 |
January 29, 2007Iran: "Kill or Capture", But w/ "Oversight Guarantees"More "augmentation", as they say: The new "kill or capture" program was authorized by President Bush in a meeting of his most senior advisers last fall, along with other measures meant to curtail Iranian influence from Kabul to Beirut and, ultimately, to shake Iran's commitment to its nuclear efforts. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, but the United States and other nations say it is aimed at developing weapons. Condi has "oversight guarantees", does she? Feeling safer this "policy" won't spin out of control? Don't get me wrong. I understand where people like Bob Gates are coming from. As he recently stated: "Our forces are authorized to go after those who are trying to kill them, and we are trying to uproot these networks that are planting (improvised explosive devices) that are causing 70 percent of our casualties...If you’re in Iraq and trying to kill our troops, then you should consider yourself a target". Fair enough. And beyond this, the thinking goes, bolster the U.S. military presence in Iraq and the Gulf, put "kill or capture" on the record loudly, try to better get Sunni powers in the region 're-aligned' against Iran--basically tee up a series of moves meant to signal to the Iranians our resolve is not flagging, and our presence in theatre will remain robust. All well and good, the Administration seems to think, and doubtless some surmise it might even facilitate possible discussions w/ the Iranians going forward--but with the U.S. coming to the table not in weakness but more from a position of strength. But mightn't this all be hogwash, to use a word in vogue? The Iranians are all over southern and central Iraq, not to mention Baghdad, and our much ballyhooed roll-out of "kill or capture" isn't going to change that materially, I fear. Meantime, unless we end up protecting Sunnis in Baghdad to the extent we end up in fire-fights w/ Shi'a militias (likely probable over a 12 month time horizon), the flip side is that, if we don't protect Sunnis vigorously, our (in)actions will likely end up facilitating Shi'a hegemony in Baghdad (likely Sciri and Dawa-centric, ironically players tighter with the Iranians arguably than the Sadrists), so that this supposedly new "kill or capture" policy could well prove an exercise in futility. Further, and maybe it's just me (as one of those cursed Scowcroft types), but I would be careful escalating thusly with Iran. The region cannot handle another war at this juncture, as it's already capsizing under the weight of various civil wars, whether potential, accelerating, or full-blown. Palestine could fall into civil war any day (though a Saudi mediation-type intervention will likely stave off Hamas and Fatah going at it full bore), Lebanon teeters on the cusp of one, Iraq is cascading deeper into one, Afghanistan/Pakistan remain hugely problematic, and another two civil wars are live and cracking (Somalia, Sudan). Is this really the best time to throw another match on the fire (that is, if you're not one of those mad-cap 'creative destructionist' types)? I know, I know. "Stability" is so boring in this era of Transformational Diplomacy, and "Kill or Capture" is only meant to help get Iraq under better control while also better protecting our troops. Fat chance. This policy is likelier to lead to more American soldiers dying in the streets of Baghdad fighting Shi'a militias increasingly radicalized, not only because American forces will be forced to take on some of the Shi'a death-squads in a show of even-handedness, but also because the Iranians will respond to these American pressure tactics by intensifying the actions of various proxies in theater to show they won't be cowed. And then, what next? Indeed, we appear to be edging towards creating something of a self-fulfilling prophecy here, one perilously close to flirting with open conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran. As I've said in the past, this would be the height of folly. But with this Administration, as we've learned, just about anything is possible. Posted by Gregory at January 29, 2007 06:51 AMComments
Gregory, I'm generally in agreement with your scepticism about this, mostly because if it has a chance to succeed, it has to been implemented deftly, and the administration has shown very little ability to be deft. But take another look at your arguments: 1: it's too little too late "The Iranians are all over southern and central Iraq, not to mention Baghdad, and our much ballyhooed roll-out of "kill or capture" isn't going to change that materially..." 2: it's an escalation: "Is this really the best time to throw another match on the fire..." 3: so it will lead to more escalation: "Iranians will respond to these American pressure tactics by intensifying the actions of various proxies in theater to show they won't be cowed..." What possible policy choice isn't subject to these arguments? Only "run away" or "nuke 'em." Any nuanced approach may be too little to late, may lead to escalation, and may be handled badly. As has been amply described in BD and nearly everywhere else, this administration has made an historic mess of things in the Middle East. The President's party has been thrown out of controlling Congress because of it; shortly, they are likely to be thrown out of the White House too. In the meantime, though, we need an Iran policy. The idea of eschewing pressure and trying to talk to them, seems unrealistic. We cannot bring Ahmadinejad a cake and induce him to play nice. And critics of the administration have to be responsible about allowing this weakened, lame-duck President to have a policy.
1. Not in charge. 2. Judging by his actual writings and speeches, nothing like the loon the media portray him to be. The beginning of a sensible Iran policy would be to unilaterally repudiate the 'regime change' nonsense. But domestic politics forbids offering that 'cake' to any Iranian leader. Posted by: David Tomlin at January 29, 2007 08:40 AM | Permalink to this comment
Well, this should certainly make things even more interesting.... Iranian Reveals Plan to Expand Role in Iraq
Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad outlined an ambitious plan on Sunday to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq — including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital — just as the Bush administration has been warning the Iranians to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs.Posted by: p.lukasiak at January 29, 2007 01:01 PM | Permalink to this comment
I keep asking myself how in God's name the "Global War on Terror" got us into this Sunni-Shiite civil war, where we are taking on both sides in the name of "Iraqi security"? And why is this Administration saber-rattling from a position of prime domestic weakness? Of all the regional conflicts you mention, the one where I feel we are properly invested is Afghanistan-Pakistan, because like it or not we had to invade there post 9/11. That conflict alone would be plenty to keep us occupied. Deterring Iran is a prime goal too, but the last place we should be trying to do this is from the streets of Baghdad. But then again I speak from the might-have-been scenario where we never invaded Iraq and Saddam remained a counter to Iran. The mess this Administration has made of the Middle East is simply appalling. Posted by: Redhand at January 29, 2007 01:28 PM | Permalink to this comment
In the meantime, though, we need an Iran policy. The idea of eschewing pressure and trying to talk to them, seems unrealistic. We cannot bring Ahmadinejad a cake and induce him to play nice. And critics of the administration have to be responsible about allowing this weakened, lame-duck President to have a policy. given this President's demonstrated agressive stupidity, the least bad course of action would be a phased but complete withdrawal of US forces from the middle east with the co-operation of Iraq's neighbors and the international community as a whole, and the second least bad strategy would be to simply and literally "cut and run" immediately and try and help fix things when Bush is finally out of office. In other words, the most responsible thing that Bush's critics can do is make it impossible for him to screw things up even more than he has already. Posted by: p.lukasiak at January 29, 2007 01:44 PM | Permalink to this comment
The Brits--who are based in Southern Iraq--claim that they have found little evidence of Iranian infiltration, training of Iraqi, and arms. Posted by: Tom S at January 29, 2007 01:45 PM | Permalink to this comment
If we promised we'd stop trying to overthrow the iranian government, why would they believe us? Why would anybody believe us? Even if they did believe us, Bush willl be out in 2 years and somebody else will be in who won't feel bound by Bush's promises. A lot can happen in 2 years. I think if we were to impeach Bush and Cheney, and then quickly try them for war crimes and what have you, and then we cut off their heads in front of the media at, say, the reflecting pool near the Washington Monument, and at the head-chopping ceremony we specifically said we were repudiating their policies and in particular we were not going to try to overthrow the iraniani governmente by force of arms or support of revolutionaries, then I think the iranians might believe it. I'm not usually a supporter of human sacrifice as a tool of diplomacy. I don't even support it in this case, though I think it would be uniquely justified.
J Thomas, you forgot that the heads need to be kept on pikes stuck in the Rose Garden until picked clean by the ravens and crows... Posted by: jim in austin at January 29, 2007 04:55 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hard to explain announced get tough policy with Iran: enforce it and you stoke sectarian conflict; don't follow through on rhetoric and you stoke sectarian conflict. Could it actually be about starting something bigger with Iran? That seems unlikely. What then? The only reasonable explanation seems to be Bush and the boys want not only to pass failure in Iraq off on the Democrats, but also the rise of Iran - thus the rhetoric on Iran, absent any desire to negotiate with them, is about painting the picture of how the liberals lost the Persian Gulf. Seems incredibly cynical, yes, but when Bush renounced outright ISG's suggestions on diplomacy with Syria and Iran the path they would take was clear: defend the ultra conservative foreign policy agenda no matter what. It's clear these people see 'the war on terrorism' as a battle for the soul of America. Posted by: saintsimon at January 29, 2007 05:20 PM | Permalink to this comment
J Thomas: I like your idea, but we should include a number of others including, at the very least, Rumsfeld & Gonzales. The latter to show future Presidential lackeys that their boot licking could have nasty consequences. Number of other Bush people such as Rice, Wolfowitz, & Rove, perhaps could be sentenced to life imprisonment. Also I am not so much concerned with convincing Iranians & other peoples of our peaceful attentions as I am of demonstrating once & for all that Presidents are not all Powerful & are subject to Laws just the same as any other official. Most of all have in mind, making the strongest possible statement to keep any future President from thinking he/she rules by Divine Right and not by the Constitution. Posted by: David All at January 29, 2007 05:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
Why should the US be more concerned with Iran than Pakistan? Pakistan has nuclear weapon, has proliferated, supports terror, has killed more americans through its support of the Taliban and A.Q than Iran!!! Remind me please!!! The admin touts this policy as if the soldiers could not defend themselves from Iranians before this. I have read a number of stories that say the proof of Iranian "influence" at least in military events within Iraq seem to be coming almost totally from the marketing department of the VPs office. The British military (which resides in the shiite area) has not confirmed, nor has any member of the press that have been on operations with US forces looking for evidence!! These are attempts to make the 08 elections about Iran...rather than failures in Iraq! Posted by: centrist at January 29, 2007 05:31 PM | Permalink to this comment
saint simon: As commented on another thread, the Bush Administration sees the "war on terrorism" as a war on America & our Constitution. For an example of our latest folly; the death of 200-250 alleged gunmen in Iraq see Zeyad's latest post, "U.S. Likely Duped in Najaf Clashes" at http://healingiraq.blogspot.com. Posted by: David All at January 29, 2007 05:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
Why should the US be more concerned with Iran than Pakistan? Pakistan has nuclear weapon, has proliferated, supports terror, has killed more americans through its support of the Taliban and A.Q than Iran!!! Remind me please!!! The admin touts this policy as if the soldiers could not defend themselves from Iranians before this. I have read a number of stories that say the proof of Iranian "influence" at least in military events within Iraq seem to be coming almost totally from the marketing department of the VPs office. The British military (which resides in the shiite area) has not confirmed, nor has any member of the press that have been on operations with US forces looking for evidence!! These are attempts to make the 08 elections about Iran...rather than failures in Iraq! Posted by: centrist at January 29, 2007 05:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
Yes, Greg, since Iraq is working out so well, on to Teheran & Victory! Remember the way out of Vietnam was through Cambioda. (Sarcasm) Posted by: David All at January 29, 2007 05:35 PM | Permalink to this comment
I have to agree with Saintsimon and others: the only way actions of Bush admin make sense - assuming they haven't completely taken leave of their senses -- is by assuming that the war in Iraq in particular and on terror in general is really just an extension of American culture war between left and right, with the right obviously believing that America is doomed if the left wins. Posted by: cull tech at January 29, 2007 08:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
I believe "cull tech" has it completely backwards regarding the war in Iraq and on terror in general being an extension of the "culture war" in U.S. domestic politics. He's putting the cart before the ass. I've quoted from and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/01/re-iran-kill-or-capture-but-w.html Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at January 29, 2007 08:54 PM | Permalink to this comment
consul-at-arms: you seem to be confusing my opinion with a qualitative judgment - it ain't - merely an attempt to make sense of Bush's seeming desire to operate outside of logical constraints. Hell, even fat boy Kagan is distancing himself from 'the surge' as is and therefore the only question left to answer is: who's lying to whom and why? Posted by: cull tech at January 29, 2007 10:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Could it actually be about starting something bigger with Iran? That seems unlikely. " Why? Given all that has gone before, why? Posted by: zak822 at January 29, 2007 10:27 PM | Permalink to this comment
Those are awful long, and vulnerable, supply lines running from Kuwait up to the Green Zone and beyond. Through, lets see, Shia territory. For the most part. And the Iranians are Shia.......well, ok. Posted by: jonst at January 29, 2007 10:41 PM | Permalink to this comment
Sunday, January 28, 2007 iraqthemodel@blogspot.com The head of one of the two city councils in Sadr city told AFP that he's ready to cooperate with the Iraqi forces in implementing the security plan. In the statement that appeared on al-Mada Kareem Hassan said "The presence of popular armed committees [Sadr militias] will end automatically when Iraqi forces enter the city because the need for the committees will cease to exist" We talked earlier about insurgents and terrorists fleeing Baghdad to Diyala, and today there's another report about a similar migration, from al-Sabah:
According to those witnesses, residents and shopkeepers are no longer concerned about militants whose existence in public used to bring on clashes that put the lives of civilians in danger. While experts consider this a failure in protecting the plan's secrecy which might lead to the loss of the surprise factor, they also say it indicates the seriousness and resolve in this plan that is already scaring away the militants. PM Maliki pointed out that seeing them run away is a good thing but he returned and said the security forces would chase them down everywhere after Baghdad is clear. As we said in the last update, Maliki won unanimous support for his plan in the parliament and despite some opposition from the radical factions the major blocs are expressing their support and approval of the plan:
On the other hand citizens we talked to after the prime minister made his speech before the parliament say that there's no place for mistakes or weakness this time but they also seemed confident that Maliki has prepared the right tools for success.
Immediately after president Bush authorized the US military to capture and kill Iran's agents who are involved in the violence in Iraq, the Iranian Khalq opposition group released a list with the names of 31,000 Iraqis the group said are paid agents for Tehran operating in Iraq, story in the same report linked above.
"But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere."
We don't want to upset those equanimous Iranians. Otherwise, they might end up funding and training groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and SCIRI or giving sanctuary to al Qaeda types; they might end up calling for the vaporization of Israel and western democracies; they might decide to jump in bed with Syria to disrupt and marginalize our Iraqi democratization campaign; they might begin a concerted effort to impose a theocratic Sharia-is-us lifestyle on the general populace, domestically and afar; and-AND-they might tell the world to kindly fuck off while they build those symbolic can't-we-all-get-along Nukes. Oh wait...
cull tech: As you say. Maybe it makes more sense if you think of it as freeing the hands tied behind the backs of our soldiers, allowing them to defend themselves. The Iranian government is not our friend, and has no wish for us to succeed, in any fashion, in Iraq. It's foolish to pretend otherwise. Cheers! Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at January 30, 2007 10:46 AM | Permalink to this comment
And gee Resh.....just a few years ago Iran was surrounded by hostile forces...cut off, in many ways, from the rest of the Middle East and worried about their own survival as a state, as they wrestled with a lower price for oil. Now, lets see......what has happened in the past 5 years or so they has contributed to their change in circumstances? Posted by: jonst at January 30, 2007 12:52 PM | Permalink to this comment
gotta love how "neill' and "resh" always show up at the same time.... and its always good to see the lastest from the DIA propaganda machine via Iraq the Model (translation of ItMs latest -- Sunnis are leaving Baghdad in droves, because everyone has figured out that the "surge" to end secular violence in Baghdad is a euphemism for "ethnic cleansing") Posted by: p.lukasiak at January 30, 2007 02:02 PM | Permalink to this comment
"......what has happened in the past 5 years or so they has contributed to their change in circumstances?" Lemme guess: 911? -resh
Actually, I'm going to rise in the defense of Rice on this blog. It was she who counseled for restraint on the part of the Bush Administration in the face of the Lebanon War and in the face of numerous provocations by Ahmadhi-Nejad and his friends in the Revolutionary Guards Corps, both in Iraq and, last summer, in Lebanon. In the face of criticism from Cheney's and Rumsfeld's enablers in the "Faster Please" Caucus over at The American Spectator, NRO's Corner, and The Weekly Standard, Rice was criticized for emphasizing that there was time to wait out political developments in Iran. She has stuck by her guns, against critics on the Left who should have supported her call that a thoroughgoingly fascist gang of anti-Semites should be forced to suspend uranium enrichment. Thankfully, the President has stuck by her, choosing to ignore calls for premature negotiations with Ahmadhi-Nejad and Larijani. Indeed, this would have amounted to a second Munich and an eventual sellout of Israel, something devoutly wished for by much of the American foreign policy elite. The Iranians and their junior partners in Damascus were counting on such a conference, which would have legitimized Iranian suzeiranty over the Arab oil lands. That was the whole point of the Persian atomic program: to dominate the Arab League. It has nothing to do with the Jews. Should Iran attack Israel, the Jews will exterminate the Persians and they have the weapons to do it. The Iranians know this. This is about making the Arab League oil principalities into new satrapies of a reborn Persian Empire. What Rice understood that Greg forgot is that even the Iraqi Shi'a are remembering that they are not Persian. She was counting on the inevitable fact that people like Ahmadhi-Nejad and the triumphalists in the Revolutionary Guards Corps, who came up through the bitter struggles of anti-American revolution, could no more exercise restraint than Che Guevara could take a bad photograph. Out of the disaster of a failed occupation, Rice, Nick Burns, and now Negroponte, have been able to forge an anti-Persian front, backed by American power. The "weak" Secretary of State so pilloried on this board appears to have had a virtue that Greg did not: the virtue of knowing how to wait. The Persians overreached. Ahmadhi-Nejad overreached in Lebanon, and in the Arab world in general. He failed to solve the domestic problem of inflation, oil production, and unemployment. His client Nasrallah remains out of power in Lebanon, while the Saudis have offered up billions of dollars to reinforce Fuad Siniora. Finally, he lost the local elections by a landslide and appears to have been restrained by the Council of Guardians. This only helps Rafsanjani, who is anti-American, but is a pragmatist and has the sublime virtue of being genuinely corrupt. Such men are neither ascetics nor vegetarians, and tend to navigate the shoals of international relations with caution and circumspection. We could negotiate with such a man; although Rice would be lucky to come away with her underwear. Rafsanjani is a survivor. A year ago, I was betting that Ahmadhi-Nejad was a good candidate to be Iran's first Fuhrer. Now, methinks he's missed his Night of the Long Knives. Condi was right to play down the apocalyptic visions of the alarmists who wanted war last year. However, the Left is equally wrong to demonize a Bush Administration that opposes the possession and deployment of nuclear weapons by theocratic fascists. That's what has become of the Democrats as we approach 2008: there's way too much understanding and enabling of fascism going on. Jeane Kirkpatrick's prescient speech to the Republican National Convention in 1984 reminds conservatives that we have seen this all before. I strongly suspect that we are playing a defensive role in Iraq, allowing Iranian internal politics to play out, absorbing some blows, and allowing Arab opposition to the Persian bid for mastery to gel, as it inevitably must, even among the Iraqi Shi'a. The only fly in the ointment will be the inevitable Overt Hostile Act by the Iranians, probably against one of our ships. Which will, of needs be, come. Posted by: section9 at January 30, 2007 07:54 PM | Permalink to this comment
S-9, "Jeane Kirkpatrick's prescient speech to the Republican National Convention in 1984 reminds conservatives that we have seen this all before." If you liked hers (just read it, TY), you'll love Blair's Chi-Town speech in '99. Enjoy. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1297.asp
'gotta love how "neill' and "resh" always show up at the same time....' "p.lukasiak": it's a neo-conspiracy!
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman
What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz
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 The American Conservative 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
Marc Ambinder 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 James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice
Archives
March 2009
January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 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 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
