
“Citizenry” is correct, because the failure in Iraq will deservedly be a huge net loss of face and influence for those US politicians who bowed to AIPAC/Israel’s drumbeat for this bloody tragedy. Sure, multiple motivations for Iraq can be argued, but the case for this mess being one of sacrificed US lives for Israel is a powerful one, well stated in the recent Morsheimer-Walt analysis of AIPAC/Israel’s absolutely obscene ability to pressure US higher-ups to act against the general interest of our “citizens” (those who pay taxes and die in battle).
The ultimate victory for the US “citizenry” in the struggle to “re-balance our relations” in our Near East policy, and to purge the stranglehold AIPAC/Israel have on our politicians about Near East matters, will be to rid our politics of those who cower in fear or bow in allegiance to a foreign state – Israel – when AIPAC/Israel raises an eyebrow.
It is fair to argue that the blood and treasure lost for Israel’s profit in the Iraq failure is just the latest of nearly 60 years of squalid waste of lives and tax money forced upon us by our “fear or favor” politicians who appease AIPAC/Israel pressures. Israel is an synthetic state created not by history, but by proclamation of the US and Britain, upon the land of strangers. Few foresaw the scale of treachery to our national interest that not only has been demanded by AIPAC/Israel, but acquiesced to by our own politicians, to the loss of any sensible balance in US foreign policy in the Near East. Especially since Israel’s 1967 decision to place civilian Jewish settlements in the West Bank – seen by its own advisers at the highest levels as a criminal enterprise – those in high office here have made Israel’s criminal venture into a national American cause. Yet, there is not a person in the world who can disprove the plausibility and reasonableness of the argument that but for our complicity in Israel’s criminality in the West Bank, “9/11” may never have happened.
For this we “citizens” have seen our politicians give to AIPAC/Israel’s criminal venture many American lives (the attack on the Liberty, the 280+ dead Marines in Lebanon, a high probability of the 3,000 lives lost in 9/11, and now thousands of US killed in Afghanistan and Iraq) and huge financial resources that could have been much better spent on needy programs in our homeland rather than killing off Palestinian farmers and taking their land. Just imagine how different the world would be today if in September 1967, Israel’s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol heeded the warning of his own legal counsel in the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, that to populate the West Bank was illegal by every one of numerous standards of international law [see “Israel’s Tragedy Foretold”, by Gersom Gorenberg, The New York Times, March 10, 2006].
Our politicians should have worked for us since 1967, not AIPAC/Israel – and told AIPAC/Israel straight to the face: It is not in the interest of our citizenry to escalate the tensions in the Near East by wholesale theft of what was left of Arab Palestine after 1948. But we were sold out by pliant politicians who succumbed to the AIPAC/Israel “fear or favor” approach. The impending violent and inhumane demise of Palestinian society – which will be the finale of the US/Israeli axis to crush “balance” in any matter about Israel’s criminal venture in the West Bank and Gaza – will not be the end of the sacrifices extracted from us “citizens”. We will pay for decades with lives and money for US collaboration with Israel’s primitive murder of Palestine.
Every minute you stand in line for security at the airport, just think it over – it didn’t have to be this way. And yet, as Helena notes, failure in Iraq will just be the “start” of rebalancing. Completion of the re-balancing, i.e. the recovery of our national interest as primary over the incantations of AIPAC/Israel, must be the end goal.
It is in our national interest that the Palestinian society not be reduced to a corpse – which is exactly what our politicians are doing at the behest of AIPAC/Israel. If AIPAC/Israel succeeds, Palestine’s skeletal corpse will hang in a gibbet for the world to see, forever. Among those viewing the skeletal remains will be many for whom the corpse of Palestine will be a religious desecration – a cause for unending violent revenge and spiritual retribution against the US and its citizens.
And we U.S. citizens will continue to be sacrificed and taxed because our politicians don’t have the will to protect us with a sensible balance between Palestinians and Israelis. I don’t blame “the Jews” or AIPAC/Israel – their larceny and greed are the same as that of all homo sapiens. I blame our own “fear or favor” compromised politicians – it’s their job to keep us in balance, to resist AIPAC/Israel pressures which serve only to make us targets of righteous vengeance by Gaza/West Bank survivors for decades to come. Without a “final balance” we will suffer yet more tensions and distortions of a garrisoned society, while Jews of Israel languish in their red-roofed villas built on former Palestinian olive groves. With imbalance, it is probable even more of us will die in acts to avenge those red roofs built on strangers’ lands, and it is a certainty that we will continue to finance Israel’s acknowledged criminality in Palestine before we build dikes in New Orleans.
Just remember, as you take off your shoes at airport security, it didn’t have to be this way. The issue of the moment is: When will our politicians have the courage to bring it to an end – if it’s not too late already.
A clarification of my previous post: The second to the last paragraph is corrected to read asd follows:
And we U.S. citizens will continue to be sacrificed and taxed because our politicians don’t have the will to protect us with a sensible balance between Palestinians and Israelis. I don’t blame “Jews” or AIPAC – insofar as they may be complicit in politically or financially facilitating Israel’s theft of Palestinian lands and Israel’s accompanying genocidal behaviors, their primitive greed is that of the animal homo sapiens. I blame our own “fear or favor” compromised politicians – it’s their job to keep us in balance, to resist AIPAC/Israel pressures which serve only to make us targets of righteous vengeance by Gaza/West Bank survivors for decades to come. Without a “final balance” we will suffer yet more tensions and distortions of a garrisoned society, while Jews of Israel languish in their red-roofed villas built on former Palestinian olive groves. With imbalance, it is probable even more of us will die in acts to avenge those red roofs built on strangers’ lands, and it is a certainty that we will continue to finance Israel’s acknowledged criminality in Palestine before we build dikes in New Orleans.
Timothy L,
And we U.S. citizens will continue to be sacrificed and taxed because our politicians
On Prophecy and Babylon
Where Is America in Biblical Prophecy?
Timothy L, what’s about these guys….
Salah:
Which guys??