Ramazani: “Surging Backward”

We have featured several essays by R.K. Ramazani here before, and I am happy to draw attention to his latest pithy oped entitled, “Bush’s ‘new way leads backward.”
Ramazani, like most “independent” (e.g., “outside the beltway”) academic observers of the Gulf, is not impressed with President Bush’s plans to add 20 thousand or so additional US troops into the Iraq maelstrom. Deeming the President’s plan as charting “a way backward,” rather than forward, the Bush surge

“promises to deepen the quagmire in which America finds itself. And it carries the enormous risk of widening the theater of war to the detriment of American interests in the Middle East.”

Then and now, blind arrogance guides the Bush-Cheney Administration:

The president made his decision in defiance of counsel from military experts and experienced field commanders. Just as in 2003, when he dismissed the warning of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the army chief of staff, that occupation forces at the time were too small, he recently ignored the view of Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the Central Command, that troop increases were no answer in Iraq.
The president also flouted the advice of civilian experts, most notably, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. The study group’s report urged the Bush administration to set a goal of early 2008 for the withdrawal of almost all U.S. combat troops.
The Bush administration failed equally to heed the message of the mid-term congressional elections, a message heard loud and clear in the halls of the new Congress. The day after the president’s State of the Union address, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, by a vote of 12-8, repudiated his plan to send more troops to Baghdad.
Yet on the same day, Vice President Dick Cheney voiced the president’s defiant stance. He said: “We are moving ahead… . [T]he president has made his decision.”

But can such arrogance prevail “in the face of deepening frustration” of publics at home and abroad? Ramazani cites polling data indicating a strong majority of Americans oppose increased deployments of troops to Iran. He then contends that the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of protestors who recently took to the cold streets of Washington “were reminding legislators that the people had elected them and expected them to act as a check on the executive branch.”


This “burgeoning anti-war movement at home parallels the growing opposition around the world to the Bush administration’s new strategy:

Sixty percent of the respondents in a World Public Opinion poll conducted in 33 countries believe that “the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks around the world.” And 73 percent of the respondents in 25 countries polled oppose the troop increase. They think “the U.S. military presence in the region provokes more conflict than it prevents.”

Apart from public sentiment, Ramazani questions whether the already tried-and-failed strategies to redeploy troops will work this time. Ths “prospects of failure loom larger this time,” on several counts:

There is no recruitment of new troops. Soldiers are being redeployed – for the second, third and even fourth time. They do not complain in public, but their families increasingly do.

Unless I was seeing things in the Washington protests, both active duty and reserve military personnel – and their families – are emerging who are no longer willing to swallow the pablum fed to them by their poltical leadership. Recall too that the nail in Rumsfeld’s coffin was provided by the establishment Army Times (sic), which bluntly called for his removal, even before the elections!
On a personal note, I have it from a first hand source that parts of our Army National Guard here in Virginia are severely understaffed, especially at the officer level. One unit currently has only one Lieutenant out of the required five, and that one was recently assigned to it. The original five left after the unit got back from its first year long deployment to Iraq last spring. No matter; signs are already in place that this shell of a unit is being slotted for re-deployment next year. As recent commanders have already testified, America’s Guard is already “broken.”
Even if the U.S. can find/retain/draft the needed forces at our end, Ramazani writes that, “the president’s new strategy requires joint battlefield operations by Iraqi and American troops.” And that’s an as yet unproven concept.

“The Iraqi government has failed previously to come up with the needed levels of Iraqi troops, clearly demonstrating its resentment of the American presence. Moreover, Prime Minister Nuri Kemal al-Maliki shared his unhappiness with the president’s security plan last November in Jordan; he remained silent after the president announced his troop surge decision in a televised speech on Jan. 10; and he offered only a grudging endorsement of the new strategy in the name of a common “vision” with America.
In Washington, doubts about al-Maliki’s willingness or ability to cooperate fully with the United States persists. Will he curb Shia militias, especially those loyal to the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, on whose support the al-Maliki government depends? Some members of the Bush administration are already discussing alternative leadership for the Iraqi government, possibly focusing on Adel Abdul Mahdi, deputy to the powerful cleric Abdul Aziz Hakim, who has ties to the White House.
And on the ground in Iraq, the joint American-Iraqi battlefield operations face formidable obstacles. One of the toughest problems is creating a clear and direct chain of command under chaotic battlefield conditions. Vastly different levels of competence between the American and Iraqi troops are compounded by difficulties in communication between the two sides because of differences in language and culture.”

In short, this isn’t Star Trek. We don’t have universal translators. And even if we had more than a handful of soldiers with advanced Arabic understanding and sensitivity, would they be able to get a word in edgewise with their commanders?
Most ominously to Ramazani, who in his 54-year-career has earned recognition as “The Dean” of Iranian foreign policy studies,

The intensification of the U.S. war in Iraq parallels the expansion of the U.S. conflict with Iran, an expansion contrary to the recommendation of the Study Group to engage Iran. American forces in Iraq arrested and released Iranian diplomats last December after protests by the Iraqi government. Despite objections by the Iraqi government, the U.S. military continues to hold five other Iranians after raiding their liaison office in Irbil. President Bush has authorized the American military to “kill or capture” Iranians suspected of fueling the sectarian war.

The present buildup of US forces in the Persian Gulf and the lining up of Sunni Arab Kings, Sheikhs, and dictators against the presumed “Shia arc” risks “widening the war in the Middle East.” It takes us back to where we were in 1987 – times ten.

Still, the Bush administration paints a rosy picture of its new Iraq strategy – just as it did of its old Iraq strategy. In his CNN interview Cheney said, “The bottom line is that we’ve had enormous successes and we will continue to have success.”

Ramazani instead sees “profound challenges” for America. Yet ever the Jeffersonian optimist, the Professor offers that “such challenges could be met” – that a way genuinely forward – could be found, IF (for starters) President Bush…

* treated Congress with respect.
* recognized past mistakes in setting unachievable goals using inappropriate means.
* considered the lesson of the first Persian Gulf War, when the exclusion of Iran from the post-war regional security arrangement harmed long-term American interests in the region.
* genuinely worked with Congress to find an honorable way out of the Iraqi morass and advance the national interests of the United States in the wider Middle East.

And as I anticipate Professor Ramazani will sketch in his next essay, that honorable road out of Baghdad runs, at least in part, through Tehran….

14 thoughts on “Ramazani: “Surging Backward””

  2. FYI, see the following *tongue-in-cheek on-line Nation poll regarding the scenario selected as most likely to come from the Bush-Iraq War:
    The choices: Lebanon goes to hell; Bush attacks Iran; Congress gets serious; Bush gets prosecuted for war crimes; and the Saudis invite the US to takeover their country too….
    http://www.thenation.com/poll/poll013107
    :-}

  3. The battle to save Iraq’s children
    Doctors issue plea to Tony Blair to end the scandal of medical shortages in the war zone
    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2165470.ece
    “The “civilised” West only cries “HUmanity” when it suits its self-interest. Ove rthe decades, we have read and listended to numerous Western (especially Anglo-Saxon) “thinkers” and politicians pride themselves (and implicitly taunt others) over the impressive “humanitarian” records of their nations and cultures, always making a point of enumerating all the attorcitites committed by otehr races and their governments against their own people. The phrase “In the East, life is cheap” is regurgitated often enough by such self-satisfied ignorant characters in the Western (especially Anglo-Saxon) world.”,/i>

  4. Aswat al Iraq is reporting that operation “Rule of Law” has begun in Baghdad with a “siege”. It sounds like the plan is to isolate areas of the city, set up checkpoints, and keep people out while they comb the encircled area for ‘insurgents’.
    There are also puzzling reports about the US and Iraqi forces abducting an Iranian or not abducting him. I can’t tell precisely what happened and the report on Aswat al Iraq is that the incident is being denied by someone in the Iraqi government.

  5. من جهة اخرى كشفت مصادر في الاستخبارات العسكرية الاميركية ان جمال جعفر محمد النائب في البرلمان العراقي من كتلة نوري المالكي محكوم عليه بالاعدام في الكويت لضلوعه في عملية تفجير السفارتين الاميركية والفرنسية عام 1983.
    http://www.asharqalawsat.com/details.asp?section=3&article=405329&issue=10298
    This is will rise eyebrows,
    Translation:
    US military Intelligence leak that Jamal Ja’afer Mohammad, an Iraqi Parliament member from Maliki block was sentenced to death penalty in Kuwait for his involvement of bombing US and France embassies in 1983!!
    So if US hunting for these criminals who bombes US embassies and US citizens why then this guy supported protected by US in Iraq?
    Any one from you Americans can give us details and clues?

  6. “The commander of this vast terror network in Iraq is Jamal Jafar Mohammad Ali Ebrahimi also known as “Mehdi Mohandes” who also uses the Iranian name Jamal Ebrahimi. In the 1980’s, as an experienced operative of a terrorist group, he was dispatched to Kuwait to plan the bombing of US and UK embassies. He is on the wanted-list of Interpol since 1984 and has since remained inside Iran.”

  7. I think it’s hilarious that whenever the official militia of the Iraqi puppet government does something that our government doesn’t want to openly acknowledge, all the US news media uniformly report it as the actions of “armed men wearing Iraqi military uniforms.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR2007020600186.html
    I wonder when the LAPD will pick up on this technique? Next time 10 or 15 of them are caught on video beating the crap out of some helpless black man, I expect to read that “armed men wearing police uniforms” were observed committing the act.
    “What I would tell you is there’s really a gap right now between what we know and what we’re willing to discuss,” says General Caldwell. Given that, I think they should stop discussing Iran’s involvement in Iraq until they know something.

  8. لا يفهم اي مراقب معني أن يبدأ تنفيذ خطة امن بغداد علي وقع مهاجمة الدول العربية المجاورة بالتصريح كالقول ان سوريا تصدّر نصف الارهاب الي العراق او بالتلميح إلي ان دول الجوار هي نسخ من الديكتاتورية التي كانت في العراق.
    لماذا تصاحب الحملة الجديدة علي العرب حملة الخطة الامنية. أهو شعور باطني بعدم رضا الدول العربية علي ما سيتم فعله في بغداد أم هو محاولة استباقية لردود أفعال علي »أخطاء حتمية« ستقع في اثناء المباشرة بالخطة أو ربّما علي أخطاء خارج الخطة؟
    أجندة حشد التأليب علي العرب وحقنه في نفوس كوادر الدولة من الجيش والمؤسسات الأخري السياسية والحزبية، هي عملية تبييت مسبقة لترسيمات معينة لنمط العلاقة مع الدول العربية التي شعرت بالخوف من التجربة »العراقية« منذ السياسة الاعلامية لحكومة ابراهيم الجعفري التي ركزت علي العناصر الطائفية لحماية التكوينات المرتبطة به وللرد علي هجوم افتراضي من العرب الذين كانوا يحيلون الي الابتعاد عن الشأن العراقي بعد استحواذ ايران علي المشهد وصعود النعرات العنصرية والطائفية المزدوجة والمتحركة حسب الحاجة الظرفية ضد العرب الذين كانوا الي شهور ماضية شركاء الولايات المتحدة في ازالة النظام العراقي السابق واصحاب اليد الصغيرة او الكبيرة في وصول الوضع السياسي العراقي الي »ما وصل إليه«!
    حالة العراق أصبحت دولية شئنا أم أبينا ليس اليوم وانما منذ ان شاركت معظم دول العالم في حملة الحرب علي البلد واحتلاله ومنذ أنْ استخدمت شركات الأمن الأجنبية في حماية المسؤولين العراقيين. وليس غريباً ان تبقي علي العراق مفتوحةً العين العربية بوصفها أقرب جغرافياً وانتمائياً من العيون الاقليمية والدولية.
    افتحوا صفحة اخري واكتبوا فيها كلاماً مختلفاً .. وسترون عيوناً مختلفة لقراءته ودون ذلك فإن ثمّة مَنْ يستنسخ الديكتاتورية في داخل العراق أيضاً.
    http://www.azzaman.com/azz/articles/2007/02/02-06/555.htm

  11. افشاي مدارك خارق‌العاده! دخالت ايران در ناامني در عرا
    Translation: “Amazing documents expose Iran’s instigation in Iraq’s chaos!”
    [The tone of the piece is sarcastic and lists all of the “documented” accusations in the past few months, and purports to prove that they are all imaginary. It has some interesting information though.]
    By the way, I recently stumbled upon this news site. It is quite good. It’s run by an reform-oriented NGO in Tehran.
    http://www.baztab.com/news/59838.php

  12. David,
    One question for you,
    Do you believe Iran regime “Mullah” has nothing to do what’s going on inside Iraq from 2003 till now?

  13. This is almost enough to make me feel sorry for Gen. Petraeus:
    “I’ve been selling Petraeus to anybody who would listen,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who terms the Bush troop increase the “Petraeus Doctrine” and fetched senators off the floor to meet the general in McConnell’s office. “He’s the General Grant of the surge. He’s our last best chance as a military commander to bring about a change on the ground.”
    How would you like to be set up like this?
    And Salah, you don’t need to remind me how much sorrier I should be for Petraeus’ intended victims.

  14. Salah,
    I am not sure why you ask me, but I will tell you what I think (assuming you will disagree with most of it):
    The IR regime in Iran is not a metastatic system. They tried it a bit after their revolution 1979-80, but after they got bogged down in the war with Saddam, they just had too many problems of their own. After the war and Khomeini’s demise, their most prominent moves were toward reconciliation with the neighbors. Remember the Iranian Hojjaj being massacred by the Saudis with idiotic excuses on the Adha? They forgot about that. Remember the Kuwaiti’s bank-rolling Saddam, and asking the US navy into the gulf to “flag” their tankers, leading to the shooting down of the Airliner by USS Vincenes with hundreds dead? They forgot that too. And I can give more examples. But the Saudis, and the other Sheikhs and puppets weren’t interested in playing ball. Or maybe they weren’t allowed; they are all puppets after all. In the late 90s, with the more aggressive posturing of the Clinton administration, its minions in the region followed suit. Obviously, this was intensified with the Bushites coming to power. And 9/11 multiplied everything by a factor X.
    With the war in Afghanistan, Iran felt like it won hugely (the Taliban, although not a serious “threat” were a huge pain in the a** to them; they would constantly kill Iranian border patrols in skirmishes, and you remember the diplomats’ being killed). The Saudis and gulf sheikhs lost bigtime: the Taliban were their boys. So the hostility grew. Iran did not point any direct hostility against the GCC sheikhs, but they understand that ultimately, Iran works toward a ME with much less US/Israeli influence, and obviously in such a ME, with the US presence less omnipresent to prop up ale-Saud and ale-Nahyan and ale-Thaani and ale-Khalifah and … they are all goners sooner rather than later.
    When the US invaded and occupied Iraq, the GCC boys et al. (including mini-Abdullah) took their old feud with Iran to the poor Iraqis. The insurgency, that was clearly bank-rolled by the religious institutions of the Gulf, started attacking civilian Shi’i targets (“Safawi”) without any clear justification. Why? I think because they (meaning the insurgency and its backers) felt that the only way they could prevent a Shi’i majority-dominated (“Safawi”)government in Baghdad was through chaos and sectarian bloodshed. This would get the Americans out, and with them out, the Shi’i were easy to defeat because the insurgency that had close ties with the remnants of Saddam’s apparatus was a much more adept military force than the rag-tag militias of poor Shi’i neighborhoods and towns. Of course the Iranian regime would not have this. So in order to ensure a majority-dominated system in power in Baghdad, they provided resources to “beef up” the militias so that they would be up to par, not to be routed by the insurgency. From what I read, I believe their assistance to Badr was more direct, while since the Sadriyoun don’t get along with them, their support of the Jaishe-Mahdi was more indirect, and limited.
    Ultimately, IMHO, the IR government would love to see the US out and Iraq peaceful, with a majority-based government. It is clear that it is to its benefit. The more the civil war becomes protracted, the less the chance of the above scenario. And if you notice, the “Mullah” never brings up Shi’i-Sunni in their discourse. Read through 10 of their dailies (try the multi-link gooya.com, or the collector site baztab.com): you will not see one mention, unless quoting the Arab leaders. But mini-Abdullah and the Saudis and … can’t stop talking about it. Why? I don’t think any of them are really afraid of an Iranian takeover (what a joke!) or their own Shi’i minorities. Those are convenient excuses. They are actually afraid of their own majority Sunni masses. And history has taught them that the best way to distract people from asking for their rights is a little bit of religious and racial hatred.
    Cheers

Comments are closed.