The Belgravia Dispatch: Sanity from Zakheim

January 05, 2007

Sanity from Zakheim

After stifling a giggle upon reading this cretinous fare (dudes, like, let's "go wide"!)--of course being kicked around and tried on for size by the usual suspects at the so dumbed-down NRO-- it was pleasing to see adults like Dov Zakheim adding yet another voice to the sanity brigade:

As the US administration has made very clear, the report of the Iraq Study Group will in no way represent the final word on American strategy in Iraq. The White House accepts that there has to be a change in approach. But its underlying premises – that Iraq’s sectarian strife is not a civil war and that the keys to a stable Iraq are a stable Baghdad and Anbar province – are the same as before. These assumptions need to be revisited, fast.
As government has followed government in Baghdad, the promise of strength has been succeeded by the reality of weakness, incompetence and corruption. Meanwhile, too many Americans are being maimed or dying in a war that seems to have no end and no clear path to victory. It is not enough for government officials to mourn the dead or to hand out medals and personalised coins to the wounded. We must give our forces a fighting chance to succeed in their mission. This is not the case at present.

There is no doubt that Iraq is enmeshed in a bitter civil war. The US has had minimal impact on the course of that war. Iraqi casualties continue to mount, as do the number of Iraqis who have decided to kill their fellow citizens. Americans are caught in the crossfire. They cannot stop the sectarian forces that are determined to kill one another. The US could not do so in Lebanon during the 1980s and cannot do so today in Iraq.

It is equally clear that democracy, as it is understood in the west in general and in Washington in particular, is nowhere in sight in Iraq. It is hardly the highest priority for most Iraqis. What they want is stability. So do their neighbours throughout the region.

Continuing to rely on the Iraqi government to provide stability throughout the country is doomed. But pulling out of Iraq would further undermine stability in the region as a whole. Thus the US objective should be framed in terms of the wider region: stopping Iraq from launching attacks against its neighbours, preventing any invasion by Turkey in the north and barring Iranian domination in the south.

The first step is recognising that primary responsibility for pacifying Baghdad, where we are having minimal success and suffering the most casualties, lies with the Iraqi army and police. Efforts to train the Iraqis to cope with the civil war that has ravaged their capital must be stepped up. But why train them while they are in harm’s way? Only when they are truly ready for combat should they be deployed to Baghdad or other violent areas.

Then the US must reposition its forces to foster regional stability and minimise casualties. Up to two brigades should be devoted to Kurdistan and a roughly equal number to the far west of Anbar province.

The forces in Kurdistan would help forestall a Kurdish declaration of independence that would prompt a Turkish invasion. The troops in western Iraq would help prevent both terrorist infiltration into Jordan and serious incursions from Syria. They would also indicate to Damascus that it should not misinterpret a readiness to talk as a concession.

The Pentagon should also move a division-sized force to the south, with a significant presence on the border with Iran. Tehran must understand that the US will not tolerate its domination of Iraq’s south. Nor, as with Syria, would Washington’s willingness to talk mean a readiness to appease.

Zakheim can't quite bring himself to say it, but he seems much closer to the ISG's 'contain the fire' regional approach than, not only the laughable "go wide" crew, but also the "V" is for Victory Keane/Kagan/McCain/Lieberman caucus. Note too Zakheim's got a somewhat different view than me on the feasibility of placing U.S. troops in Kurdistan, but all things considered, it's likely possible that a deal could get cut with the Turks on positioning a relatively modest number of U.S. forces in Kurdistan, if accompanied by guarantees that U.S. forces would serve as prophylactic preventing a Kurdish bid for independence, as well as other inducements (but make no mistake, all this will be hugely controversial and sensitive with the Turks, and there is also the risk we must make so many assurances to Ankara that, assuming we honor them, the Peshmerga start coming after us after a few years, but that's another story for another day...)

Posted by Gregory at January 5, 2007 04:04 AM

Comments

In simple wargaming curiosity, wouldn't the Turks suffer enormously if they went into Iraqi Kurdistan? Invasion of a heavily militarized and mountainous nation, completely hostile territory and local population, long supply lines across difficult, ambush-friendly terrain, and most likely a Kurd population in South-Eastern Turkey that would do what it could to hinder and physically sabotage Turkey's efforts.

Posted by: Klaus at January 5, 2007 07:16 AM | Permalink to this comment

What's really pathetic about the Tracinski article is that he never says exactly what he wants to do. Invade Iran? With how many troops? Where do they come from?

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 5, 2007 09:33 AM | Permalink to this comment

Well, big curved arrows on maps that mean very little is the hallmark of armchair generals.

Posted by: Klaus at January 5, 2007 09:44 AM | Permalink to this comment

while Zakheim may not be as insane as his "cretinous" colleagues, he remains firmly in the wingnut fantasist camp with statements like...

The Pentagon should also move a division-sized force to the south, with a significant presence on the border with Iran. Tehran must understand that the US will not tolerate its domination of Iraq’s south.

The Shia's tolerance of the American occupation is based solely on America's supposed dedication to "democracy" which the Shiites have interpreted as "majority rules". As long as US forces concentrated on Sunni based insurgents and terrorists, the tolerance held. If that mission changes --- if instead US forces are re-deployed as a means of preventing a strong alliance between Iran and the Iraqi Shia -- we are looking at an even bigger disaster than we have now.

Right-wingers can't seem to wrap their limited number of active brain cells around the concept that our biggest Shia "enemy" -- al Sadr -- is also the most effective impediment to eventual Iranian domination of Iraq. Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist, while the other major Shia factions are closely tied to Iran. Deploying US forces in the Shia dominated south will be seen as a provocation by both Shia nationalists and Iran-centric Shia in Iraq, bringing even greater unity to the Shiite majority while practically forcing an alliance with Tehran.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at January 5, 2007 01:15 PM | Permalink to this comment

Robert Tracinski:

The big picture is Iran's attempt to establish itself as a regional superpower, spreading its system of religious totalitarianism and rule by terror across the Middle East.

Spreading the Iranian 'system' in the Middle East might be a big improvement for some countries, including U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Matthew Yglesias recently scoffed at the 'Iran is totalitarian' meme, writing:

'The Iranian regime, objectionable though it may be, is a run-of-the-mill authoritarian oligarchy with competing centers of power and some space for civil society.'

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12177

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 5, 2007 05:28 PM | Permalink to this comment

p.lukasiak:

while Zakheim may not be as insane as his "cretinous" colleagues, he remains firmly in the wingnut fantasist camp . . .

Quite so.

Another example:

The first step is recognising that primary responsibility for pacifying Baghdad, where we are having minimal success and suffering the most casualties, lies with the Iraqi army and police. Efforts to train the Iraqis to cope with the civil war that has ravaged their capital must be stepped up.

The police are in the lead in waging the civil war and ravaging the captial. Do they need to be trained to do it better?

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 5, 2007 08:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

I didn't think it was possible to be surprised by the abundant, obvious stupidity of the Bush administration and its supporters (in the press and the general public), but seriously, WTF can someone be thinking when they suggest we invade ANOTHER country, only this one is twice as big and has 3 times the population? Who the hell are we gonna mount an invasion with now, the Boy Scouts? The Mormon Tabernacle Choir? The Crips and Bloods in exchange for immunity from prosecution? Do these people have any idea whatsoever how a military actually works or do they think it's like a video game, where the soldiers just appear like magic with all the weapons they need and when you run out, more appear to replace them? Disgusting. Really.

And do people here not know that it doesn't matter whether the government of Iran is effective and tolerated by its people or resented and propped up by oil money, the Iranians have seen the results of Marching American-Style Freedom I and II and are probably not really eager to become Part III. Do these fools really imagine that the Iranians want us to come and bomb them into submission (itself a foolish notion) just so they can hold hands in public?

OK, I feel better now.

Posted by: LL at January 6, 2007 12:11 AM | Permalink to this comment

While I agree with you, I see why they can't understand that.

You are a defeatist. You have already assumed that we can't get iraqi allies who will help us stop iranian domination of iraq. See, the iranians can't possibly dominate iraq as long as we and our iraqi allies dominate iraq instead.

Sadr is an iraqi nationalist who wants us gone. We and our hypothetical prospective iraqi friends can't dominate iraq while Sadr is strong. He's even more our enemy than iran's. You can't say that he's the main obstacle to the iranians until you accept that we have lost and we ourselves are not the main obstacle to the iranians. And this is something the US right-wing does not accept. They're still hoping to somehow pull out a victory.

Posted by: J Thomas at January 6, 2007 12:34 AM | Permalink to this comment

"Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist, while the other major Shia factions are closely tied to Iran."

Oh, really? Perhaps you can then explain why Sistani-the leading Shiite cleric-has told Tehren to go fck itself, early and often. Better yet, maybe you can explain why those "closely tied to Iran" Iraqi boys opted to shoot the hell out of their Iranian Shia "brethren" when given the chance, during the Iran/Iraq slugfest?

You'd make a better case if you threw in some facts occasionally.

-resh

Posted by: reshufflex at January 6, 2007 04:49 AM | Permalink to this comment

reshufflex,

Perhaps you can then explain why Sistani-the leading Shiite cleric-has told Tehren to go fck itself, early and often.

Link.

I think most of the theocrats of Iraq trust their spiritual brothers in Iran, more than their Western Christian occupiers.

It seems most Iraqi Shias believe the Iraq-Iran war was a mistake forced on them by a Secular Sunni tyrant.

Posted by: SomeOtherDude at January 6, 2007 06:03 AM | Permalink to this comment

I think most of the theocrats of Iraq trust their spiritual brothers in Iran, more than their Western Christian occupiers.

S.O.D.

While I agree with you, please don't feed the trolls (of which "resh" is obviously one, if he doesn't understand Sistani's role as a unifying force of the Shiite community, or where the most of the leaders of SCIRI and Dawa spent the last 20 odd years.)

Posted by: p.lukasiak at January 6, 2007 12:09 PM | Permalink to this comment

"I think most of the theocrats of Iraq trust their spiritual brothers in Iran, more than their Western Christian occupiers."

And what does that have to do with tea in China? I was refuting Lukasiak's half-baked claim that there's this putative love affair, excepting Muqtada, amidst Iraqi Shia and Iran's Shia. That's fiction.

Sistani has made endless comments to the effect that he won't allow Iraq to indulge Khomeinism; he has aligned himself not with Hizbullah (read Iran) but with the more moderate Amal party in Lebanon; and obviously he ain't buddy-buddy with Khamenei. How much evidence do you want that someone other than Sadr is anti-Tehren?

The Iran-Iraq theocratic nexus just isnt there; nor will it be. Regrets.

Posted by: reshuffle at January 7, 2007 12:16 AM | Permalink to this comment

"While I agree with you, please don't feed the trolls (of which "resh" is obviously one, if he doesn't understand Sistani's role as a unifying force of the Shiite community, or where the most of the leaders of SCIRI and Dawa spent the last 20 odd years.)"

Please spare us the ad hominem cackle. A bit juvenile, pal. The lurkers can decide who's the troll-nonetheless, you do your argument little value by skirting the issues.

Obviously Sistani is a unifying force to Iraqi Shiites et al. His Gandhi act alone under Hussein's brutal reign likely saved his compatriots from certain death. So what?

Your goofy point was that all Iraqi Shiite clerics, save Sadr, can't wait to jump in bed with SCIRI. I told you, you need to do your homework, since that's patently false. Sistani alone, whose mighty influence still prevails in Iraq, wants nothing to do with Khamenei's crowd.

Capeesh?

Posted by: reshuffle at January 7, 2007 12:36 AM | Permalink to this comment

And one more thing, reshuffle, do you really believe Sistani or any other “moderate” in Iraq wants to look like they are allied with this?

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Posted by: SomeOtherDude at January 7, 2007 05:30 AM | Permalink to this comment

Sadr may be a nationalist, but that doesn't mean he's willing to stab "brothers" in the back for the United States. And that goes for Sistani as well. He may have misgiving concerning Tehran like the Anglos of America had misgivings for the Anglos of Britain after the war of 1812. That is to say there are deeper cultural relationships between Southern Iraq and Iran than there will ever be between the Western Christians of the United States and the Shias of Iraq.

I don’t think anyone in Southern Iraq has forgotten the active support the United States had for a war that forced them to fight against their brothers in Iran. And I don’t think anyone in the region has forgotten the United States’ constant meddling in the region.

A Quietist with a Persian accent would not be so weak and feeble as to support Western Christian Imperialist against his “Brothers” in Iraq and Iran and the whole Shia Diaspora, for that matter. The United States does not have a very honorable reputation in the region, especially among its “allies” let alone among her enemies. A whore of Babylon, if you will.

I find apologists for the war who want to embrace Sistani as a force of moderation interesting. It kind of reminds me of Michel Foucault’s support for Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini. It is naïve and extraordinarily desperate in a region of the world which requires neither.

Revisiting Foucault and the Iranian Revolution

The Philosopher and the Ayatollah

Posted by: SomeOtherDude at January 7, 2007 05:31 AM | Permalink to this comment

What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.

From
Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement

Whatever his complexes, Khomeini had no qualms about sending his followers, including young boys, off to their deaths for his greater glory. This callous disregard for human life was no less characteristic of Saddam Hussein. And, for that matter, it was also no less characteristic of much of the world community, which not only couldn't be bothered by a few hundred thousand Third World corpses, but tried to profit from the conflict.

From:
The United States and Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988

Posted by: SomeOtherDude at January 7, 2007 05:32 AM | Permalink to this comment

Sorry, the abouve should have read:

Sadr may be a nationalist, but that doesn't mean he's willing to stab "brothers" in the back for the United States. And that goes for Sistani as well. They both may have misgivings concerning Tehran like the Protestants of America had misgivings for the Protestants of Britain after the war of 1812. That is to say there are deeper cultural relationships between Southern Iraq and Iran than there will ever be between the Western Christians of the United States and the Shias of Iraq.

Posted by: SomeOtherDude at January 7, 2007 05:47 AM | Permalink to this comment

Bush and Co. are off in Cloud Cuckoo Land, but that just makes it worse. The ISG principles were lawyers and bureaucrats: none of them could claim to speak with authority on History, Psychology, Economics or Military Science. There is no evidence whatsoever that we can, or could ever positively influence the outcome in Iraq. There is no evidence that we could ever have succeeded as described by the Bush administration. There is no successful model for what they want to do. The only evidence we have is that a nation cannot occupy a foreign people that are nationalistically self aware. The models of "success" are few, and filled with, bloodshed, internment camps, and ultimate withdrawal anyway. Not every question has an answer, there is no possibility of a western oriented, democratic unified Iraq. Pretending otherwise is a sure road to greater failure. And failure comes without regard to acknowledgment by interested parties. “Stability” is a meaningless concept when it isn't downright asinine. There are very few options left to us, but none of the successful prospects include staying in Iraq and accomplishing a damn thing.

Posted by: Tom at January 9, 2007 02:11 AM | Permalink to this comment