September 15, 2007

Republican Guards, or Revolutionary?

A quick query: did others notice this slip of the tongue by Petraeus during his 9/10 interview w/ Hume?

HUME: What's the Quds force, for those who may not know?

PETRAEUS: This is an element of the Iranian Republican Guard's Corps, a separate element, that essentially, by the way, controls the foreign policy for Iraq and for a couple of other key countries. In fact, the ambassador...

HUME: The foreign policy of Iran.

PETRAEUS: ... of Iran, for Iraq, the ambassador with whom Ambassador Crocker has met, for example, the ambassador of Iran in Baghdad is a Quds member. It's well-known, but he is, in fact, the ambassador to Iraq.

As I said, it was just a slip of the tongue, but it was somewhat amusing to see Petreaus describe the Quds force as an "element" of the Republican, rather than Revolutionary, Guards (Hume, predictably, missed that part of the slip-up). Of course, the Quds Force is a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, and the Republican Guard was one of Saddam's more loyal military branches. It was all on par with the cheery conflating of varied bad guys that passes as policy in this Administration. And note too Petraeus felt compelled to mention that Crocker's intermediary in Baghdad, the Iranian Ambassador there, is a member of the Quds Force. This was meant to signal in a very public forum that Crocker's dialogue with his counterpart amounted to speaking with a prominent terrorist (seemingly anyone our Beltway notables don't like these days, from Sy Hersh to Walid Mouallem, say), should the designation of the Revolutionary Guards (or merely the Quds Force, if the 'moderates' in DC win the debate!) as a "specially designated terrorist" occur. Indeed, I couldn't help thinking Petraeus was falling somewhat into the Cheney camp on Iran policy. Witness:

PETRAEUS: So Iran's role in Iraq is very destructive. It is something that Iraqis certainly would hope would be much more of a normal role among countries, but one about which they have become very concerned in recent months as they, along with us, have learned the extent of Iranian involvement.

HUME: Do the rules of engagement that you're operating under allow you to do what you think needs to be done to suppress this activity on the part of Iran? Or perhaps do you need assistance from military not under your command to do this?

PETRAEUS: Well, they allow us to do what we need to do with inside Iraq.

HUME: Right.

PETRAEUS: Beyond that...

HUME: Is that enough, in your view?

PETRAEUS: Well, that's what I'm responsible for. And, again, when I have concerns about something beyond that, I take them, of course, to my boss, Admiral Fallon, who is the regional commander. And, in fact, we have shared our concerns with him and with the chain of command. And there's a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation.

It fell on Crocker to then state:

CROCKER: Well, I have had a couple of meetings now with my Iranian counterpart, in which we've laid out very clearly what our concerns are, and said that what they need to do is align practice on the ground with their stated policy of support for a stable, democratic Iraq.

HUME: You have said, by the way, today that you thought that they believe that a stable, democratic Iraq was in their interest. And at the same time, though, you said that if it all went to hell over there, that it would be — that they would be, as you put it, a big winner. Which is right?

CROCKER: Well, I think you see a collision in Iran between their long- term strategic interests and their narrow tactical desires. Their narrow tactical desires I would define as trying to administer a defeat to the U.S. in Iraq. The problem they've got is that, if they are able to create circumstances that cause us to reconsider our commitment, the result is going to be a chaotic Iraq that, over the long run, could potentially be dangerous for them, as well. [my emphasis throughout]

Crocker just speaks of his "Iranian counterpart", not following the more inflammatory thrust of Petreaus's description of him as a leading Quds player. And he stresses that a total melt-down in Iraq is not in Iran's interest, as have other sane observers very often. Again, this post was just meant as a quick aside to point out Petreaus' somewhat sloppy mix-up here. Still, I found it worrisome to see Petreaus almost taking a Cheney-esque line on Iran. Hopefully Foggy Bottom and Admiral Fallon (and hopefully Gates and some of the Joint Chiefs) will continue to keep more catastrophic adventurism at bay, though of course, The Decider looms large in all this, via Cheney's noxious interventions, as we're all painfully aware.

Greg...

I think you're looking for daylight between the obvious neo-con fantasies of Petraeus, and Crockers position.

Its not there. I mean, how out to lunch do you have to be to describe Iran's "defeat of the United States" as a "narrow tactical desire"?

Only a neo-con would describe Iran's actual goal (withdrawal of US forces from Iraq) with "defeat of the US".... because no diplomat who wasn't a wingnut neocon would use the kind of language (desire to defeat the US) Crocker used. Given that Iran has a legitimate interest in what happens in Iraq, a real diplomat would have phrased Iran's goals in a way that recognizes those legitimate interests.

Posted by: p_lukasiak at September 15, 2007 09:50 PM | Permalink to this comment