Bush administration eminence grise Henry Kissinger told the BBC in an interview aired today that a US military victory in Iraq is now impossible.
To be precise, he said:
- “If you mean by ‘military victory,’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible.”
He also said the Bush administration needs to enter into a dialogue with all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran, in order to make any “progress” at all in the region.
At the same time, though, he warned against a rapid withdrawal of US troops… Or at least I think that’s what he was saying. All I have so far is the AP account of the interview, linked to above, which seems to conflate the idea of a rapid withdrawal of US troops with “a dramatic collapse of Iraq”. Personally, I think that’s a big mistake. It is, after all, the presence of the present US troop structure there that has led to the dramatic collapse the country has seen in the past three years.
But anyway, the fact that Henry is now urging a significant change of course– including talking with Iran and the other neighbors– means that it is now much, much more likely that this is the course the Bushites will follow. Let’s hope that’s soon. And let’s hope the new, more diplomatically inclusive policy comes close to the approach I sketched out here, nine days ago.
And from Henry, shall we have a little contrition, self-reflection, and perhaps even a mea culpa for having been so wrong about Iraq for so long? I hold my breath for it…
The BBC transcript can be found here.
There is an error in the transcript.
If Iran is a crusade that is trying to overthrow the international system as we know it, which is the way the Iranian president talks, then it will be extremely difficult to come to a negotiated solution. And then down the road some sort of consultation will occur.
consultation in bold above should read confrontation.
During my desultory days in the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent — spent vainly trying to Vietnamize the Vietnamese — we used to sardonically joke:
Q: “If President Nixon has a plan to end the war and withdraw the troops, then why do we have to go and fight in Vietnam?”
A: “You fool! Don’t you know anything about Tricky Dick? How can he possibly withdraw us from Vietnam unless he sends us there first?”
Q: “But won’t lying about his so-called 1968 plan and going back on his promise cost him his re-election in 1972?”
A: “No way, man. The American people never like to change dicks in the middle of a screwing.”
We drafted or bullied-into-enlisting bullet catchers (or, Ordnance Absorption Technicians, if you prefer) used to pass the time entertaining ourselves with stuff like that. The career lifers, of course, loved it all and couldn’t get enough.
“Don’t knock the war,” they exulted. “It’s the only one we’ve got.”
“We’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here,” we’d reply.
“Happiness is a hight body count.” “Kill a Commie for Christ.” “Kill a gook for God.” “Aw, just kill them all and let God sort it out,” they would add.
“We are the unwilling led by the unqualified to do the unnecessary for the ungrateful,” we would summarize.
And so on and on and on the interminable, never resolved arugment raged; even long after the conflict that engendered it had petered out in exhausted ignominity for America.
Thanks for monumentally less than nothing, Henry Kissinger. Regarding your influence-peddling comments echoing nothing more than the already discredited conventional “wisdom” about “victory” in Iraq, let me just introduce you to a Vietnamese victor over your vainglorious viciousness who would slightly paraphrase your insipid, inane insanity for the benefit of Iraqi patriots:
“We mean by ‘military victory,’ an Iraqi government that Iraqis can establish; whose writ runs across the whole country; that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that has absolutely nothing to do with the irrelevant political processes of the democracies and what they will or will not support. Believe us Vietnamese, it is not only entirely possible, but a virtual certainty.”
Why doesn’t this ghoulish gargoyle get a clue and stop trying to rescue his ruined reptilian reputation by helping to pile even more Iraqi corpses onto the mountain of them he already has to his eternal “credit” in Southeast Asia? And we’ve got a novice monster like Saddam Hussein on trial in a cage?
It is worth noting that neither Iraq nor the United States has a functional government at this point in time.
Excellent summation of “Bureaucratic Blowback,” John.
…the fact that Henry is now urging a significant change of course … means that it is now much, much more likely that this is the course the Bushites will follow.
Not a chance.
Don’t get me wrong, though. Everyone in the Bush administration is running for cover from the Iraq debacle including Bush himself. However, Bush cannot bring himself to admit he was wrong all along. He would much rather continue his stubborn oppostion to an exit strategy (if one were to be imposed someway or other by either Jim Baker’s group or some other set of circumstances).
Hence, once the “imposed” exit strategy fails (face it, there are no good options here), Bush can always come back and say: “See, if you all would have allowed me to stay the course, none of this would have happened”. This way he vindicates himself (in his mind). Cheney will follow the same path, too.
So the Pentagon has presented the CIC with the classic bureaucratic list of three “options,” only one of which is intended to be taken seriously. The options are: (1) a massive infusion of non-existent troops, (2) unconditional surrender and retreat, or (3) stay the course. You choose, Chief.
These kinds of offerings used to infuriate Lyndon Johnson, because he was smart enough to know that he was going down with the ship. Bush thinks the generals are reaffirming his strategy for victory.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249.html
Errrr just as a point of fact, Kissinger has never been part of the ‘Bush administration’ and wasn’t even a vocal proponent of the Iraq war.
Don’t let that get in the way of a good smear!