 |
April 05, 2006In-House NoteI'm getting a good deal of complaints of late that I'm focusing too much on Iraq--day in, day out--and not enough on other foreign policy topics. Yes, 'tis true, it's a big world out there, and sometimes it might appear this has become something of an Iraq blog, or something. I'll try to reach out a bit in coming days, for instance, I've been meaning to do a 'state of Russia' kind of post, but haven't found the time (or get sucked into Iraq analysis instead when I find a spare hour). Also, I gather, the calls for Rumsfeld's head are fatiguing some as well, the mail-bag reveals. I guess everyone and their mother knows by now that I've been wanting Rumsfeld out for years now, and I can see how its gotten tiresome for some to have to wade through another Rummy diatribe. So...I'm not making any promises, but I'll try to span out a bit in coming days to other topics, and focus less often on Rumsfeld. Incidentally, when I check now and again, it does seem I have a decent amount of readers from the Pentagon, some even from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (at least that's what I gather the osd.mil means?), and while I don't know if they're reading me with disdain, or are secretly supporting me, they do seem to come around rather often. We'll see if they still come around with less Rumsfeld blogging, that is, if I'm capable of slowing it down! P.S. Evidently others are somewhat unhappy too. I had missed this Reynoldsian epingle of a few days back: "Greg Djerejian, meanwhile, is less positive, though of late he seems to be more and more interested in intra-right-wing-punditry battles." Heh, as they say. More on this soon, likely involving, sorry to say, more "intra-right-wing" navel-gazing. With large swaths of conservative commentators increasingly veering in unfortunate directions on a variety of issues, one has to stand up and differ now and again, if you feel they've got it wrong. For instance, unlike Glenn channeling Mark Steyn recently, I don't think now is the time to go all Jacksonian on people's asses so as to secure some final victory in the GWOT, but maybe that's just me. Glenn's a blog-pal, I enjoy corresponding with him via E-mail, and I appreciate his usually gentlemanly treatment of me even when we disagree. But it's true, more and more, we seem to view the world through largely different lens. That's too bad, but there's no sense hiding it. It kinda is what it is, I guess. Who knows, maybe it's somewhat of a cyclical thing, and we'll circle back to viewing more issues similarly going forward? But recently, rarely a day goes by when I'm not in stark disagreement with his take on an issue of the day. More on this soon... Posted by Gregory at April 5, 2006 03:46 AM | TrackBack (0)Comments
You don't owe anyone an apology for writing about your interests on your blog. Posted by: Chris Bray at April 5, 2006 07:21 AM | Permalink to this comment
No, but he would like people to read it. It is not insane to reckon with your audience, Chris. Certainly if he has nothing NEW to say about wanting Rumsfeld out, he can move on to other things. Posted by: nichevo at April 5, 2006 08:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
Bah. Write what you want. As a supporter of the war in Iraq, I find your commentary extremely helpful. It is hard to find a critic of the war that doesn't blather on about "blood for oil", etc (other than Jim Henley). And the cheerleeding on the other side doesn't do any good either. It is nice to find someone that doesn't sugarcoat the situation. Even if it isn't exactly what I want to hear. It is probably what I need to hear. Posted by: Enrak at April 5, 2006 02:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
Also, it's clear that the majority of post are from war supporters who will be war supporters, regardless of the lies and incompetancy. Ignore them. They want the lie; those of us who want the truth don't owe them anything. Posted by: Barry at April 5, 2006 02:46 PM | Permalink to this comment
As a member of the sandal-wearing, anti-war tribe, I love your blog. Write want you want. Posted by: Coad at April 5, 2006 03:16 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hey, Iraq is a vortex that have sucked many of us in. I, too, have felt the tunnel vision. But generally, write about what interests you. The readers will follow. Posted by: Eric Martin at April 5, 2006 04:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
My threshold question is "Are you licensed to think independently?" I would bet not. My sense is that you are far too independent and should get back inside the corral. Thinking on your own, about topics which interest you and then applying your own perspective to them, well that's simply not something which should be done lest the enemy see that we are not all behind "The Effort." Posted by: Raw Data at April 5, 2006 04:37 PM | Permalink to this comment
It's only proper to post a great deal about Iraq. But, I'd enjoy the Russia entry as well. Posted by: Chris at April 5, 2006 04:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
It's always interesting to discuss Russia and the former USSR. Go for it. Iran might make an interesting topic as well.... On an unrelated note -- It is hard to find a critic of the war that doesn't blather on about "blood for oil", etc (other than Jim Henley). That's funny, Enrak. Most of the war sceptics I've talked to see it as an epic strategic blunder. Maybe you should seek out people, instead of caricatures? Posted by: sglover at April 5, 2006 06:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, Criticizing Rumsfeld may be somewhat tiring simply because his boss doesn't show any sign of removing him. More fruitful would be thoughts on how to either somehow nudge policy given a hostile and incompetent administration, or bring about administrative change through the opposition (with a change in congressional oversight, or god forbid we have to wait that long, a change in administration). Finally, you must accept that any independent thought will only lead to criticism from the right. The fabrication of false perception to create reality is not just a joke, it is a real management tool and the guiding principle of the movement now. The right has become "anti-intellectual"/anti-reality not only to woo a certain segment of the electorate but also as a management strategy. Posted by: dave at April 5, 2006 07:01 PM | Permalink to this comment
Wolfowitz: Iraq War Was About Oil http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0604-10.htm Claims and Facts: Rhetoric, Reality and the War in Iraq http://tinyurl.com/2qyy3 Posted by: rs at April 5, 2006 07:02 PM | Permalink to this comment
Sglover, "That's funny, Enrak. Most of the war sceptics I've talked to see it as an epic strategic blunder. Maybe you should seek out people, instead of caricatures?" I'm sure that is true. But there is a large amount of blather on the internet. I notice that you didn't mention my complaints about the war supporters. I am not going to list all of the blogs that I read that offer informed criticism of the war. I just was opining that there are plenty that don't, on both sides, and there is no reason for there to be one less. But feel free to slag away. I've noticed that most don't want to argue/convince on the internet they just want to score cheap points. I give you five. Five cheap points. Have fun with them. Posted by: Enrak at April 5, 2006 07:15 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg can and should write about what interests him. I will say though, and no disrespect intended A. I really am curious about Gregs views on other things, like say the Israeli election B. I really wouldnt mind a focus on Iraq, if it were actually a focus on Iraq. I mean Bill Roggio, who isnt really as insightful as Greg, has been more interesting the last couple of days cause he really is blogging about whats happening in Iraq. Rather than about Fukuyama and Zinni and Buckley and Will vs. Steyn and Gaffney and The Corner and LGF. A debate that not only excludes liberal hawks like Berman and Hitchens and Beinart and Peretz (Marty, not Amir) and the editorial page of the WaPo, but even excludes "moderate neocons" like Kristol and Kagan. I dont care for Steyn OR Gaffney OR The Corner OR Buckley OR Will
Most of the war sceptics I've talked to see it as an epic strategic blunder. Maybe you should seek out people, instead of caricatures? I'm as fond of myself as any narcissist or blogger (but I repeat myself) and grateful to Enrak for the kind word. But yes, the world is full of war critics who bear no resemblance to the sort of folks who get photographed at protests by hawks looking for dorks. Posted by: Jim Henley at April 5, 2006 09:03 PM | Permalink to this comment
the only reason I want you to take a breather on discussing Iraq is that it seems that you are repeating yourself -- and that the situation depresses you as the straws that you grasp become thinner and fewer and further between.... there are lots of other topics. Russia is just one. I'd also like to see your take on US relations with Latin American nations. Oh, and bring back your Dad for another guest post! :) Posted by: p.lukasiak at April 5, 2006 10:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
"They" never say "heh." Only Glenn Reynolds ever says "heh." Here's a curiosity from back in the pre-Instapundit days when I posted under my own name and Glenn posted using a cybernym ("AG Android" -- don't ask). It's the first post in a brief exchange between Glenn and me on the Slate site in the fall of 2001, about Glenn's idea that the Saudi monarchy should be overthrown and replaced with Hashemite royals: http://fray.slate.com/?id=3936&m=2223426 I post this link not as a slap at Glenn (my own contributions to this exchange included some thoughts reconsidered later) but to back up the suggestion that it may not be that recent a thing for Glenn to look at some subjects in a peculiar way. Not wrong, mind you -- would I ever say that about anyone? -- just peculiar. Posted by: Zathras at April 6, 2006 12:05 AM | Permalink to this comment
right-wingers are sure fickle...do they just all wait for instruction from the right-wing party's alpha-male? one week its all saudi's must go...then, in a flash....it's all ba'athist must go! Posted by: rs at April 6, 2006 01:07 AM | Permalink to this comment
I second liberalhawk. I dislike most of the people you dislike as much as you do or more, but what holds my attention is new information, and/or perceptive insights into the meaning of things. I do care, sadly, what the Corner thinks, hate them or not, - on my worst days. On my best days, I don't, some of these posts bore me, and I click away. But hey liberalhawk, if we can cry for the excluded moderate neocons, what about for the people actually against the war from day one? Posted by: glasnost at April 6, 2006 02:11 AM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, How is one to know which is right. I am no expert on any aspect of this. I merely read as much as I can find, both newspapers and blogs to try to divine some small sign of what the future might hold. I've got to say, I've been optimistic about Iraq all thye way through and have always thought the only way we could lose was if we quit. I'm willing to accept I could be wrong on this. Now we can see from experience that arab armies and police forces have been able to completely dominate the societies they are in, for better or for worse. Even poorly trained armies such as the former Iraqi army have been able to maintain a monopoly on violence in the society, usually by employing brutality to such an extent as to terrorize or kill any prospective insugency.
strategypage.com has been saying the insurgency is over for 2 years now. And Arab armies have not always been able to dominate. Think Lebanon when the army disintegreated. Posted by: Matt at April 6, 2006 04:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
Lebanon is not a good comparison. It was a weak state that was dismembered after having large parts of it's territory taken over by Palestinians and then suffering incursions by the Isreali Army after Palistinian attacks on Israel. The US will ensure that similar outside forces do not take over Iraq. Without the Paliostinians and the Israelis even the Lebanese army probably could have handled any internal insurgency.
what "Iraqi army"? At this point, the "Iraqi Army" exists only on paper. .....unless you aer talking about the various militias who put on Iraqi Army uniforms. Here's a clue --- these militias are primarily defensive in nature. They don't have the logistics/infrastructure/equipment to engage in "agressive" actions against other militias based in other provinces that could support guerilla actions throughout the country.
Greg, the opinions about Iraq are slippery for lack of a solid foundation about what is necessary. I'd like you to post on how, at an early age in school, you help students learn what the minimum requirements of society are. I certainly don't believe current schools are successful. If it is important for adults to make wise decisions about foreign policy, the foundation to make them has to be established simply and effectively. Or should it be left to the professionals because it is too complicated for the rest of us. Posted by: sbw at April 6, 2006 03:09 PM | Permalink to this comment
One small voice: "How is one to know which is right. I am no expert on any aspect of this." Well, the obvious method would be to check their old posts, and see how well their predictions have fared.
"How long will this last? Not much longer. Areas of Baath Party control continue to shrink. Baath Party control was allowed to expand in 2004 as the government attempted negotiations with Sunni Arab leadership. This didn't work, as the Sunni Arab leaders were terrified by Baath and al Qaeda terror. The battle of Fallujah, and offensive operations throughout Baath strongholds in central Iraq, sharply reduced the extent of "safe areas" for terrorists. The government has not given up on negotiations with Sunni Arab leaders, but has ordered a military offensive in the meantime. The Iraqis are determined to hold elections at the end of January, 2005, with, or without, Sunni Arab participation. The attitude seems to be, if the Sunni Arabs would rather fight, or cower in their homes, than vote, then so be it. Sunni Arabs have tyrannized Iraq for too long, and most Iraqis are ready for a change. " They do have a nice layout for browsing archives. Try:
The insurgents can't destroy us, true. But we can't destroy them either. In a guerilla war they just need to outlast us. They have an advantage, they live there, we want to go home. Posted by: chew2 at April 6, 2006 03:54 PM | Permalink to this comment
Small, the situation is in considerable doubt. As you point out, our strategy depends on the iraqi army to beat everybody who threatens the hypothetical prospective iraqi government. If that doesn't work we'll have to give up or come up with a new strategy. There's a whole lot of doubt who the iraqi army is loyal to. Presumably the big majority of them are loyal to shias as an ethnic group, and will attempt to use so much brutality on random sunnis that the sunnis either leave iraq or offer unconditional surrender and accept a permanent status of second-class citizen. That is, it's like we're fighting in Xugoslavia on the side of the serbs. I see no reason you'd consider this a good thing, but we each get to choose our own goals. So, will il work? So far we're training combat troops, we're behind about training officers (which takes longer) and we're behind about training supply guys. Also artillery and airsupport and armor. These guys mostly still have trucks for their transport. How are they going to attack sunni provinces without us? They depend entirely on us for supply, so we have to stay there to supply them for the foreseeable future. Maybe they can depend on us for airstrikes. But can they depend on us for helicopter transport? We sure aren't going to give them a lot of armor. So, they come trundling in with their columns of trucks, how are they going to handle the IEDs? They don't have nearly our expertise at bomb disposal, or our ECM that often keeps the bombs from exploding, etc. I think it's real likely they aren't going to get very far. They'll be fine at defending their own areas from sunni infantry. If the sunni army comes trundling at them in trucks they'll handle it just fine. There's the question who can afford to buy the good weapons, and who will be given good weapons by interested outside parties.... Oh well. It seems like we scale back our goals every year. How far back will they be scaled by 2008?
Barry, I agree that looking at old predictions can be useful, not definitive, but potentially useful. I don't see how you conclude that the link you give to an old strategy page post shows they were wrong. Looks to me that the situation has moved in direction they predicted. Maybe it's taking longer than most would like, but isn't that the nature of war? certainly safe havens have been reduced, elections did go forward, sunnis are co operating in forming a government. If we want to look at predictions, Bush said MANY times that War on terror would be a long hard fight. The left has predicted everything from failure of elections to saying we've already lost! I think there's plenty of optimism and pessimism untied to REALITY to go around. It just looks to me like the end game is near this time. Does anyone doubt that everyday the Iraqi army is getting stronger? This alone will make a huge difference. As far as size and strength of the iraqi army, my understanding is that they are aiming for about 250M force and that they do have armor, are developing air and small navy. One critical difference is that this army is volunteer, Saddam's was not. Sure makes a difference in our army, think it should there too. Who can say who will ultimately control, but we sure have a better shot at a democratic governement than we did. Perhaps we'll end up with another dictator, but my bet on human nature is that the Iraqi's have had enough of that. We are doing our best to train a Professional army, could be we will succeed. Posted by: one small voice at April 6, 2006 04:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
Barry, I agree that looking at old predictions can be useful, not definitive, but potentially useful. I don't see how you conclude that the link you give to an old strategy page post shows they were wrong. Looks to me that the situation has moved in direction they predicted. Maybe it's taking longer than most would like, but isn't that the nature of war? certainly safe havens have been reduced, elections did go forward, sunnis are co operating in forming a government. If we want to look at predictions, Bush said MANY times that War on terror would be a long hard fight. The left has predicted everything from failure of elections to saying we've already lost! I think there's plenty of optimism and pessimism untied to REALITY to go around. It just looks to me like the end game is near this time. Does anyone doubt that everyday the Iraqi army is getting stronger? This alone will make a huge difference. As far as size and strength of the iraqi army, my understanding is that they are aiming for about 250M force and that they do have armor, are developing air and small navy. One critical difference is that this army is volunteer, Saddam's was not. Sure makes a difference in our army, think it should there too. Who can say who will ultimately control, but we sure have a better shot at a democratic governement than we did. Perhaps we'll end up with another dictator, but my bet on human nature is that the Iraqi's have had enough of that. We are doing our best to train a Professional army, could be we will succeed. Posted by: one small voice at April 6, 2006 04:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
These idiots have been saying the insurgency was finished for 2 years. If they're right now, it's like a stopped clock showing the right time -- entirely by accident. Their track record is abysmal, so their current predictions aren't worth much. I've got to say, I've been optimistic about Iraq all thye way through and have always thought the only way we could lose was if we quit. That's certainly the most plausible way for us to lose. Like, say we really mess up. The insurgents get great tools for shooting down helicopters, and they disrupt our supply. WIthout supply we lose 90,000 troops before we can evacuate them. Pretty near absolute worst case scenario. So what then? We can train replacement troops and send them into iraq. We haven't lost until we quit. Say that china cuts off the funding. We can still fight, we just have to do it on a lower budget. Stop flying the helicopters, send big convoys to punch through the insurgency to do resupply, send enough supplies to last 3 months or 6 months each time. Send in supplies to iraq by sea, much cheaper. Casualties go way up but we can train enough men to replace the casualties. We don't lose until we quit. Hell, that was even true for the Confederacy. We could have kept fighting longer. We lost when we quit.
"...from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (at least that's what I gather the osd.mil means?" It does. (I certainly don't work there, or for the government, but I do have friends in the five-sided building; if I had friends in any particular department, they wouldn't want me to be specific.) However, keep in mind that it's a large office, and contrary to the name, most don't work directly for the Secretary, but for one of the subsidiary offices. Posted by: Gary Farber at April 7, 2006 01:23 AM | Permalink to this comment
Small, the insurgency has been growing, we're clearing areas repeatedly and futilely. Iraq has had elections; but they don't really matter outside of the Green Zone. The major poliitcal powers are the militia leaders. Sectarian violence is increasing.
Iraq has had elections; but they don't really matter outside of the Green Zone. They might matter. Many IG candidates ran on the platform that only the IG can get the US military out of there.
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
Lugar States The Obvious, Yet Again...
Water-Boy Central In-House Note Self-Parody Watch Awesome Humor on the Hill! Not Sure It's Making Us Safer, But It's Certainly In the National Security Interest... Anyone at 1600 Penn. Part of the "Brain Trust"? Hey, Just A Casual Lift to Tikrit... Comedy Central: Georgia & The Revolutionary Guards... "See What Might Develop Out of That"
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Columnists
Anne Applebaum
Tony Blankley David Broder David Brooks Roger Cohen Jackson Diehl Maureen Dowd Thomas Friedman Bob Herbert Fred Hiatt Jim Hoagland Richard Holbrooke David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Nicholas Kristof Paul Krugman Howard Kurtz Sebastian Mallaby Robert Novak The Reliable Source Frank Rich Mark Steyn John Tierney John Vinocur Washington Whispers George Will
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice
Archives
September 2007
August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
