 |
July 10, 2007Quote of the Day (II)"You can’t build a whole policy on a fear of a negative, but, boy, you’ve really got to account for it,” Mr. Crocker said Saturday in an interview at his office in Saddam Hussein’s old Republican Palace, now the seat of American power here. Setting out what he said was not a policy prescription but a review of issues that needed to be weighed, the ambassador compared Iraq’s current violence to the early scenes of a gruesome movie. More: In the interview, which was requested by The New York Times, he said, “We’ll give the best assessment we can, and the most honest.” Unusually for American officials here, who have generally avoided any comparisons between the situation in Iraq and the war in Vietnam, he compared the task that he and General Petraeus face in reporting back in September to the one faced by Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker and Gen. Creighton W. Abrams Jr., the two top Americans in Vietnam when the decisions that led to the American withdrawal there were made nearly 40 years ago. Meantime, from the WaPo: So the president has mapped out a best-case scenario for Iraq on Jan. 20, 2009, that would still see considerable numbers of U.S. troops on the ground, but in a different role. If events work out as Bush hopes, aides said, U.S. forces by then will have sharply reduced their mission, pulling out of sectarian combat and focusing instead on fighting al-Qaeda, guarding Iraq's borders and supporting Iraqi troops. Instead of operating under a U.N. mandate, the United States would negotiate an agreement with the Iraqi government for a smaller, long-term presence. I respect Ryan Crocker, and his refreshing candor with the Vietnam analogy is appreciated. For the grim realities are these: we are in a massive and exceedingly dangerous mess in Iraq, one where if we pull out precipitously, neighbors are likelier to come in full-bore, the civil war will turn even more brutal, and genocidal actions on a scale not yet seen since the American invasion could result. Meantime, it is crystal-clear, given these stakes, that an immediate withdrawal is not going to happen, even if you think it's, all told, the wisest course, as no consensus can be built around such a policy at this time. Even harsh Administration critics like Tony Zinni counsel against it. We are therefore left with a feeling that our best hope is the ISG plan, which I don't think has been overtaken by circumstances simply because its findings were published over six months ago. If anything, its findings are even more urgent, with regionalization of the conflict looming with the Turks massing more troops on the Kurdish frontier. And is the situation no longer "grave and deteriorating", as the ISG found? Only more so, of course, as the clock keeps ticking. But here's the dirty little secret. The nation lacks a top diplomat with the requisite skill and standing to implement the "diplomatic offensive" called for by the ISG, including variants as per Chuck Hagel's recent piece in the FT. While we have a pretty strong team with Gates and Petraeus at DoD, we lack players of the requisite caliber at State and the NSC. So while the security situation in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Gaza worsens, while a refugee crisis builds in Syria, while Jordan and Saudi get ever more skittish, while Iran gets more lebensraum in Iraq, and while the Maliki government continues to fail in getting essential compromises hammered out among the Iraqi factions, Condi Rice is giving interviews such as this one. Feeling confident? In earlier days, Wise Men would have corralled Bush and insisted he appoint a James Baker, say, to supplement Tony Blair's Palestinian institution-building, the better to rush to the region on a non-stop basis to build a regional consensus for an American withdrawal from Iraq that doesn't leave a massive power vacuum in its wake. Instead, we're flailing. Badly. It's amateur hour, and the fires are only growing worse. More soon, I hope, on what a sufficiently empowered special envoy of caliber could hope to accomplish, including per Hagel, a non-American one. But with Bush in power and this approach so unlikely, one is left feeling as if counseling such action is but a waste of time. I believe Robert Novak recently reported that Hagel's letter to the President, along the lines of his FT piece, was only responded to by a third level functionary. The President doesn't like to listen to critics, alas, and so the folly continues.
Comments
Greg.... Is it really a lack of competent diplomats, or a complete lack of Bush administration credibility, that makes sucessful diplomatic initiatives so unlikely. I'd suggest that the problem is the latter, because regardless of how respected and competent an envoy is, Bush will remain the Decider, and no one trusts him. Posted by: p_lukasiak at July 10, 2007 12:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
Bush/Cheney have cut the legs out from underneath every decent civil servant in the Administration (see Powell, etc.) Just as they were unable to find any true "Varsity" players to take on the role of "War Czar" (isn't that the Decider's job) they will not be able to find a decent American to take the job. I suppose they could tap Blair but given world wide reputation as a Bush lackey I doubt he has the gravitas to obtain any results and would only find his efforts undercut by Cheney. The war is over but the soldiers die on. Anyone have a handy a Sunni Strong Man with totalitarian propensities lying around? Posted by: tregen at July 10, 2007 12:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg: Let's accept the premises you offer (they seem correct to me). An abrupt US withdrawal means an intensification of the IRaqi civil war, a genocide in mixed shia, sunni areas, the sacrifice of some US soldiers and most of our material. A continuation of the US presence until January 20, 2009, with periodic pseudo surges, means more of the same -- no real improvement, not likely getting much worse unless we do something to get Iran even more enmeshed in this mess. Let's also grant that the ISG, implemented by somebody who is not into creative destruction and is a skilled diplomat, is a better option than the two. First, how do you get an ISG approach through this administration? Second, why wouldn't the parties involved just keep things boiling and hope for a January 21, 2009 withdrawal? Frankly, the only way you get around both of these problems is impeach and hand the mess to a President Pelosi. And that process frightens me on an institutional basis. Because of requirement of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", Bush Cheney won't be impeached on the basis of waging a misbegotten war incompetently, but instead on some scandal (like the Attorneys matter or, good god, the Wilson-Plame thing, or, more validly, Abu Gharib and other torture variants). And frankly, one of the great sicknesses of our society is that our policy disputes become scandal-fests, which leads to a lot of bogosity in our political discourse. Hoo boy. Why did we re-elect this guy again?
Well, at least Condi was referring to a Duke loss in her interview. That's something. /snark Posted by: Jamal Mashburn at July 10, 2007 02:37 PM | Permalink to this comment
Turkey aside, I don't buy Iraq's neighbors intervening with conventional forces. Backing proxies gets them more influence at less cost. Their armies are designed for internal security. Sending them into Iraq is just asking for humiliation. Turkish intervention will probably be limited to incursions, and maybe taking an Israeli-style 'security zone' along the border. They may do just as much even if U.S. troops are in the vicinity. Does the U.S. want to fight a war with a NATO ally, over an issue marginal to us and arguably vital to them? The Turks might gamble. . . . while Iran gets more lebensraum in Iraq . . . Huh? Iranians are settling Iraq, even as the Iraqis are fleeing? Or do you not know what the word means? Posted by: David Tomlin at July 10, 2007 03:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
dt: "Huh? Iranians are settling Iraq, even as the Iraqis are fleeing? Or do you not know what the word means?" I think that Greg was not using the older sense of the word and was implying Hitler's definition. A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but not out of step with most that is currently tossed around about Iran's intentions and certainly not an indication that he doesn't know what the word means. Posted by: zaleriana at July 10, 2007 04:13 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Huh? Iranians are settling Iraq, even as the Iraqis are fleeing? Or do you not know what the word means?" Oh come now David....play nice... Posted by: greg djerejian at July 10, 2007 04:16 PM | Permalink to this comment
p.s., re: david's comment: "Turkey aside, I don't buy Iraq's neighbors intervening with conventional forces. Backing proxies gets them more influence at less cost. Their armies are designed for internal security. Sending them into Iraq is just asking for humiliation. Turkish intervention will probably be limited to incursions, and maybe taking an Israeli-style 'security zone' along the border." i mostly agree with this assessment (though some of the turkish incursions could be quite large, with some troops left behind, beyond a buffer zone, and while no one could contemplate nato allies fighting each other purposefully, it's more about the u.s.-turkish relationship worsening and/or accidents...), but I'd also keep a close eye on Iran (particularly in southeast), and to a lesser extent, Syria too. Jordan and Saudi are the least likely neighbors to get directly involved across the border w/ forces, though much Saudi money will flow to Sunni tribes if Shi'a revanchism grows.
As one of the anti-war protesters you once dismissed as 'spoiled' and 'naive', I feel free to speak my mind in return. If you can't take it, don't dish it. Posted by: David Tomlin at July 10, 2007 06:11 PM | Permalink to this comment
Account? http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/10/opinion/edchayes.php Posted by: FDS at July 10, 2007 06:20 PM | Permalink to this comment
david, i can take it, i just found your lebensraum point silly. keep commenting away, however. all views welcome. best, gd Posted by: greg djerejian at July 10, 2007 07:44 PM | Permalink to this comment
Jesus tap-dancing Christ, Greg. One of the things I respect about you is that you are neither low-rent nor petty. Rice was at a golf event for her friend, Tiger Woods, who happened to have been on the Stanford Team when she was effing provost there. She was interviewed during the event. Your criticism of her was both clown car and cheap. I strongly suspect she's working the phones the best she can. Problem is, there's little that can be done. You could have sent Kissinger in there and the situation won't be resolved. Liberals don't want to face the fact that we are in a pre-war environment across the Middle East. Rice isn't making progress because the regional actors understand that another larger conflict is in the offing. The Iranians want another summer campaign. It is in the nature of regimes such as theirs to overreach. The problem with the antiwar people is that they are so angry at Bush that they can't see this. You and other chatterers have decided to ignore Iran's decision to expand what Spengler in the Asia Times rightly called Iran's pocket empire. Whether you wish it or not, there will be a regional war. The Syrians are already ginning up their missile batteries to have a go at the Israelis. Diplomacy comes after that. The price of waging Phony War is Larger War. We have waged Phony War and called it Real War. We have not waged war as we did against Germany and Japan. You were saying this scant years ago when Rumsfeld was trying to wage war on the cheap. History teaches us this. The notion that there will be a diplomatic solution, even a messy one (especially along the lines of that execrable New York Times editorial of two days ago) is absolute nonsense. When one appeases an enemy, especially one of this nature, as we are about to do, one invites violence upon oneself. This will come whether you want it or not. Liberals and the antiwar Left have gone very far by denying the nature of the jihadist foe. In an elegant piece of argumentative jiujitsu, they have turned the argument back on Bush and the Republicans for the mismanagement of the Iraq war. But the nature of the enemy has not changed. And he will come. And mark this, when he does come, and he will-many of those who pitched their tents in the antiwar camp will end up looking like the America Firsters on December 8th, 1941. Posted by: section9 at July 11, 2007 05:06 AM | Permalink to this comment
A larger regional conflict is far from inevitable and seems to be in no one's interest, apart perhaps, from some neocon dead enders who believe that the only way to extricate themselves from their current policy shit pit, is to keep digging. Why would the Iranians want to rock the current status quo? For their current minimal input, in the shape of low level support for some Shia militias, they are getting maximum return, as the US army exhausts itself refereeing a civil war in a neighbouring country. The Mullahs must dance a jig (presuming that's not too decadent...) every time a US foreign policy expert demands more time and commitment for the current strategy. And if this farcical Mesopotamian adventure has taught us anything, it's that the instinct for denial within liberals (which now means anyone not towing the admin line), is but a splinter compared to the hulking plank of denial that has been, and still is, required to support the absurd analysis and prognostications of the architects and enablers of this fiasco.
To hell with Condi being on the damn phones.....let her READ SOMETHING ABOUT THE DAMN place! The history, even the diplomatic history of the ME is a 'steep learning' curve. I see nothing in her comments/plans/proposals that leads me to believe she has more than a rudimentary understanding of the ME. That's what I wish she would focus on....or rather, I guess I wish she had focused on it. Its late in the game now for the neocons. So, on second thought, go golfing. Any one that wants to golf in 100+ plus heat and humidity is punished enough. Posted by: jonst at July 11, 2007 07:48 PM | Permalink to this comment
Section 9, is that a joke? The Syrians are by no means good guys and are perfectly willing and able to wage war against Israel by their proxies, but to say that they are "ginning up their missile batteries to have a go at the Israelis" is just ridiculous. Posted by: von at July 11, 2007 07:52 PM | Permalink to this comment
> the jihadist foe If this is the oft-repeated jingle for the hypothesis that all Moslems in the world are united as an "evil" league to destroy the US, or the West in general, I for one would like to see some evidence. I have to say, I see more evidence that there are a lot of different groups at battle with each other. I try to keep an open mind, but, overwhelming jingoism and apparent lack of reason in the claimants is a great hindrance. Although it never made any theoretical sense to link Saddam Hussein and his apparently deadly enemy Bin Laden's group, I was always interested to see if anyone could ever produce any actual evidence, because even apparently nonsensical theories should be taken seriously if there is real evidence to them (following the logical rule that evidence trumps theory). But, all I ever heard were unsupported (and incredible) claims. I'm similarly still waiting for credible evidence that there is a massive, irresistable "Islamic" league set on a war against the West -- or anything approaching that?
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/isg_memo.html Posted by: David Tomlin at July 11, 2007 11:48 PM | Permalink to this comment
Section9, not all of us reconstructed hippie libruls actually deny the threat of Islamic extremists, as much as you'd like to paint us that way. It's just that your dead end Decider has fucked the Real War by instigating the actual Phony War (TM), i.e., Iraq. Your talking points riddled analysis, like so many other nutjob hacks, conflates all Islamic extremism, Shia or Sunni, Arab or non-Arab, into one big, messy "Islamofacist" monstrosity, that shows pretty much no understanding or sophistication. I think you need to get out more. It's this "fighting stupid" mindset like Bush's, Cheney's, yours and all the other dead-enders that got us knee deep in shit to begin with. Far from an "elegant piece of argumentative jiujitsu," the Decider's lack of an actual strategy to fight Islamic extremism in its multiple forms ran straight into the brick wall of Reality (TM). In point of fact, you and the other Suit and Tie Fascists have handed more of a victory to Bin-Laden (remember him? Don't worry, Dear Decider doesn't either) by reconstructing the Soviet State here in the U.S. than he could have ever conceived possible. Thanks for fucking up this country mighty good. Posted by: Neocock at July 12, 2007 12:18 AM | Permalink to this comment
Sovietizing the US doesn't help Bin Laden, so far as I see. Bin Laden has always been straightforward in what he preaches -- attack and hurt US people and economy until the US pulls out of Israel -- and then more recently, adding the twist about the US pulling out of Saudi Arabia. It seems clear that Bin Laden is getting much of what he surely has wanted: * Saddam Hussein's secular threat neutralized * Widespread belief across the Levant in Bin Laden's nasty (ridiculous) propaganda that the US is at war with Islam itself and wants to kill, maim, or torture Islamic men, women, and children * Improved training grounds for urban terror (of the kind that the CIA used to like to train Bin Laden's people, but which they won't do anymore) * Another urban battlefield which is both easily accessible and full of people easily recruited to hate the US and attack it or its allies * Easy access to conduct powerful economic strikes against oil pipelines ? The US may be pulling out of Saudi Arabia. Many people speculate that is why the US is invested & investing so heavily in super-bases in Iraq, so that it can pull out of its infamous superbases in Saudi Arabia. But, Bin Laden hasn't gotten everything he wanted -- the US hasn't pulled out of Israel. Oh, and perhaps
"Our best hope is the ISG plan" This cannot happen under Bush -- there is no way to implement it without his cooperation, and he will not give it. Advocating for the ISG plan ends up being acceptance of the status quo. This is about a raw political struggle... in this country. Put aside the one in Iraq for a moment. This is about Bush doing what he wants until 01/09 or forcing some form of change in US policy before that point in time. If you want a change, you have to identify a plan that has some chance of forcing Bush to change policy. The only one that has any chance of being implemented pre-01/09 is a mandatory withdrawal plan. Being against a withdrawal plan means being in favor of the Bush plan through 01/09 -- not that you like it, but if you insist on positions that will not change that policy, then you are acquiescing to it by default. As for withdrawal, it will not unleash the bogey man. Our presence is not preventing the horror that everyone fears wil result from withdrawal. Whether the violent bloodletting occurs quickly or is drawn out for years while we are occupiers, it is the same process. It makes no sense to fear this problem when staying does not prevent it -- it just draws it out so that at any one point in time, it does not seem so bad. But that is a fallacy -- we are presiding over the same death and destruction in slow motion that would occur more quickly as we withdraw. Our presence has no future there and cannot promote our self-interest. We need to plan to get out, and unless you want to wait until 01/09, only a blunt withdrawal plan is going to work. And no one favors "immediate" withdrawal. It needs to be done cautiously, but there is no point to staying long term. Posted by: dmbeaster at July 19, 2007 11:13 PM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
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 Quotable More Predictions Predictions, Predictions! A 'Sick Man of Europe' Reprise? Addingtonism (Belatedly) Ripe For A Comeuppance?
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 Ross Douthat Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Innocents Abroad 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 Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
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
Think Tanks
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
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 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:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
