Solving the mess in Iraq

Remove all ads!

... things including Iraq itself. But indeed, the discussion appears to have gone somewhat

 

Reflective on the general attitudes in the (hard line ideological) Cheney wing in the current administration: Having an interest section in Tehran (a non-embassy-embassy) is by them considered 'a sign of weakness'.

It is a sign of weakness, because having an embassy in evil-land, and evil being talked with (instead of to) by the US in general, is in their eyes a reward, probably because they're so great persons and they want to deny Iran this beautiful experience (Thou shalt die grumpy!). No, I was of course sarcastic. It is merely because the US is such a force of good that when they talk with evil, some of this goodness rubs off on evil and they can wear this rubbed off glory like a crown, while the US has some glory rubbed off and is worse off! And the inhabitants of evil-land will then point at their leader and say that he's cool - he talks with US and has some rubbed-off glory on his coat - and there won't be regime change! No! No! No! Quelle horreur! Oh no, that was French!

It is a sign of weakness because in Cheney's world it means that US threats of use of excessive force are not credible, because, after all, the US only needs to talk if it lacks the will to bomb. To understand that sentiment, one has to know that in Cheney's standard operating procedures for human interaction non-coercion is the reward for submission. It works. When I last went shopping I got my goods this time without having to even flash my gun, let alone point it. And best, for free! People have started to look at me funny, though. I guess they're jealous because I'm the greatest guy on earth, without peer, and unlike theirs my cause is always just. Can't blame them. I am kidding, of course, but the free part is important - Cheney doesn't want to make any concessions whatsoever, he wants nothing less than unconditional surrender.

Speak about ideological blinkers. If a president has the right to send off soldiers to their deaths and kill people in foreign lands, he has the god-damn duty to get some of his glory rubbed off by talking with his enemies first, honestly, after all he likes to say that war is a last resort. To not do so is narcissistic cowardice. To only pretend, and to not even try to, is betrayal.

From a recent paper by WINEP (AIPAC's think tank, and very close to Cheney ideologically) on why striking Iran's oil infrastructure and entering a prolonged campaign against Iran is a brilliant idea that will have very little impact (which would, even if there would be a lot, be 'worth it') - in it's full splendor: The Last Resort: Consequences of Preventive Military Action against Iran (with a lot of false dual choice based on assertion)

I read that as a slip of the tongue. The remark suggests that for the Cheney crowd the 'diplomatic effort' is nothing more than the PR or perception management required to sell their product to a global audience. That means, in their militaristic view of foreign policy, 'diplomacy' is a mere enabler for military action, and not an alternate or even valid path. It suggests that for the Cheney crowd military force was the path of choice from the onset (to wit, whether war is the 'last resort' depends on whether you consider anything else a viable option hehe. How was that again? I don't do carrots! I'm all stick!). Their 'diplomacy' is not a serious effort, but rather formulated to fail to provide the pretext that lends legitimacy to military action. Seen that way, their dysfunctional blundering works as intended and has a clear purpose: The situation is escalating, everything is going as planned. It wasn't any different in Iraq. One should keep that in mind.

If the attack on Iran comes, and the war drums sound like it, fixing Iraq can be postponed indefinitely.

 

How inexpensive, actually? If the cost of the Predator is 1/10th of that of the Reaper, I could imagine using the Preds for most jobs and Reapers for specific tasks.

Of course, that would work if the military planners cared about costs, which I generally doubt.

 

Predators run between $3-4 million & Reapers go about $8 million. That may seem high but compared to the $70 million cost of an F-16 or the $137 million cost of a F-22 it is a pittance.

 

The GAO in a report faults the Bush administration for not having a post surge plan in Iraq. Now that only sounds like a shortcoming to the uninitiated. To me it is makes perfect sense and is easily explained.

First, what 'surge' means depends on how you define 'surge'. There is no definition in US law what 'surge' means and how long it takes. If the surge lasts a decade, the surge is in itself the long term plan. That implies that the administration is deceptive/dishonest about the nature of the surge; a suggestion that I find very credible.

Second, the Bush strategy is winning. After victory, things will sort themselves (think of the invisible hand of FREEDOM (tm) working hand in glove with the Iron Fist of US military might): The Middle East will blossom. Iraq will be ruled by a pro-US democratic government. So will Afghanistan. And Iran. And Syria and Lebanon. All Arabs will love Israel and the US, and everybody lives happily ever after. You see - no problems left that would require any planning.

One could of course take the view that there are indeed plans, that, say, require military action against a number of countries, but that they're too kooky to survive a day in broad daylight and are thus not on the record that the GAO has access to. But if you care to look, you find some of them being outlined by right wing think tanks, National Review, the Weekly Standard, or on the WSJ editorial pages.

 

I wonder -- if the US invaded / attacked Iran would that deflect attention from the Iraqi problem? Not the best way to "solve the mess in Iraq" but would it achieve that simple goal? (at the expense of creating a much bigger problem, of course!)

 

It depends on how you define "solving the mess". If you take it as meaning "distract the American public from what's going on there" then sure, attacking Iran will definitely work. Attacking Iraq worked very well in deflecting people's attention (whether this was the intent or not) away from the mess Afghanistan was becoming (never mind the even bigger messes both Afghanistan and Iraq have become). However as far as actually eliminating the problem in Iraq (regardless of the even bigger mess that will be Iran), doubtful.

 

LKD,
in case the Iraqis order the US troops out, the result would be a win-win situation. America would win, and so would Iraq. In fact, it would be a win-win-win outcome, with Iran as the third winner. A Shi'ite-dominated Iraq free of American occupation would have a close relationship with Iran. In fact, in order to defend itself in a nasty neighbourhood, Iraq would probably conclude a formal alliance with Iran. Now that cannot possibly be reconciled with the persistent delusions in the administration as far as the possibility of regime change and transformation of the region are concerned.

Their response should be a rapprochement with Iran. After all, the real enemy is not any state but non-state forces like Al Qaeda. But that is not how the Bush administration will view the matter. Faced with the possibility of an Iranian strategic victory, courtesy of the American troops who overthrew Saddam, the Bush men are likely to take the fool's way out, escalation. All they see is the looming failure of their grand transformation plan, and that must not be. They're too arrogant and ideological to accept that. Inside their intellectually incestuous bubble, the argument for attacking Iran might become irresistible, because accepting that outcome would be the acceptance of the failure of their policy - anything else but that - then rather bomb Iran, torch the Middle East.

And in this case, they even have a fair chance to leave the greater mess squarely at the feet of a hapless political rival who can do poop about it once 'facts on the ground' have been created. That is what the Bush crowd means when they talk about 'binding' Bush's successor* to their preferred policy.

 

I don't know, I've seen a couple of articles recently on a petition signed by over 2M Shi'ite Iraqis demanding a removal of the Iranian influence from Iraq. Remember, the Iranian leadership may be officially Shi'ite, but they're also ruthless, opressive rulers who are producing a lot of home-grown dissatisfaction with themselves. I can't see those people being welcomed by people who have been under the boot of Saddam and now are being 'helped' by America and Europe.

 

That's Sadr's block, yes, and indeed, he is against Iranian influence, that is, against the US sponsored pro-Iranian powers that be under al-Maliki. But does he like the US? No he doesn't. He is the guy who makes a point out of never, ever talking with the US. He is a Shiite Iraqi Nationalist, that means he wants both the US and Iran out. Does that mean he would support a US strike on Iran? No it doesn't. Odds are that he would follow his Shiite religious views and support his Iranian brethren against the common infidel enemy. What relationship would Sadr seek with Iran? Probably one informed by mutual religious views and a keen interest of not to have another war. So I can't quite get what comfort do you take from that petition. Put into context it means nothing new, and especially nothing hopeful for the US.

Isn't that view a little simplistic? Unlike the US Iran will not invade Iraq. They don't have to. Their influence is more subtle. That means, if the Iraqis get a Shiite clerical (Teheran-esque) government, say under Sadr, it will be home grown. The Iraqis don't need to import tyranny from Tehran. Their history suggests they are absolutely up to the task of developing something like that on their own.

 

You are talking about Obama or Mccain, right? Then you mean "successor", I believe Bush's predecessor was Bill Clinton, and while he may like to be bound, I don't think that it would be by Bush

 

... ah, got me, successor it is.

 

Rather a stunner: Maliki wants a short term "memorandum of understanding" between the US and Iraq concerning the presence of US troops in the country, whereas Bush wants a Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA), a full treaty. To really grasp the difference:

• A memorandum of understanding (MoU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It most often is used in cases where parties do not intend to imply a legal commitment. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.
  
  '​
• A treaty is a binding agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely states and international organizations. Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law for that breach. The central principle of treaty law is expressed in the maxim pacta sunt servanda — "pacts must be respected".

That's as close as it can to Maliki telling Bush politely and in his face to shove it.

In doing that Maliki reacts to the massive internal Iraqi opposition to Bush's plan, and apparently this opposition outweighs his dependency on the US. Essentially, this is about culture. Muslim countries are not going to enter into a treaty of alliance with a non-Muslim state, much less if odds are it will draw them into a war against another Muslim state. And they do not want US troops there. Bush and his neo-goons don't get that and never will.
To make that clear: Maliki has now specifically warned Bush that Iraqi territory is not to be used for an attack against Iran by US forces. He made sure that it was understood that this prohibition includes facilities and air space.

Yesterday Maliki sweetened this up a little by declaring that 'the terrorist siege is broken', implying that, after all it's a war on terror, the US can go now, thank you very much. That is a golden bridge to declare victory and leave. The Iraqis, the little people, humbly opine that they will fix themselves.

 

Let me make it clear that as things presently stand, I do not think that the U.S. should attack Iran. The consequences politically for the Americans would be disastrous.

That said, Maliki can warn the US all he wants -- does he really have the ability to stop the US should they decide to use their position in Iraq to attack Iran? I think not. I feel for the guy, supposedly the head of state for an entire nation but having little if any real power or control.

 

Against what percentage of Iraqis do American troops fight now?

If the US ignore Maliki and attack Iran, how many will they face in face of an uprising in response to a US attack?

You overlook that while the US wield the greatest hitting power, they are in a position of vulnerability. The literally live in a sea of hostiles and potential hostiles, with a long and vulnerable supply line. An uprising will cost the Iraqis dearly, but the US will lose more than just a few feathers in the process, for US decisions to stay or leave that's what counts.

More generally, this scenario is usually attributed to Iran's nefarious influence. It is as well explained through the mutual bond between the Iraqi Shia and the Iranians, after all, US Christians don't need foreign instigation to get upset about prosecution of Christians in China. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

I don't think the Americans are that vulnerable. If they take the gloves off and hit any insurgencies full force and without regard for the worldwide politcal repercussions, they could deal with just about anything. Please note that I'm not advocating they do this, but they have the physical capabilities to do so. The reason they are taking losses in Iraq at the moment is that they are *****footing around and not taking the steps that would protect them. Taking those steps* would make them no better than Saddam, however, and would lose them any standing in the international community.

Your last point is not difficult for me to understand -- I actually agree with it. Or were you speaking symbolically to the Bushies?

*Examples of these steps would be mass roundups and summary execuations of anyone who is an insurgent, knows an insurgent, or (/start sarcasm) has an accent similar to an insurgent (/end sarcasm). Decimation of the populations of entire towns and villages from where a strike was known to originate. Complete destruction of entire cities with the Americans own WMD. Forced deportations of tens of thousands of people. Taking the children from certain areas and putting them in indoctrination camps. Etc.

Once again, these are NOT tactics I advocate as I believe they are reprehensible. But the US has the physical capability to do some of them.

 

That is exactly why America is vulnerable. Because they wouldn't do those things, no matter how crazy Cheney and his neo-goons are (and in their heart of hearts may wish the US should). To have an overwhelming capability and not use it because it would be too costly politically is exactly what makes it useless for all practical purposes.

The latter, them and flat-earth-ers like Tom Friedmann, who delude themselves into believing that everyone is the same and wants to be just like us. They are not and they do not.

 

Sure. Of course, these are bona fide war crimes and genocide of the highest order (the US conduct in Iraq has not been stellar, but it was a few steps up from, say, the Wehrmacht in Russia), but the US does have the physical capacity to commit them. As far as mental capacity goes, that is more questionable:would anyone want that to happen and would anyone authorize such orders?

BTW, does the US army manual allow or require lower-ranking staff to disobey an order if it is against the army code or is obviously illegal (i.e. in case of an attempted military coup)?

 

I believe the Army policy is that if an officer orders you to commit a war crime you have a higher duty to disobey that order. That could be Hollywood BS though. I would hope they have that, but the thing is, I am also pretty sure that in battle conditions the penalty for disobeying an order can be instant execution -- I don't known if the Americans ever had this, but I'm sure it was the order of the day in the World Wars when soldiers refused to leave the relative safety of their trenches and charge hardened positions -- the English and German officers threatened to shoot anyone who didn't move their butts out of the trench.

 

The Bushmen have no intentions of leaving Iraq - they never have. The proof is in the pudding. The Iraq War was a war of conquest. There was a moment, during the elections, when most everyone believed that there would be a "free" Iraq. GWB may invade Iran within the next 6 months, and in doing so, he will involve the next administration so deeply militarily in the ME, that there will be almost no way out. Or he may use it as a pretense to seize power and overturn the Constitution. Welcome to the "New American Century." The stink of it will linger long, long after the current regime has been kicked out of power by the American people. The message: "Don't get fooled again."

They believe that everyone wants to be like they are - Many of us do not, and never want to be like them....