The headline "Jeb Bush in 2008?" is a bit misleading. Spengler highlights some significant issues systematically glossed over by pundits and MSM alike.
For all America's embarrassment in Iraq, none of its fundamental interests is impaired by Iraq's misery...The US may not get what it wants, which is to remake the world in its own image, but it well might get what it needs, which is the elimination of the prospect of threats greater than the sort that an aircraft-carrier task force or two can swat down in a few days...the US (like its European allies {and even its European detractors} ) continues to have an interest in preventing a new Shi'ite empire from dominating the Persian Gulf region, especially if such an empire might obtain nuclear arms...The US might simply begin aerial bombardments of Iranian nuclear-weapons-development facilities, although the cost of such action would be much higher oil prices and economic instability. China would suffer the most under such a scenario and understandably wants no such thing to occur. {"higher oil prices and economic instability," how about worldwide economic collapse?}...There simply is no reason to take preemptive military action in the immediate future, and no responsible power would employ this option unless it were quite necessary {since the Mad Mullahs are several years away from their insane quest for nukes}...If Saudi Arabia makes good on the threat offered by Nawaf Obaid in the November 28 Washington Post to sink the oil price {now happening at oil futures markets near you}, Iran's {inevitably decreasing} capacity to subsidize its increasingly indigent population will vanish..There is no point negotiating with the present regime in Teheran, which knows better than outsiders that it has barely a decade to stake its imperial claim in the region before economic and demographic factors push it into inevitable decline. With President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who has sublimated decline of Iran's position in the real world into an apocalyptic fantasy, there can be no debating. One has to drive a stake through his heart.
.... What does China want? ...China requires stability and predictability in its foreign economic relations.
What does Russia want? Stability on its borders, often at the expense of the aspirations of peoples who have the misfortune to occupy the Russian near abroad, and a free hand in arranging the economic affairs of the Russian state....
Fostering democracy in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Georgia and other venues was the silliest undertaking of US foreign policy of all time. Jacksonian Americans enthusiastically kill people who threaten them, and they do not mind too much the loss of American soldiers in the cause of US security, but they rise up in anger at the sacrifice of American lives {for no substantial reason}.
.... Cruel as it may sound, the United States has no interest in Ukraine, because the Ukrainians have no interest in Ukraine. Through immigration or infecundity, Ukraine has the hideous distinction of the world's fastest rate of population decline (tied with Moldova). The number of Ukrainians will fall by half as of mid-century. There simply won't be any Ukrainians to oppress a hundred years from now, and there is no point wasting powder on the place. {also the Russians have no interest in preserving Russia, either, by the same standards}...in a rational world, Bush would call Putin and say more or less: "Listen, Volodya, I have to admit that some of the inmates at the State Department overstayed their passes out of the asylum in the matter of Ukraine. I have reviewed the matter and decided that the United States has no interests whatever in Ukraine - nor for that matter in Georgia, Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan. But you also must understand that we have some quite serious concerns about Iran, and we expect your help."
... The US president has it within his power to make the job of the Chinese government much, much easier. Bush should say more or less the following to Hu Jintao: "We understand and support your 'harmonious society' program. China's stability and prosperity are essential to the world's stability and prosperity. We understand that in the present economic transition, it would be of great help to China to eliminate the uncertainty associated with the value of the dollar against the yuan. Without publicizing the matter, we propose to keep the yuan-dollar exchange rate stable during the next two years."
... Once the America's mission changed from the delusional goal of promoting democracy in Iraq or Lebanon, to the achievable one of eliminating threats to the US and its allies (in this case Saudi Arabia and Israel {having allies who are mutual enemies is such a problem}), foreign policy would be fun again.
If W can pull victory out of the jaws of defeat, Jeb could well be drafted in '08, Having graduated Phi Beta Kappa from UT, having conducted himself well as governor of Florida, being married to the former Columba Garnica Gallo and being able to speak Spanish are all points in his favor.
President George W. Bush is about to launch a final push in Iraq with a large reinforcement of American troops in the hope of crushing the insurgency before America embarks on a large-scale withdrawal of force from the country.
The size of the force is commonly set at about 40,000-50,000 troops. The aim of this surge will be to inflict severe damage and loss on the problem-making elements within Iraq, including both Shia and Sunni militias, and to increase training of the Iraqi security forces under American supervision.
The arguments against the surge are that it might exacerbate the violence without deterring the perpetrators from persisting in their attacks and that it might result in a sharp increase in American casualties with no observable gain. The arguments for trying a surge are that it is defeatist to concentrate on withdrawal from Iraq without attempting a final effort to make military force work.
A major consideration is where the troops are to be found. Some formations of the regular American army and some national guard formations remain within the United States, but much has already been deployed to Iraq and it may prove difficult to find the necessary soldiers. Also problematic is the task of transporting them and their equipment to the fighting zones. How are they to be moved and where are they to be based?
Despite the deployment to Iraq already made and the number of units and formations elsewhere in the world (specifically in Afghanistan), the US Army and Marine Corps still maintain a large deployable reserve in America. There should be no difficulty in finding a regular or national guard army division or a marine division.
Its equipment could be transported in the designated huge transport vehicles of its C-lift reserve fleet, while the personnel could be flown by the vast fleet of C-5 transports. The obvious point of entry is Kuwait, from which the invasion of Iraq was launched in 2003.
Military logic requires that any reinforcements should contain a sizeable number of armoured vehicles. Insurgents, though they have had some success in attacking tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, are not properly equipped to resist a heavily armoured enemy.
The object of the surge deployment should be to overwhelm the insurgents with a sudden concentration, both of numbers, armoured vehicles and firepower with the intention to inflict severe losses and heavy shock. The Mahdi Army in Sadr City should prove vulnerable to such tactics, which would of course be supported by helicopters and fixed-wing aviation.
Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral. Typically, units have become involved in fire fights while on patrol or on convoy protection duties. During the surge, the additional troops would take the fight to the enemy with the intention of doing him harm, destabilising him and his leaders and damaging or destroying the bases from which he operates.
The cost of such tactics is likely to be high but not unbearable if enough armoured vehicles are used to protect the attacking troops. The advantage of committing recently arrived troops to such operations is that they will come to operations fresh and enthusiastic. Though there is the disadvantage that they may not be familiar with local conditions or topography, this need not be a disqualification since the purpose of a surge strike would be to create a shock effect, not to alter local conditions by informal action.
The British contingent recently demonstrated that such overwhelming tactics have their effect. After their surprise move into Basra with massed columns of fighting vehicles and Challenger tanks, they succeeded in dominating the chosen area and evoking respect from the local militias.
In any case, the sending of such force will be a necessary preliminary to any reduction in strength, since it would be necessary to cover the withdrawal. Retreat is a complicated operation of war which paradoxically always involves far more troops if it is to be brought off successfully. The reason for that is that the spectacle of withdrawal tempts the enemy to interpret the time of withdrawal as an indication of weakness, and so risks infliction of passing shots and the launching of farewell attacks. It is vastly important to have additional troops on hand at such a time.
The surge reinforcements may therefore have a dual purpose to cover the reduction and also to deal final blows at the source of the disorder prior to departure. American commanders certainly will not wish to leave Iraq, tail between legs. We may therefore confidently expect to see the number of American troops in the theatre increase suddenly from 150,000 to 200,000, if only for a short time.
An important side effect of the surge for which Western leaders will hope is that it will increase the size and capability of Iraqi security forces, which it will be vital to include in the operation.
For it is upon them that the stability of Iraq and its elected government will depend when the size of Western involvement is reduced.
#1
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.
It doesn't matter how many troops if you don't have the will to use them to win. You demonstrate that will by removing the restrictions and interferences that you impose upon the ones you already have. War is hell.
#4
Article: Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral. Typically, units have become involved in fire fights while on patrol or on convoy protection duties. During the surge, the additional troops would take the fight to the enemy with the intention of doing him harm, destabilising him and his leaders and damaging or destroying the bases from which he operates.
The problem isn't that there aren't enough forces to take the fight to the enemy. It's that there aren't enough forces to garrison the whole area and prevent the enemy from showing his face. The enemy doesn't seek out our strong points. Most of the time, he doesn't stand and fight at all, preferring to plink (not very effectively, but that's his strategy - and it makes sense*) at our people using snipers and mines. When we come out in force, he just stows his weapons and waits for another opportunity. A surge in troop count should help, but not because they will be used in large scale operations - heck, we killed large numbers of the Taliban using perhaps a few hundred Special Ops people.
* Traditionally, what you do to get guerrillas to come out and fight is to kill the population that feeds and arms them. That, and not killing for the sake of killing, was why throughout history, armies have ravaged civilian populations during their wars of conquest. Guerrillas have families, too. Go after their families, and they'll show up to defend them.
#5
"Traditionally, what you do to get guerrillas to come out and fight is to kill the population that feeds and arms them. That, and not killing for the sake of killing, was why throughout history, armies have ravaged civilian populations during their wars of conquest. Guerrillas have families, too. Go after their families, and they'll show up to defend them."
Absolutely, positively Zhang. If the good general means what he says, we don't need more troops. We start massive attacks on entire areas of Baghdad with the intention of leveling it. No survivors. This will be effective. Just bring in napalm and heavy artillery. Put the troops already there on the perimeter and execute anyone trying to sneek away. Do you concur and support, el generale ? We don't need more troops, just more action. Your call for more troops only indicates your real purpose, more door to door hand holding. Let's reach a concensus. Either we exterminate these useless bastards or we withdraw. It's a clear choice.
#6
It doesn't matter how many troops if you don't have the will to use them to win.
EXACTAMUNDO! The troops we have there already could make short work of the problem, given the free reign to do so. More troops in Iraq with the same "rules of engagement" and PC micromanagement = more IED and ambush casualties.
#8
"there aren't enough troops to garrison the whole area" is the core of the issue which is mostly avoided by strategists. Killing off the civilian population is most easily done by blockade, artillery or bombardment. Going after the sources of terrorism (SA & Iran) won't be done due to the oil export/import standoff. Maybe the Iraqis will save Iraq.
#9
Keegan should consider retirement. 50,000 or 500,000 troops won't matter a damn with our welfare as warfare policy. If the US were bloody mined enough, 5,000 troops could control the entire country. Instead we've allowed western oriented Iraqis and exiles to be murdered (Ayatollah al-Khoei), run out (Pachachi) and marginalized (Allawi). Instead Iraq is entirely controlled by Iran exiles (Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq or Badr Brigades or Dawa) or Iranian agents (Sadr of Badr Brigades, probably Chalabi). Hell, even the Talibani the Kurd was just caught sponsoring Iranian agents who were teaching them how to make armor piercing IEDs. SCIRI, Dawa, and Badr with the Kurds ARE the Iraqi government.
We've partially thrown off slavish devotion to the Saudi master manipulators only to become unpaid Janissaries for our most impplacable enemy, the Iranians. When the Sunni have been run off or beaten down so bad they can't be rearmed and used against the Shiites, you can bet the full attention of the Iranians and Shiites will be turned on our troops.
All many Americans ask is can we get some revenge for the muslims twice trying to wipe out 250,000 American civilians and succeeding in killing 3,000 and gutting the center of our premier city? IS THAT SO FUCKING HARD?
Posted by: ed ||
01/04/2007 21:03 Comments ||
Top||
January 3, 2007 -- YESTERDAY, the man directly responsible for conducting the war in Iraq received semi-official notice that he'll soon be relieved of his post. It's ironic that the semi-official notice came in a front-page New York Times story, considering how hostile the paper has been to the war effort and the Bush administration generally - and how profoundly angry senior Bush officials are at the Times.
Welcome to 2007. Democrats rule Capitol Hill, and the Bush White House is using The Times to deliver a message. Who says things never change in Washington?
The message: The president has lost confidence in the strategy and tactics designed and implemented by the generals running the war. They have, as the Times put it, "become more fixated on withdrawal than victory."
The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James T. Conway, told the Times that the president went to the Pentagon a few weeks ago and said flatly, "What I want to hear from you is how we're going to win, not how we're going to leave."
And that's basically why, according to the Times, "Bush seems all but certain not only to reverse the strategy that Gen. Casey championed, but also to accelerate the general's departure from Iraq."
#1
Podhoretz gives a take not too different from my rather heated comments on the NYT story (which was ruined by my inability to preview, and the BOLDING of half the annotated article). His metaphor of the burning building was more succinct than anything I came up with. As I said in the earlier post, I just can't understand how MNF-I and their civilian masters ever thought that 2006 was a time for a sudden hand-over to Iraqis. The elections were great achievements and milestones - which needed to be exploited with a ruthless suppression of Sunni resistance, followed by a similar though narrower effort against the Mahdi army and major criminal gangs. Instead, it was simply assumed that political developments would nearly instantly gut the insurgency and the terrorists. And on top of this, the American public was left to figure things out for itself (with the help of NPR, Reuters, and Democratic legislators), while the administration barely issued anything more than limp slogans.
They assumed a democracy where that wasn't yet one, while ignoring a democracy that did exist and provided resources, people, and consent for the entire effort.
#3
g: In my experience, generals don't make policy---just carry it out.
I'll have to agree. Bush ran the war like a business - get the biggest bang for the buck. Instead of throwing large numbers of men and huge amounts of money at the task from the beginning, he committed resources in increments, like any prudent CEO. The problem is that you can't fight wars like this. At the beginning is when you have a blank check. During the later stages, if things don't look so good, you have problems merely maintaining your presence, let alone ramping up the amount of resources. I predict that Bush is going to run into the same kinds of problems that Ford ran into when he tried to keep the Republic of Vietnam going - the Democrats will simply deny funding to continue operations in Iraq.
The elections were great achievements and milestones - which needed to be exploited with a ruthless suppression of Sunni resistance, followed by a similar though narrower effort against the Mahdi army and major criminal gangs
Right on the money! Empty out the thousands of worthless tit diplo-dinks and lawyers that run in and out of the USAMBASSY here and turn this phueching mess over to the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Hoist our American flag over these camps, drop the diplo-crap names "MNF-I & MNC-I" replace it with the "ALL American" 82nd Airborne Division or "Move in and Kill em" First Cav Divison, send the worthless tit JAG RUF/ROE scribes back to CONUS, turn our soldier and marines loose and let them go kick some ass. Start in Sadr City (100 IED's in August alone) and move out thru Baghdad from there! Baghdad is the key, the dragon's head. These phuechs understand one thing, a strong hand... give it to em, with 50 Cal's a'blazing. They should be shoveling 50 Cal brass out of the way with corn scoops in Sadr city right NOW! A handy second order effect will be a stand up and take notice Iran and Syria! Now lets get with the program so we can someday get these fine young soldiers the hell out of here.
#5
The Dems know that the "ISLAMIC/ISLAMIST SWORD-BOMB" points agz Russia-China as well as America-West. UNLESS THE DEMS ARE ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF A RADICAL ISLAMISM-BASED, GLOBAL NUKE SUPERPOWER IFF NOT OWG CALIPHATE, they must support Dubya's agenda of both both regime change inside Radical Iran + deny Radical Iran nuke weapons tech. Casey's "Wither Away" scenario, espec in the absence of any US-led effort to destabilize and overthrow Moud + Mullahs, involvs dimensions of LONG LEAD TIME + MASSIVE NEAR-TERM COSTS THAT THE DEMS ARE NOT WILLING TO RISK THEIR POL CAREERS ON. America has TMD + GMD, NOT RUSSIA-CHINA - iff the latter still refuse to support sanctions agz Iran, the easiest course for Dubya to follow is to sit back and let Iran have its nukes. A well-nuclearized Radical Iranian State without empire is as much a threat to Russia-China vv Muslim populations as a Nuclearized Iran wid Regional-Global Empire. THE LEFTIES CAN'T ALLOW RADICAL IRAN TO DESTROY THE USA-WEST BECUZ 'TIS THE USA-WEST > $$$ HAND THAT FEEDS THEM, AND WON'T ALLOW RUSSIA-CHINA TO BE DESTROYED BECUZ MACKINDER'S WORLD ISLAND IN THEIR IDEO IS NOT IRAN = ASIA MINOR + LEFT'S IDEO IS SECULARIST. The enemy of America is NOT the friend of either Radical Islam nor Secular SOcialism.
#7
The message: The president has lost confidence in the strategy and tactics designed and implemented by the generals running the war. They have, as the Times put it, "become more fixated on withdrawal than victory."
After the onslaught of the Chinese Offensive in northern Korea routed the South Korean, American, and UN forces from the Yalu, a new theater commander, Ridgeway was dispatch to replace the previous commander whoÂ’d just died in a vehicle accident. When Ridgeway arrived at the command headquarters he found a 'defeated' staff that was scrambling to put together a plan to evacuate the Korean peninsula for Japan. In one of the great feats of American generalship, in weeks Ridgeway established his presence, imbued the staff and the Army with strength and confidence and turned the campaign around to push the Chinese back from their gains below the 38th parallel.
Sometimes you just got the find the right general. It took Lincoln three years to find his. It took Rome even longer from finding a commander, Fabius, who could just hold his own with Hannibal, to finding one, Scipio, who could take the fight to the door steps of Barca family and Carthage.
#9
What we've got to do is decide whether we are at war or not. War is imposing your will on the enemy by force. If we are truly at war, then we should not hesitate to impose our will. If we don't want to do so, then we should recognize that we are not truly at war and get busy doing some "diplomizing".
I say we are at war, should recognize that, and get busy mashing some taters.
#12
The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James T. Conway, told the Times that the president went to the Pentagon a few weeks ago and said flatly, "What I want to hear from you is how we're going to win, not how we're going to leave."
WARNING: Harsh and enraged rant follows.
Well, Mr. Bush...in the immortal words of Chris Farley, "whoopty frickin' doo!" You're about five years late showing up at the party, pal. Lincoln and FDR are probably spinning in their graves over how you've made such a colossal clusterf**k of the WoT so far.
For starters: Exactly WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING that day when - with the WTC rubble still smoldering - you told Americans to fight the terrorists by going shopping?!? Where was the call to drastically expand our ground forces THEN? Where was the call for a half-million volunteers? And where was the directive to Rummy to "find your McClellans and Burnsides, shitcan them, and get me some Grants and Shermans?"
Why the HELL did Tommy Franks stay in command of CENTCOM after he allowed a female staff judge advocate to overrule an order to turn the Taliban's Mullah Omar into a greasy red stain on an Afghan road? Why the hell was the Iraq occupation turned over to a State Department hack instead of a hard-assed military viceroy backed by a dramatically larger American military presence. And why, why,WHY isn't the EPA's Endangered Species List headed with "Members of the Saudi Royal Family?"
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
01/04/2007 23:46 Comments ||
Top||
When I was rescued from terrorists in Baghdad by Iraqi forces, I thought this was proof positive that US policy in Iraq was working.
US and coalition forces were training the "new Iraqi army" and empowering them to take control of their own destiny.
My captors were caught by Iraqis and tried in an Iraqi court in the room next to where Saddam Hussein was also being tried. They were found guilty and are now serving life terms in jail.
But things changed when Nuri al-Maliki was elected Prime Minister of Iraq with the decisive support of terrorist turned politician, Muqtada al-Sadr.
Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Shiite death squads are now running amok, killing Sunni citizens.
#1
He doesn't understand Sunni politics or dynamics in Iraq. They were spoilers before there was anything to spoil (i.e., elected sovereign government). They ain't gonna play nice with the other kids, ever. That's Cause One in Iraq ever since we invaded, and by now we've about exhausted all the obvious dodges and other ways to avoid facing that fact. Even Wood thinks the problems started with the upsurge in Shi'a death squads. Effect, not cause.
#2
Okay, I'll bite, iff I'm reading this article correctly Woods is indir affirming that DESPOTISM =XTREMISM BY ONE SIDE, as represented by Organz Terror and on-going sectarian Violence, is the greatest problem for Iraqi Muslims, NOT THE AMERICAN OR WESTERN INFLUENCE/PRESENCE IN IRAQ OR ME, NOR US-WESTERN ATTEMPTS TO ALLEGEDLY CONTROL ME = WORLD OIL.
#3
Word, Verlaine. The writer, like all libs, makes an emotional investment in a particular individual or sub-groups, then projects the good characteristics of his selection on an arbitrarily larger group as innate instead of chosen behavior: I would agree with him if ALL Sunnis in the army had refused to carry out orders to commit crimes against humanity. They do not, choosing to support terrorists in their midst.
Wudda asshat. Actually, I didn't even read it as my tummy isn't good now and I don't want to throw up. by John F. Kerry
EVERYWHERE I traveled throughout the Middle East this winter, the feeling was inescapable that the region could explode at any time. The threat of three simultaneous civil wars that King Abdullah of Jordan spoke of is real, and perhaps the most imminent danger -- in Lebanon -- is the least understood.
Lost in the shadows of Iraq, the struggle to save the fragile democracy born of the Cedar Revolution has reached a moment of truth. If America does not act now, this key front in the broader struggle between moderates and extremists for the future of the Arab world will be lost -- and the consequences will long be felt throughout the region.
There's a scary thought -- Kerry gets one right. Of course, for John 'acting' means something different.
The radicals' ambitions for overthrow move from Prime Minister Fouad Siniora in Lebanon to President Mahmound Abbas in Ramallah to Prime Minister Nouri al- Maliki in Iraq. They are determined to achieve a clean sweep.
The 'radicals' -- aka, Islamists -- indeed want all three out. But let's not get all gooey-eyed about Abbas, he's a much a thug as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and he's just as dedicated to the destruction of Israel. He's just more incompetent.
Anyone who has longed for a George Washington or Thomas Jefferson to emerge and lead the fight for democracy in the Middle East should come to Beirut and meet the patriots who have made incredible sacrifices for a free and independent Lebanon.
There is the son of slain former prime minister Rafik Hariri. There is the Cabinet minister whose husband was assassinated soon after becoming president, and the minister of defense, who after 12 surgeries still bears the scars of an assassination attempt. There is the mother of recently slain 34-year-old Lebanese parliamentarian Pierre Gemayel, who said to me simply: "We pay a high price for sharing what you believe in," and ask yourself whether we are paying her the debt owed for our shared beliefs.
Once again John gets it right. That's two and 2/3's out of three so far. Boggle.
At the forefront of this struggle is Siniora, the prime minister of Lebanon, who has stood up to a challenge that many extremists thought would bring down his government. Weakened by this summer's war, Siniora is effectively under siege by Hezbollah, which has brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators to the streets of Bierut and shut down the government with the mass resignation of its ministers.
Siniora is under seige by Hezbollah which is in turn controlled by Syria and, especially, Iran. It's important to state that up front because ignoring that simple fact starts one down the wrong path. To get a proper solution in Lebanon, as Kerry evidently wants, one has to deal with these two countries. Only then does one defang Hezbollah.
And along the way, let's not forget that Lebanon is now 35 to 40% Shi'a.
To provide the support he needs, we must recognize and adapt to the new realities on the ground.
Does that mean Kerry recognizes that Iran is the problem? Noooooooo ....
We've lost 3,000 American lives and invested more than $300 billion in hopes of forcibly birthing democracy in Iraq -- while largely ignoring Lebanon, where democratic institutions already have a foothold. Success there -- and across the Middle East -- ultimately depends more on winning over civilian populations with basic goods and services than defeating armies with sophisticated weapons and technology. New York's street-wise mayor Fiorello LaGuardia proclaimed, "There is no Republican way to clean a street." This is Politics 101: If you don't deliver services, you don't get the support of the people.
It's hard to deliver basic goods and services when hard boyz are terrorizing the local population. And the local police. And the local politicans. The Hezbollah thugs behave in a manner similar to the gangland thugs of Capone's day: give us what we want or we'll kill you here and now. Takes a mighty brave local pol or copper to stand up to that. You don't have a chance of delivering 'local services' until you put down the goons and private armies that have their own agendas. That takes us right back to Syria and Iran.
Yet today, the forces of radicalism are doing a far better job than the moderates in making the most basic connections with restive populations. In Lebanon, Iran has seized the opportunity to win over the population by channeling some $500 million in reconstruction funds through Hezbollah -- over twice as much as we have. In fact, Iran is doing more in rebuilding Lebanon than Washington is doing in rebuilding New Orleans.
Nice cheap shot John. New Orleans is held back by even more corrupt local politics. Bother to look next door at Mississippi?
Regardless, Iran is not the savior of the Lebanese people because it's put half-a billion dollars into 'reconstruction' (I'd be willing to bet that the first thing they reconstructed were the Hezbollah fighting bunkers). Iran is the power behind the problem: they throw tokens at the Shi'a population (which has fooled Kerry, surprise) while building and re-building their terror proxy in the region. That's the issue.
We must change this dynamic by dramatically increasing economic assistance -- and pressing others in the international community to do the same -- and ensuring that Lebanese see that they can count on their elected leaders. And we must redouble our efforts to strengthen the Lebanese military, which has earned the trust of the people but lacks the strength to confront Hezbollah.
The Lebanese military will fall apart if it challenges Hezbollah. If it manages to confront Hezbollah with any success the Syrians will jump in. Again it gets back to Syria and Iran.
The key to Lebanon's future lies in getting Syria to truly respect Lebanese sovereignty. The money and weapons that empower Hezbollah come primarily through Syria, which uses proxies like Hezbollah to advance its hegemonic designs. They must be convinced to change course, including by ensuring that UN Resolution 1701 -- which again calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah -- is fully implemented.
And John's gonna test 'em, just you watch ...
To test the Syrians directly, as the discredited Baker-Hamilton Commission suggested, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and I met with President Bashar al- Assad for more than two hours. The conversation confirmed my belief that engagement with Syria could be useful in advancing our objectives across the region. The Syrian leadership will act according to its own self-interest. The challenge is to get Syria's leaders to make a strategic decision to change direction, and shift their allegiance away from Iran.
John bought a lot of codswollop, which ought to tell the average person just how gullible he is. Baby Assad has no incentive whatsoever to be 'constructive' and lots of incentives to keep doing just what he's doing.
First and foremost, anything that lets Lebanon out of the Syrian orbit is a direct threat to his own rule. He could die and like most dictators he doesn't want that. A free, democratic Lebanon is a shining example to his own people who might be emboldened to ask the fatal question: "Mr. Assad, you're an asshat. Who put you in charge?"
This requires a package of incentives that will provide real benefits for playing a more constructive role and disincentives that will undermine their interests -- if not endanger their survival -- if they do not. These would be implemented incrementally, based on verified facts on the ground.
This is the usual Dhimmicratic approach: incrementalism. It's been a shining success in other countries -- for example, Vietnam. We all remember how incrementalism brought the North Vietnamese to their knees.
Incrementalism is the James Baker way, the 'realist' way, the way we in the West think we ought to treat with dictators since we would feel the pain of an incremental approach. The problem with it is a basic one: dictators don't feel pain the same way we do. A pluralistic, open democracy is open to all sorts of riffs, opinions and ideas that move and shape the public attitudes towards their government, and politicans like Kerry are exquisitely sensitive to those tides and eddies.
Whereas, dictators aren't: anyone with a contrary opinion ends up in a prison, or dead. There are no open displays of defiance. Everything's underground. So 'incremental' pressure on a thug simply forces said thug to double-down on his population: any sign of weakness emboldens a challenger lurking in the wings. Again, dictators enjoy living as the top cheese; they aren't about to permit anything that loosens their grip on power. So they aren't going to respond to an 'incremental' approach.
This comprehensive approach, similar to the one used with North Korea and Iran, ...
Your party opposes the 'incremental' approach with both countries as done by President Bush. You personally are on record opposing the six-way talks with North Korea, and you personally are on record opposing any incremental stepping up of pressure on Iran. Let's keep the record straight here.
... must include the full participation of moderate Arab countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia -- which, like Syria, have largely Sunni populations -- as well as Turkey.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia are not moderate Sunni Arab nations. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't understand the region. The Saudis are terrorist enablers determined to spread their austere brand of Islam around the world. They're succeeding. Egypt is another thug state about to become a thug dynastic state. Mubarek & Son have no intention of working with us to bring peace to the region for the reasons previously noted -- first, they enjoy living and second, they enjoy their power.
Jordan is a 'moderate' country only in comparsion. King Abdullah -- who also enjoys life and power -- is riding the tiger, trying to keep ahold of a country that is thoroughly infiltrated with islamist thought and is 70% palestinian to boot. He'll talk about reform and moderation but in the end he'll do whatever it takes to stay in power. Our way almost guarantees a bad outcome for him.
There is no guarantee that this approach will save Lebanon and turn Syria into a positive force in the region -- but the current policy only guarantees more of the same.
The current policy has been enfeebled by people like you. What we ought to do, as people here at Rantburg know, is put a blunt choice in front of Assad: Teheran is nice this time of year, and perhaps you, your family and your supporters ought to hightail it there before we throw you out. Syria would be a mess and a basket-case for a while, but we could manage that, and it would ensure Lebanon's freedom.
Lebanon teeters on the brink of disaster -- but its leaders refuse to surrender. As Amine Gemayel, the former president of Lebanon, said in explaining why he is running to replace his son in Parliament, "We keep going. We keep fighting. We keep struggling." The question is whether we will be a real partner in this struggle.
The best and only thing we can do as a 'real partner' is to deal with Syria and Iran. Anything else fails the test of seriousness.
#3
I liked the way NAVROSOV said it on WORLDTRIBUNE.com [paraphrased]> A DICTATOR[DICTATORSHIP] can only trust another Dictator(s). * A Lefty can trust only another Lefty, a Commie another Commie, a Socialist a Socialist, etc > IOW, WHAT CANNOT BE "TRUSTED" IS A LAISSEZ FAIRE, LIBERTARIAN = PLURALIST + DEMOCRATIST.
"Diversity" and "Tolerance", then, is nuthin' but a twang, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing save Universal Gubmintist, Useful Idjut(s) "Talking Point" at elex time.
#4
Fuck him. We already tried helping Lebanon. All we got for it was dead Marines. Let's not even float the idea of putting more troops into what is essentially the same civil war, only 20+ years later.
The Hezbollah problem in Lebanon cannot be solved from Lebanon because that's not where the problem starts.
Pierre Gemayel? Certainly he must be of the Phalangist malitia Gemayels. Hard for me to feel sorry for that family. That's the family that suckered Israel then ultimately us into Lebanon in the first place.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
01/04/2007 23:16 Comments ||
Top||
As early as next week, President Bush is expected to give a major speech announcing a new strategy in Iraq. This is an excellent opportunity for the administration to announce a big strategic change that could dramatically improve America's prospects in Iraq. Unfortunately, however, no one has been discussing the one option that would actually have this effect.
The president's current opportunity should not be underestimated. As weak as he seems, politically, President Bush has no real competition in setting policy for Iraq. Between the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, the Iraq Study Group had its 15 minutes of fame and faded away without having any significant effect on the debate over the war. The Democrats who take control of Congress this month have no unified message on Iraq other than a vague, general defeatism, and they offer no definite plan for what America should do--except, of course, their usual plan to carp about whatever the administration does. So the president has the ability to retake the initiative, both politically and militarily.
What will he do?
An internal Pentagon review of the war, requested by Bush as part of his attempt to sidestep the Iraq Study Group, has considered three options: "go big," "go long," or "go home." Going big means dramatically increasing the number of US combat troops in Iraq, giving us the ability to further subdue Sunni areas like the Anbar Province and enabling us to crack down on the Shiite militias who are stoking Iraq's sectarian conflict. Going long means committing more resources to the long-term process of training Iraqi forces and building the stability of the Iraqi government. Going home means withdrawing US troops.
We all know Bush isn't going to accept the third option. America is not going to go home. Going long might be a nice aspiration, but Bush has only two years left in office. He has no idea who his successor will be and what he (or she) will do. If he wants to succeed in Iraq, he has to do something now. So we can expect President Bush to go big, ordering a "surge" in US combat troops in Iraq.
But there is another, far more effective option: go wide.
Going wide means recognizing that Iraq is just one front in a regional war against an Islamist Axis centered in Iran--and we cannot win that war without confronting the enemy directly, outside of Iraq.
Going wide means recognizing that the conflict in Iraq is fueled and magnified by the intervention of Iran and Syria. One of the reasons the Iraq Study Group report flopped was that its key recommendation--its one unique idea--was for America to negotiate with Iran and Syria in order to convince these countries to aid in the "stabilization" of Iraq. This proposal wasn't so much argued to death as it was laughed to death, because it is clear that Iran and Syria have done everything they can to de-stabilize Iraq, supporting both sides of the sectarian conflict there.
It is obvious that both regimes have a profound interest in an American failure and retreat in Iraq. After all, if America can successfully use force to replace a hostile dictatorship with a free society, then the Iranian and Syrian regimes are doomed. So as a matter of elementary self-preservation, they have done everything they can to plunge Iraq into chaos, supporting guerrillas and militias on all sides of the sectarian conflict. Just today, a US official confirmed new evidence "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups." Most ominously, Iran has brazenly provided training and weapons to the Shiite militias--who carry rifles straight off the assembly lines of Iranian weapons factories--and these militias have emerged in the last year as the greatest threat to US troops and to the Iraqi government.
How can we quell the conflict in Iraq, further suppress the Sunni insurgents, and begin to dismantle the Shiite militias--if we don't to anything to stop those who are funding, training, and supporting these enemies? Just as we can't eliminate terrorism without confronting the states who sponsor terrorism, so we can't suppress the Sunni and Shiite insurgencies in Iraq without confronting the outside powers who support these insurgents.
Every day, we see the disastrous results of fighting this war narrowly inside Iraq while ignoring the external forces that are helping to drive it. To fight one Shiite militia tied to Iran--Sadr's Mahdi Army--we have recently signaled our support for an Iraqi political coalition that includes another Shiite militia tied to Iran, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its Badr Brigades. And so it should be no surprise that a US military raid on Hakim's headquarters last week netted two Iranian diplomats and members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards--the outfit responsible for supporting global terrorism. That's what happens when we fight the symptoms in Iraq rather than fighting the disease.
Going wide also means recognizing that more is at stake in this war than just the fate of Iraq. This is a war to determine who and what will dominate the Middle East. Will this vital region be dominated by a nuclear-armed Iran, working to spread Islamic fascism? Or will America be able to exert its military influence and political ideals in the region?
This is a momentous question. But observe that the only major foreign-policy debate today is about what to do in Iraq. The anti-war left has not succeeded in inducing America to withdraw in defeat from the Middle East--not yet. But they have succeeded in narrowing our mental focus, inducing us to talk endlessly about what is happening inside Iraq, about whether or not we need more troops there, or whether we need to throw our support to a new political coalition within the Iraqi parliament, or whether we should put more emphasis on Anbar or Baghdad, and on and on--while we ignore the big picture of the Middle East.
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. Iraq is one piece in this malignant mosaic--but it is only one piece. The Iranians seek to extend their control over the region by supporting Shiite Islamist militias in Iraq. But they are also trying to achieve their goal by propping up the Assad regime in Syria, by arming Hezbollah in Lebanon, by arming and funding Hamas in the Palestinian territories, by hosting Holocaust denial conferences in an attempt to justify a war to destroy Israel, by harboring fugitive al-Qaeda leaders, and by supporting terrorists and anti-American strongmen (such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez) around the world.
In this context, to try to win the war just by sending more troops to Baghdad is like trying to save a patient by removing a tumor in his lung--when the cancer has already metastasized through his entire body.
A few of our leaders have put together the big picture. In a recent Washington Post op-ed, for example, Senator Lieberman warned that "while we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States." Similarly, President Bush warned us last year that "the Iranian regime has clear aims: they want to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East."
But these leaders have so far avoided advocating the use of military force against Iran. No one is willing to follow the implications of the big picture to the only rational conclusion: we are already in a regional war with Iran, and we need to start fighting it as a regional war. And the most effective place to fight that war is at its center, by targeting the Islamist regime in Tehran.
Instead, our current policy is a bizarre, irrational holdover from the Cold War. In a New York Daily News op-ed, for example, Michael Rubin assures us that confronting Iran "need not mean military action." Instead, he advocates a policy of stronger words, from beefed up Radio Free Europe-style broadcasts to rhetoric such as the "Axis of Evil." His most telling recommendation is this one: "Just as Ronald Reagan championed striking shipyard workers in Poland in 1981, so too should Bush support independent Iranian trade unions."
Rubin is advocating a strategy I have called Cold War II: fighting Iran the way we fought the Soviet Union, through indirect battles against insurgent proxies (the real parallel between Iraq and Vietnam) and through moral support for Iranian dissidents. But this is brinksmanship without a brink. The reason we had to fight the Soviets indirectly was because they had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us. There is no reason to fear such an escalation in a battle against Iran. In fact, the gruesome irony of today is that Iran may soon be able to threaten us with nuclear weapons--but only if we continue to act as if they already possessed a nuclear deterrent.
The fact is that we are fighting the wrong war in the wrong place--though not in the way critics of that war complain. We are trying to fight a regional war by limiting ourselves to a local conflict--and we are fighting that war in Baghdad, when it has its source in Damascus and Tehran.
There is only one way to correct this massive strategic blunder--and that is to go wide.
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.
#2
The Iraq Study Group conclusion "wasn't so much argued to death as it was laughed to death, because it is clear that Iran and Syria have done everything they can to de-stabilize Iraq" -- great summary
#3
I have been saying this to every friend that will listen. Iran needs to get hit. Hard. If they are not dealt with, they will be a major problem for us in Iraq the second we leave.
Not only that, but even if Iraq we already turned Iraq into a democracy, it wouldn't make a lick of fuckin differnce in terms of terrorism. If Iraq is the last stop on the GWoT bus, then the whole thing was a waste. The bus should have never left the station.
Now, if we look at the country sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan, we are getting somewhere. I hope like hell that this was the intent when Iraq was invaded. If not, GW is as dumb as he sounds.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
01/04/2007 21:18 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
