Politics in the US of A operates at a number of different levels. At the frothiest, most visible “top” of it are the instant spinmeisters, people who are handsomely paid by various corporate and/or ideological interests not to inform people about the world (for honestly, they often do not know much about it) but rather, to tell us what to think. One of the silliest– but also most dangerous– of these people is Charles Krauthammer, a hawkishly pro-Israeli ideologue who often seems to be providing the “talking points” for the administration itself.
If you thought Krauthammer was writing about anything connected with “the truth”, you’d have to conclude that the ISG report– which came out precisely nine days ago– was long ago discredited. Here’s what he wrote in today’s WaPo:
- [T]he long-anticipated report turned out to be, as is widely agreed, a farce. From its wildly hyped, multiple magazine-cover rollout… to its mishmash of 79 (no less) recommendations, the report has fallen so flat that the field is now clear for the president to recommend to a war-weary country something new and bold.
The study group has not just been attacked by left and right, Democrat and Republican. It has invited ridicule…
He sure isn’t telling us who “widely agreed” that the report was a farce, or who heaped “ridicule” on it. Apart from himself, that is, since the column mentions the name of no-one whose views he is citing, apart from his own. It is qute possible, however, that in the Cheney-esque and neocon circles in which he moves, many people have heaped ridicule on the report, and that is what he’s been hearing.
Certainly, Condi Rice, Tony Snow, the Prez himself, and everyone else from his inner circle who has spoken about the ISG report has tried to wave it away as “irrelevant”, or worse. That, while the Prez has been running around trying to look as though he knows what he’s doing as he tries to come up with an alternative “new approach in Iraq”, all of his very own.
Luckily, though, there’s another United States, made up of the 99.8% of the citizens who live outside Washington’s infamous Capital Beltway, far away from the Krauthammers and their ilk… And these people have their own views of things.
As we can see from the Dec. 8-11 L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll that’s at the top of the Polling Report website right now. The pollsters there asked respondents whether they thought the Prez should adopt three of the ISG’s key recommendations, and the answers for these were:
- “talking directly with Iran and Syria about the future of Iraq”: Should– 64%; Should not– 28%.
“that the US should consider cutting its military and economic support for Iraq unless the Iraqi government shows significant progress on political reforms and national reconciliation”: Should– 70%; Should not– 22%.
“reducing American troops by early 2008 and replacing them with a smaller number of troops embedded in the Iraqi military, as well as helping to train Iraqi forces”: Should– 56%; Should not– 30%.
Well, longtime JWN readers should know my views that the pullback of US troops forces from Iraq should be total, speedy, and generous. So I might well have answered “Should not” for both those latter questions… But still, I think Charles Krauthammer and those to whom he talks inside the Beltway should recognize that out here in “the country as a whole” the report has certainly not “invited ridicule.” By and large, people have taken it very seriously… And I think these conversations are continuing. I hope all our members of congress get an earful of our views while they’re home for the holidays right now!
Certainly, the ISG’s analysis and recommendations have been taken a lot more seriously than the President’s robotic insistence on “staying the course”, “continuing until victory”, etc. You can see how little trust people now have in him– especially on Iraq— from all the recent polls.
… Meanwhile, the administration itself seems to be falling into a situation of ever greater disarray. Many reports from good, well-informed journalists say that Bush is edging toward deciding on the deployment of an additional “surge” of forces to Iraq. For example,Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay wrote yesterday that,
- senior officials said the emerging strategy includes… a possible short-term surge of as many as 40,000 more American troops to try to secure Baghdad, along with a permanent increase in the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, which are badly strained by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, immediately after that, they note that: “Military commanders look warily at a surge, saying that even 20,000 more soldiers and Marines may not be available and wouldn’t necessarily help reduce Iraq’s violence.”
You can say that again! Yes, these commanders are covering their rear ends. But they’re also speaking the truth. If Bush thinks that, with Iraq where it is today, an additional 40,000 US troops could “solve” the problem, then truly he must have been smoking something strange!
So why would Bush even think of doing this? Or more to the point, why would Unca Dick let him “think” of doing it?
At one level, it might be tempting for us to surmise that Bush and Cheney both really understand that the time for the US troop deployment in Iraq is running out– very fast!– and that this last-minute “surge” might be just a way for them to be able to cover their own rear ends when they order the start of the now- inevitable substantial drawdown (or complete pullout), come March or April of next year… At which point, they would of course lay all the blame for the debacle on the Iraqis. “We gave them our very best shot!” “But those people know nothing but ancient tribal hatreds!” Etc., etc.
But the cynicism and bloodthirstiness of a scenario like this is almost beyond belief. Just remember that:
- (1) Sending more US troops in now will not calm things down inside Iraq; it will exacerbate and prolong the carnage and the severe social breakdown there.
(2) During this delay, more American troops will also be killed.
(3) Sending more US troops in will complicate the task of getting them all out later.
And all this, because of W’s bullheaded refusal to face the realities and start the pullout now.
Gore Vidal said that America doesn’t have two political parties but rather one political party with two right wings. Charles Krauthammer comes at everything from the farthest right and most rabid of those two right wings. So taking that into consideration and throwing in his venemous Likudnik (if not lunatic) Zionism as well, you would certainly expect to get from him a complete rejection of anything to do with Jim Baker, let alone “reports” urging diplomatic overtures to Iran and Syria, “evenhandedness” towards Israel and the Palestinians, or (gasp!) “Arabism.” The foam pouring continually from Krauthammer’s ears ought to alert just about anyone to the contents of his forgettable screeds.
On the other hand, the so-called “Iraq Study Group” report does receive a lot of ridicule — much of it deserved — because panic-stricken Republicans in Congress only put it together in the hopes that it would them help buy time to get safely past last month’s elections on the basis of the ISG’s vaguely worded and selectively leaked “suggestions” that George W. Bush “might” in some unknown way “conceivably” “consider” changing his disastrous policy of waging aggressive war and occupation against the nation and country of Iraq. Once safely past the election — ostensibly with their Congressional control intact — the Republicans would, naturally, have simply tossed the report aside as casually as George W. Bush has done, since he never asked for it in the first place. Only the ploy didn’t work because the American people didn’t buy it. They still don’t. The American people want this unnecessary and pointless disaster over by ten — as in bedtime tonight, not weeks or months or years down the road where George W. Bush and the Iraq Study Group obviously wish to take us. Hence much of the ridicule.
Charles Krauthammer and his ilk hate any American policy that Israel doesn’t hand down to the “trained barking seals” (as Eric Margolis calles the AIPAC-dominated U.S. Congress) but that doesn’t mean the report shouldn’t receive justifiable ridicule for completely side-stepping the only issue that most Americans (other than the Krauthammer and Deputy Dubya nutjobs) care about: namely, how many shopping days before Christmas of this year will it take to get our military forces out of Iraq and home with their families for the holidays.
Until the American government does what the American people want — and does it immediately if not sooner — it deserves all the ridicule we can heap upon it until the next opportunity to vote even more of the duplicitous cretins out of office. Scornful reaction to the ISG does come from all sides of the political environment, true; but the scorn does not come equally from all directions. That coming from the “get out now” demographic (overwhelming and growing even more so) far outweighs whatever piddling palaver comes from the likes of Charles Krauthammer, Holy Joe Lieberman, Mad Dog McCain, and You-Know-Her. A breeze wafts rightwards towards the far right lane. A hurricane blows leftwards towards the center right lane. The ISG factotems did their tepid little best to “split” the “differences” between the two right wing parties while stalling for time hoping for a miraculous end to the storm of public pressure.
Nevertheless, George W. Bush like Richard Nixon before him has no intention of letting the American people “interfere” in their own government. So look for Deputy Dubya Bush to sail with the breeze and get swamped by the storm. If someone doesn’t stop him (which the ISG certainly didn’t do), he may end up helping the wind blow further and stronger leftward than he or Charles Krauthammer can even imagine. Think Herbert Hoover here.
Helena,
I agree with your solution, but for the simple reason that Iraqis are sovereign humans, and despite Krauthammer, Kristol, Lewis and their orientalist ilk, have the right to decide for themselves. And the majority has decided that they would like to see the Americans’ backs ASAP. The self-serving nonsense coming from Talebani and Hakeem is, well, self-serving.
The ISG report is really quite hollow. It is polite imperialism. You know the same way they say that the Democrats are merely polite soft-spoken Republicans.
Your faith in “99.8%” of the American populace baffles me though. I live and work in one of the 2 largest metropolitan areas in the nation. I work in an environment where the least educated has a master’s degree and many have more than one doctoral degree. I conducted my own primitive survey over the past few days (albeit unreliable and anecdotal): from 20+ people whom I asked what they thought about the ISG recommendations, only 3 knew what I was talking about. I kid you not. And you actually believe that the mechanic in Duluth, or farmer in Sioux Falls, or coal miner in Hazard, or housewife in Peoria actually has an opinion, and an educated one? Since WWII, this country has attacked when it has won, and retreated when it has lost (better known as law of the jungle). I am not trying to sound elitist, but having fantastic beliefs regarding the consciousness of the masses is not a good idea either. It kinda sounds like the 60s hippies who thought that it was they who stopped the Vietnam War. It was the Vietcong, and in this case it will be the Iraqis. A la Saigon.
David,
Over the General George Gorge we go: General George Washington, General George Armstrong Custer, General Decider George W. Bush.
There’s almost certainly a scientific law in there somewhere. The Law of Diminishing something or other. In short, there’s an arc there – having to do with intelligence, sobriety, ego, know-they-enemyness, know-theyselfness, grasp of reality, etc. – that almost certainly will be mathematically chartable.
Let alone an ancillary one having to do with the “led”. Washington’s compatriots. Custer’s 7th. Dubya’s Murican peepul.
Which is by way of saying, my jaw’s hangin’ open. I live in another country – England – that is only in this howling disaster up to its goolies – but even so the level of awareness about what this kilo’s worth of gray matter has wrought is considerably higher than that. It could hardly be any lower, of course. Three out of twenty plus? All of them “educated”? My God, that’s a country in the deepest of doo doos.
I’d very much like to know – what is the huge metropolitan area (one of the two largest in the nation) that you’re talking about? Must be either New York or L.A. And my guess is it’s L.A. you’re talking about. Yes? No?
And the follow on question: what “news story” were your respondents up to speed with? What do they know something about?
Yours is a tantalising little vignette. Please provide some context, some background. It’ll both enrich and enhance. And no doubt depress. But these matters have to be faced. Have to be be looked at squarely and understood. Only then can you take a shot at trying to figure out what to do about it.
Many thanks.
(4) You only accomplish the “surge” by extending the deployments of people already there and speeding up the recycling of units that are slated to go back into theater. You push the armed forces closer to the breaking point.
Very, very smart post, Helena. If only our policymakers had the courage to take your advice. But that would require admitting how most have been, including many Democrats.
Paul Hughes, a former U.S. army colonel who served as an expert adviser to the Iraq Study Group, warned Friday a troop surge could place an unbearable strain on the American military and might only produce temporary stability.
Sorry Colonel that’s the goal you’re wrong, they went to Iraq to stay, to conquer Iraq not “somebody”
Not just US blood treasonous, any human being on this earth his blood treasonous Mr. Hughes you need to behave yourself to respect all humans on this earth not just Blue Blood sir.
David, thanks for contributing the results of your little workplace survey there. I do need reminding that most US citizens are not nearly as obsessed about foreign policy as I and my circle of friends/colleagues are.
I still find those poll results interesting, though. Even if– as seems likely– most respondents to the poll did not know what the ISG’s specific recommendations were (or, indeed, even what the ISG was), still, when the pollsters spelled out the substance of these three recommendations, most respondents had a view on the matter and gave a reply. You could even say the pollsters contributed a little to the sum of Americans’ knowledge regarding the report.
Expanding the knowledge-dissemination process within this vast sprawling country is evidently very important.
It should be clear that I don’t agree with all the ISG’s recs. However, I do agree with the key ones in the diplomatic arena. Because of that and because of the respect I have for, in particular Lee Hamilton,* as well as for the proposition that some form of outside political input was/is very necessary to try to prevent prolongation of the disaster in Iraq, I think the report as a whole should definitely be seriously considered and deliberated upon, as constituting the most authoritative current contribution to the national debate.
*Re Hamilton, I should note that it is not only because the last time I saw him he said he “always reads and enjoys my CSM columns” that I have such respect for him…
Again, the so-called ISG only existed to (1) help Republicans stall their way past the mid-term elections — that failed — and (2) provide political cover for the center-right Democrats to join the far-right Republicans in helping George W. Bush stall his way out of office while handing the mess in Iraq to someone else — either Mad Dog McCain or You-Know-Her. That second gambit appears to have succeeded — at least for the present.
If the Democrats stupidly finance (I won’t say “fund”) the huge boondoggle hook of an “emergency” appropirations bill Dick and Dubya’s have designed for them to swallow, then they will have sanctified the stall strategy for all intents and purposes. No Congress ever wants to do anything in an election year, so getting past this year into the one after that with enough money to keep the occupation going will thus guarantee that it continues through the rest of Deputy Dubya’s reign. Game over when Congress ponies up the first dime for Dubya’s debacle without insisting that the Republicans raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for the occupation “war” they claim America absolutely must continue.
The center-right Democrats will pay lip-service to the ISG report, since that will supposedly buy them stalling time of their own. After all, they need to figure out how to betray the common people who voted for them just as the Republicans have long since learned to do. Not for nothing did my wise old Depression-era mother teach me life’s greatest political lession: namely, that “a vote for a Republican is a vote against yourself.” Now that the Democrats have become a second right-wing party in their own right (no pun intended), that admonition probably applies to them as well. If they don’t cut off funding and end the occupation of Iraq forthwith, then no doubt will possibly remain about the regularly scheduled betrayal.
Oh, yes. For those who like it in subversive verse as well as the vitriolic vernacular, I’ve got “Boobie Last Chance Scenarios” and “Boobie Bozo Bellicosity” at the usual place.
To paraphrase Wayne Gretzky, y’all should pay attention to where Dick & W are going, not where they’ve been. Iraq? Been there, done that. 2007 is the year of Iran. I’ve been holding a lonely vigil down under the Cordesman post, trying to rationalize the various strategic threads winding through the current Washington discourse. As I pointed out there, you’ve got three basic strategies, roughly represented by (1) the ISG (negotiate with Iran), (2) the Pentagon (negotiate with the so-callled “insurgents”), and (3) Dick & W (bomb Iran). Of these groups, one holds the office of Commander in Chief. Who do you think wins that debate?
I highly recommend this article by Indian General Vinod Saighal to those who want to understand the strategic context of the coming war with Iran. Is it crazy? Yes. Is it going to happen? Probably.
As I once wrote:
“Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, a former psychiatrist who studied paranoia and now practices it”
I live in the largest metro area in the U.S., and while I’m not surrounded by people as educated as David’s coworkers, my friends and colleagues aren’t exactly illiterate either. According to my own informal survey (inspired before I read of David’s by something I saw on PBS), pretty much everyone in New York had heard of the ISG report and knew it was critical of BushCo. No one I asked had actually read it, however, (two people had downloaded it to “read later), and no one thought it was worth spending a lot of time on. Asked why, everyone — and this included one “pro-war” Republican — said pretty much, “Nothing can solve this war. It’s a waste of time even thinking about it.”
So, in response to Tupharsin, I’d like to say, yes, we are in deep doo-doo. But not because of apathy, but rather, because our brightest, most committed citizens have lost faith in their politicians, at least when it comes to big global issues like the so-called WoT or the Iraq Civil War. All anyone asks these days — and no one asks even this with much hope — is that the U.S. stop doing harm. The possibility of the U.S. actually doing good somewhere outside its borders is seen as not just naive, but probably an anachronism.
Thanks all for contributing to a very serious and informative discussion here.
I just note the absence here of contributions from JWN’s friendly representatives of the main political trend that worked long tirelessly to get us into this horrible war in Iraq in the first place and that continues to do ditto to jerk us into attacking Iran. Yes, that wd be our friendly local hasbaristas.
I imagine they (you) are not all observant Jews, and hence it is not only Shabbos restrictions that keep you away from contributing here? Let’s hope it might be some flickerings of shame as to what the pro-Israel crowd has done 3,000 American families, to the whole population of Iraq, and to the rest of the world through its shameless warmongering prior to 2003.
Let’s hope, further, that some of those flickerings of shame will now hold some of you back today from continuing to practice what Meron Benvenisti diagnosed so appropriately back in 2002 as the rampant bellophilia of Israel and its supporters around the world…
But to all those who are contributing here, again, thanks. I know many of you view the ISG report differently from the way I view it, and our discussion here is really a rich one.
Bernard: special appreciation for your characterization of CK!
“Many reports from good, well-informed journalists say that Bush is edging toward deciding on the deployment of an additional “surge” of forces to Iraq.”
…
“So why would Bush even think of doing this? Or more to the point, why would Unca Dick let him “think” of doing it?”
…
“And all this, because of W’s bullheaded refusal to face the realities and start the pullout now.”
Helena, I am aghast at your outrage given your apparent strong support for the ISG and its recommendations! Have you forgotten that the “August” ISG (which, not surprisingly, contained not a single expert, or even “expert” on Iraq) stated in their report that they would support just such a “surge”, or did I just imagine I heard that? (Granted, they said this immediately after stating very accurately why it made absolutely no sense to increase the troops, which looks to me like a contradiction, but what the hell, these are the wisest minds in the country, so how can they be wrong, even when they contradict their own wise statements?)
This is one of several reasons I just do not understand your apparent support for the ISG and its recommendations.
Helena — I’mn surprised you are impressed with Lee Hamilton. In the end he was useless in bringing to justice the lawbreakers in the Iran-Contra affair, so naturally they drag him out again when they need cover for their Iraq fiasco.
PS Someone may already have mentioned this (I have not had a chance to read all the comments yet), but I heard yesterday that there has been an order for a large (tens of thousands, as I recall) troop deployment to Kuwait. So, there is your answer. You can be sure those guys will be busily terrorizing and slaughtering Iraqis and destroying things in Baghdad within a few weeks. My guess is they will start by leveling poor old Sadr City (formerly known as Saddam City, and even more formerly known as Al Thawra).
Helena,
If you thought Krauthammer was writing about anything connected with “the truth”,
Speaking about who got paid to speak … tell me those experts, ME specialists all of them what they doing working with big names from Media Analysers, Strategic Centres or Researches…etc, all they paid to reflect the views who paying them this is common in US and around the world.
I just like to ask, is GWB really is the man in position of all this big dissensions? Do you believe in his ability? or there are a small group “Hidden Group” setting some where planing for the big things feeding the words to GWB mouth, we all do think he is the one to blame…..The Dictator GWB!
I think I tried to make clear that the main source of my (still highly qualified) support for the ISG report lay in its strong advocacy for a negotiations approach to the challenge of getting the US troops out of Iraq, such as would include Iran and Syria and thereby render impossible– okay, much harder– the launching of a military attack on Iran. I also appreciated the strength of the report’s denunciation of the presnt situation in Iraq and the present policies being pursued by W.
And it was good that they foregrounded the need for diplomacy.
Yes, I know they said a short surge might be one possibility– actually, that was much more in the (cynical) spirit of “one last pretense at solving this militarily and then let’s get outa here.”
It is true that none of the ISG members themselves are regional specialists. However, most of it was written by Ed Djeridjian who works for Baker and certainly is a regional specialist.
Glass one-third full or glass two-thirds empty? I like to recognize the good things in the report while saying– of course– that the policy still needs to be shifted a great deal further than they recommend…
“The ISG report is really quite hollow. It is polite imperialism.”
Well said. Its recommendations regarding Iraq amount to accomplish the ends by other means. It is NOT, repeat NOT, as many appear to think it is, any kind of exit strategy. Not by any stretch of credulity. It is a way to remain in Iraq, while attempting to maintain the U.S. death (literally, as it happens) grip on Iraqi economy, military, and politics.
Its value lies mainly in the rather devastating analysis of the state of the project in Iraq, and a few of the recommendations concerning Israel, plus its historic validation of the Palestinian right of return and the need to deal with it.
Helena, I understand that in some respects the ISG report might look like a step in the right direction, and I agree that some of the recommendations that do not directly (or even all that indirectly) involve Iraq are valuable, such as talking to as opposed to bombing Iran and Syria, and a few other things I have mentioned already. However, the recommendations concerning Iraq are what concern me. What is needed is not a “way forward” in Iraq, but a way out of Iraq, and anyone who actually believes that the ISG recommendations have anything to do with a way out needs to read them more critically. I repeat, they are about accomplishing the economic, military, and political ends by other means.
And as much as I despise the corrupt despotic warlord Jalal Talibani (who personifies the word opportunist), I have to agree with his statement that the ISG reprot is an insult to Iraqis in just about every imaginable way, and undermines any possibility of Iraq as a sovereign state. Perhaps I will have time to organize my thoughts on that and write something about it this weekend. (But first I have to finish unpacking and clearing the clutter from last month’s trip – I am so bad about that kind of thing!)
“Go big, go long, go wide: Bush’s no-exit options for Iraq 16 Dec 2006 20:06 GMT
… as he tries to change direction in Iraq, leaving him with a list of modest … wants the ability to mobilize Guard and Reserve troops more frequently than is now allowed; … elite by guaranteeing them a share of oil revenue and reversing the previous policy of which …”
Note: needs login
http://energy.einnews.com/news.php?wid=106291415
Shirin,
Read this please
ياليت كل رجالنا مثل نادية فارس
http://www.kitabat.com/i23165.htm
President bush has an incredible capacity for confusing certitude with certainty. The man is almost information proof. Certitude is a necessary trait for military commanders and should ideally stem from knowledge and wisdom. Unfortunately for us, Bush gets his from Faith.
We can do little for the next two years but witness this bloody slog.
The United States risks being stuck in a “quagmire” in Iraq unless the Bush administration changes strategy, a Democratic member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said on Saturday.
Former Defense Secretary William Perry said the United States “is being torn apart by the controversy over the American military presence in Iraq.”
“The term ‘quagmire’ recalls one of the saddest periods in American history, which we do not want to relive. But I believe that is likely to happen if we ‘stay the course’ in Iraq,” Perry said during the Democrats’ weekly radio address.
Leave you with The top news, photos, and videos of 2006.
“Bush is the Napoleon of our age, trampling on whole peoples, a Jacobin Emperor mouthing the slogans of liberty and popular sovereignty while crushing and looting those he “liberated.” And Kagan and Kristol (playing Talleyrand 1798) and Emperor Bush are readying a further slaughter of our US troops, 24,000 of whom have been killed or wounded, and of innocent Iraqis, 600,000 of whom have been killed by criminal and political violence since spring of 2003.
And you thought a mere election would make a difference. No one had to elect the American Enterprise Institute. No one needs to crown the emperor, he can do it himself. Welcome to Year 1 of the Empire.”
posted by Juan @ 12/15/2006 06:29:00 AM 39 comments
As someone who lived in NYC for several years, I have to agree with the above poster who says that many people there, while not quite illiterate or supportive of our imperialistic policy in the Middle East, still are largely apathetic or feel deeply disconnected from their political leaders. Hell, one of my friends even decided not to vote for the midterms because he was positive that a Democrat would be elected anyway, and didn’t see the point of wasting his time. This is just an example of the attitude I often found people taking, namely an attitude that acknowledges that our leadership is largely corrupt but that we are powerless to do anything about it. Obviously there are major exceptions, as can be seen in the protests and (perhaps) in the “Fuck Bush” signs written all over the city. But it is a general trend that I have observed both in NYC and among those who I consider to be of a liberal persuasion.
Chaps
I referred to the Thirty Years War in an ealier post. If I ever feel the need to read into a fiendish piece of complexity, then I dig out my books.
Andrew Sullivan provides an overview and explanation in this morning’s Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2508062,00.html
It puts the chatter in Washington into context.
The thing that is of interest to the Europeans with between 2% and 5% of their population of North African or Middle Eastern or Muslim Origin is whether it will spread to here.
We used to say that the thirty years of low level killing in Northern Ireland was the last active part of the Thirty Years war.
“the ISG report is an insult to Iraqis in just about every imaginable way, and undermines any possibility of Iraq as a sovereign state.”
Another thing Talibani said was that Iraq was treated in the report as a colony. The point is, that, whatever selfish motives Talibani may have had in saying this, no one who read the report can deny he’s right in this. Here we have, in the ISG report, the nobility of the American Empire, spelling out how to tweak Iraq in order to make it more hospitable for the remaining cohorts of the Imperial Guard, who will stay at least as long as is necessary to make sure that Iraq’s immense resources are safe (for the Empire). They speak of moving certain government activities from one Ministry to another, of laws that have to be written, of “sovereign” governments (that of Iraq) that have to “reorganize” the economy, especially the oil industry, in such a way as to please the Dimwit Emperor in Washington and his nobility of Senators and CEO’s (I left out the Representatives, but only because they don’t alliterate and would spoil the rhythm). There’s not even an attempt in the report to conceal the blatant neocolonial character of the document. No need to. After all, it’s written for “us”, not for “them”, and “we” don’t see things like that in documents like this. “They” do, of course. But so what?
The first draft of the Neocon reply to the ISG, a plan for victory by F.W. Kagan, is available at the AEI website. Since the ISG Report gave W nothing that was “actionable” and wasted pages on contrition, caution, and the resumes of its council of bigwigs, the AEI manifesto has obvious advantages.
Two things to say about the “surge” strategy: 1) if not tried, McCain and conservatives will blame US failure in Iraq on the Dems and a failure of nerve, and voters in 2008 may believe them; 2)tried and it fails, McCain and conservatives will still assail the Dems, but no one wil believe them, and the Dems will be less compelled to pick a hawkish candidate.
In short, people who want the US to get out of Iraq fast should pray the hawks get their chance. If it fumbles, their constituency will collapse, and they will be the first to lead the redeployment. Otherwise, the “moderates” in favor of a phased retreat will either lose in 2008 or be forced to keep us in Iraq 10 years in order to fend off the hawks and save face.
Americans support Bush they way they do a football coach. The gruff guy loses support if the team loses, makes a comeback if it wins, but is sure to get fired only if he finishes the season 0-10. The successor will disavow the fired coach’s methods only if it is absolutely clear to the fans that the old guy called all the shots and made all the mistakes. The ISG Report recommendations muddy the responsibilities without any promise of a win. Bush will never admit defeat unless given one last (and fortunately finite) chance to blow things bad.
Former NSC analyst Flynt Leverett wonders:
“Why this week — after the Baker study group, when pressure is on them to rethink their position on Iran — why do they not want this op-ed, based on my experiences in government, my experience dealing with Iran, with Iranian officials, after I left government? Why do they not want this op-ed going in the New York Times this week? I think it says something, and I think it says something about just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC [National Security Council] will stoop to try and limit the dissemination of arguments critical of the administration’s policy.”
Well gee Flynt, maybe it’s because of your view that attacking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and promoting regime change in Tehran are “strategically weak and potentially dysfunctional” options, and that we should be negotiating a “grand bargain” to resolve a host of issues.
“Another thing Talibani said was that Iraq was treated in the report as a colony.”
That’s it in an nutshell.
Jkoc, I am so outraged at your support for a “surge” based on your own domestic self interest that I can hardly find words to formulate a reply.
So, it’s ok with you to send tens of thousands of additional American troops to Baghdad terrorize and slaughter my relatives and friends there, and to destroy their property and lives because you see it as necessary for your party to win in 2008? (Nevermind putting more American troops in harms way – I really don’t care about them because they, at least, have a choice to go or refuse.) You are, then, no better than those who think it is just fine to terrorize and slaughter Iraqis and destroy their property and lives in order to achieve their ambition for world dominance. You both see Iraq and Iraqis as your personal tools to be used to achieve your political goals.
Reprehensible is not adequate. Despicable is not adequate. I can’t think of an adequate word for it. Save us all from “liberals” like you. You are as dangerously self-centered as the neocons.
Morally bankrupt Democratic leader Harry Reid willing to do or say anything:
“Senator Reid made clear that his support for a troop increase depended on its being linked to an overall withdrawal plan. ‘We have to change course in Iraq,’ he said on the ABC News program ‘This Week.’ But in the meantime, Mr. Reid said, Democrats would ‘give the military anything they want.'”
I’m gonna have a couple more drinks now, which is OK because it’s linked to my plan to quit drinking after the holidays. In the meantime, bartender, keep ’em comin’.
“In short, people who want the US to get out of Iraq fast should pray the hawks get their chance.”
This is stupid. You don’t end murder by killing some more.
And we cannot base “home team” political decisions with no regard for the well-being of other people on our planet.
Anyone who has paid attention to the Iraq public opinion surveys conducted by the Universities of Michigan and Maryland, by Gallup and CNN/USA Today should be able to predict the failure of ‘the surge’.The more contact the Iraqi public has with the occupation, the less they like it. A larger minority of Shi`a tolerate it than Sunni, but both Islamic sects have large Arab majorities for resistance.
Relying on an election in Iraq in which public opposition to the occupation was censored by American troops
would be like legitimizing a US election while censoring debate of taxes, health care or education.
A ‘surge in troop levels’ isn’t sending a guarantee that Iraqis will become more like South Koreans,it is only stoking the Iraqi rage a little higher.
I prefer the term ‘Vietnam War type of self-delusion that escalation will ensure victory’.
In the meantime, bartender, keep ‘me coming’.
John C. enjoy your time, but for our families and friends in Iraq unfortunately they are bleeding blood because of your country and UK that the 2nd lair their prising the fake democracy he set with those killers and doggy personalities.
You need to remember each candle you light Iraqi suffering and bleeding , please take any actions that you see to get those in power hear your loud vices to stop their war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan
A few of my family member flee out for some time hope things come down…
Who we can trust now the old lair speaking can we believe in these series of liars?
““We have tried this surge of troops over the summer” and it didn’t work, Powell said, referring to an operation in which the U.S. shifted more troops into Baghdad to help local forces break a cycle of attacks and reprisals between Sunni and Shiite Muslim factions. The U.S. military has acknowledged that effort wasn’t successful as bombings and other violence in the capital continues.
Additions to the 140,000 U.S. military personnel now in Iraq would have to be created by extending duty tours for some soldiers and Marines already there or accelerating the arrival of forces scheduled to go, Powell said. He said he agreed with General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, who told lawmakers last week that the Iraq war has strained the military’s ability to wage the global war on terrorism.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0kk9WiaajU0&refer=home
U.S. Occupation Soldier Teaching Iraqi Children English?
Comment
(Keep in mind that 150,000 or so of these guys are gonna come home)
No wonder that, apart from their families, everybody wants them in body bags !!
mojoetrex | 12.15.06 – 4:37 pm | #
JES – I’d like to know what you think of Madame Wurmser’s ideas here, that y’all blew it by attacking the wrong country.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3340750,00.html
Since the Wurmsers have such great ideas for Israel, I really think your government should offer them incentives to move there. Please.
John,
I am not a big fan of Meyrav Wurmser’s political ideas. That said, I think that here MEMRI site offers an important service. (Of course, I’d expect you’d question its content because of Ms. Wurmser’s involvement – but feel free to tell me if I’m wrong in this assumption.)
I’m actually surprised JES is reading this thread. I was sure he’d be struggling with guilty feelings over the Iraq war as Helena surmised, softening maybe his secret urge to invade and annex Syria and Iran (hah!). Or sneaky Joshua, who was so dedicated to the cause of Zionist bellophilia that he marched against the Iraq war and voted against George Bush twice, just to throw off the scent.
Kudos to Helena for another astute generalization! Good Shabbos (sic) to one and all — but especially the Jews….next year in Damascus!
next year in Damascus!
“I think that here MEMRI site offers an important service”
JES, I see that it is useful for propaganda purposes. What other service does it provide?
Vadim, I hope you guys really are a peace lovin’ bunch who just want us all to get along. That would be swell. So why not take this opportunity to state your reasons for opposing any military action against Iran or Syria? Joshua and JES, you guys just join right in.
PEACE NOW, right guys?
Just to say these guys keep telling they not support war in Iraq or they looking for peace with their neighbours they are “Peace Loving People” as one of the group said in this space a long time ago.
So I would say to all our friends its obvious these are group will never and they have not have the will to set down and talk peacefully with the rest of us all who really looking concerning and caring of human tragedies, regrettably we have them her with their noisy words and talks and their war loving attitude.
In this ” Hanukkah ” I hope this group come to the peaceful roads and thoughts joins the rest of us who care about the human and human lives any where in this world
God Bless all
why not take this opportunity to state your reasons for opposing any military action against Iran?
Sure thing! I’m sympathetic to the arguments (presented in greater detail here: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB629.pdf ) of the SSI’s Henry Sikolski and Shlomo Brom, two other Zionist bellophiles who didn’t get Helena’s imaginary “Let’s Bomb Iran” memo we friends of Israel have been circulating. It’s a bit longer than “Peace Now” but then most intelligent analysis would be. I also think any military action against either country is highly unlikely, notwithstanding the fervid imaginingsof the Israelophobes among us.
Salah, I’d no more characterize Zionists as uniformly “peace loving” than condemn the Arabs as jihad-loving anti-semites. Unlike yourself I assume that most people want peace the same amount.
Thanks Vadim. I am truly glad that, for whatever reason, you are opposed to military action against Iran or Syria. You did mean “or Syria,” right? I’m afraid I disagree with you that such action is highly unlikely. I think the Cheney government has backed itself into a corner with no viable options other than attack or retreat. And retreat ain’t on the menu.
I’ll try to read the Sikolski piece, but I don’t know if I can handle all those words without any pictures!
If you’ve misplaced your copy of the “Let’s Bomb Iran” memo, you can get another one right here. Or you might prefer this version.
Seriously, I really am glad to hear you don’t go along with these guys.
Helena, Tupharsin, Matt in NYC:
Yes, my primitive, unscientific and completely anecdotal poll was conducted in a university hospital in the LA area [Regarding whether greater LA or NYC areas has a larger population, it depends on at what diameter you draw the “suburbia circle”: a smaller circle will make NYC larger, a wider circle LA – quite irrelevant though]. The polled were all MDs, MD-PhDs or MSc level scientists. The question was posed as something like “What do you think about the ISG report that came out about Iraq this week?” The negative answers ranged from “I am not sure what you are talking about” to “I have heard about it, but don’t know what it says” to “Oh yeah, they were talking about it on NPR, so what is it again?” Of the 3/21 who knew about it, two knew from the news and one had read parts of it. IMHO, the discrepancy between my crowd and Matt’s may stem from the facts that (1) scientists, especially in the medical field, are notoriously politically illiterate in the US, or (2) The LA area is famous for its superficial stupidity, or (3) Matt’s survey was conducted within 5 miles of ground zero, and the effect till lingers on there, or probably a combination thereof.
Which reminds me of a similar silly project a friend and I conducted while living in Boston. We asked undergrad students in the Harvard yard (a mile or so from MIT) what they thought of Chomsky. Of those that didn’t refuse to talk to us, (this was post-9/11) a whopping 7/45 knew his name!
Helena, what do you think about the new Eliot Abrams-Iran connection? Wasn’t Hamilton ultimately partly involved in letting him off the hook? Am I being paranoid?
And about the above comments by Shirin, Salah and others about which “experts” they talked to (and most importantly didn’t talk to – The Iraqis!) have you noticed their list of experts at the end. So many from Brookings, Saban, Hoover, … It is surprising that the AEI is responding; are their positions really that different from the folks across the river at Saban? Or is this some classic DC theatrics? And isn’t Reid’s position interesting? Probably the same political calculations a stated above. When it comes to Dems and Reps, I have always preferred cursing bullies to polite and soft-spoken ones; at least everyone knows where they stand.
the Arabs as jihad-loving anti-semites.
Report: Islamophobia Hinders Muslims’ Lives in Europe
Winkler said Muslims are not given equal chances for housing and education in Europe
Winkler said Muslims are not given equal chances for housing and education in Europe
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2275846,00.html
the Arabs as jihad-loving anti-semites.
Report: Islamophobia Hinders Muslims’ Lives in Europe
Winkler said Muslims are not given equal chances for housing and education in Europe
Winkler said Muslims are not given equal chances for housing and education in Europe
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2275846,00.html
I really am glad to hear you don’t go along with these guys.
John my friend, anything I can do to help you sleep easier at night is worth my time. On that note I’ve one other first hand observation/piece of trivia that may comfort you. I’m not alone in doubting the imminence of an Iran war; my view is shared by the global oil markets, since the “fear premium” (defined for these purposes by crude oil’s implied volatility, but also manifested in shipping, insurance and storage rates) is at historically low levels, going out many years into the future. Put another way: if the oil interests you hold accountable for so many of the worlds ills are planning or even suspect another imminent war, they wouldn’t be betting so massively against the likelihood of one occurring now or any time soon. Someone’s full of hot air, and I’m guessing its the guy (or guys and gals) with no money on the table. Saber-rattling columnists and their hyperventilating enablers included.
Speaking of enablers, seems to me that Helena’s been peddling an ‘imminent’ Iran invasion for some time now:
“Hiroshima + 60 , meet Teheran??” 7/26/05
“Hersh on possible US nuclear attack on Iran” – 4/8/06
“Anyone want to bomb Iran?” – 11/20/06
“Zelikow: What does he know?” – 11/28/06
When last the topic last arose, she was wringing her hands over “final advance planning for a military strike against Iran that may be fairly imminent.” So: it’s been a month, have we dropped the big one yet? Can I come out of the shelter now?
As far as Syria goes, I don’t think anyone at AEI is advocating military action there. Which isn’t to say you couldn’t produce one or two counterexamples from within the Zionist conspiracy, simply that such opinions aren’t mainstream even among Israel-loving bellophiles.
“Someone’s full of hot air”
You may be right, and I hope you are. But the market is an unreliable crystal ball. For one thing, there is always somebody on the other side of every deal, betting against you. It takes a lot of little losers to make one big winner.