| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Gates says 'clock is ticking' on Iraq |
| 2007-04-20 |
| Defense Secretary Robert Gates slipped into Iraq Thursday to warn Iraqi leaders that the U.S. commitment to a military buildup there is not open-ended. We'll probably meet our minimum objectives, anyhow - but signalling limited commitment to what is a ruthless test of wills is not a stroke of genius. Gates said the political tumult in Washington over financing the military presence in Iraq shows that both the American public and the Bush administration are running out of patience with the war. "I'm sympathetic with some of the challenges that they face," Gates said of the Iraqis during his surprise visit. But, he said, "the clock is ticking." Gates added, "Frankly I would like to see faster progress." Well who wouldn't? But this jawboning is very likely a disastrously wrong way to proceed. It rests on one key, and erroneous, premise: that the Iraqi govt.'s inability to make much faster progress towards taking the lead in establishing security is the result of unwillingness, not incapacity. Meanwhile, our body English indicating a desperate desire to disengage, which has been there for over two years now, is more likely to have perverse effects on both our allies and enemies than it is to spur our allies to faster progress. This lack of demonstrated resolve has been a fundamental error - perhaps the most important one - since the get-go. This stuff is harder than it looks, and there's no perfect strategy, but a judicious mix of jawboning our friends and hurting our enemies is not what we're seeing, or have seen. Can't anybody here play this game? He said that the Iraqis need to push through legislation on political reconciliation and sharing oil revenues. "It's not that these laws are going to change the situation immediately, but I think ... the ability to get them done communicates a willingness to work together." Still - the fantasy of conflict resolution without winners and losers. Whatever portion of the Sunni populace or fighting spirit could be co-opted, rented, or converted - has long since been taken care of. No hycrocarbons law or reshuffled cabinet or elevated Sunni military officers will affect the basis of enemy activity: irreconcilable hostility and reasonable fear for their future combined with an utterly ruthless approach to resisting the new order, to include cooperation with insane foreign killers whom they generally loathe (current hiatus of convenience in the west is probably a temporary change - see below). He said that, in turn, would create an environment in which violence could be reduced. Oh, horseshit, Bob. The "environment in which violence could be reduced" is one in which the Sunni rejectionists and their foreign allies have been routed through a combo of direct attrition and coercion on the surrounding communities sufficient to negate the intimidation and/or sympathy on which they rely. For southern or Shi'a areas, the issues are really quite different, more akin to warlordism and lawlessness, and will over time succumb to less military-centered responses. "It is very important they make every effort to get this done as soon as possible," Gates said, noting that an attack last week by a suicide bomber on a cafeteria at the Iraqi parliament inside the U.S.-guarded Green Zone made people particularly nervous. There is not the slightest chance that any so-called political reconciliation, however dramatic, would have the slightest effect on operations such as the parliament bombing in the foreseeable future. This sort of terrorism will be feasible in Iraq for years to come, regardless of how and whether Sunni rejectionism is crushed. Meanwhile, saying that things are more urgent because the enemy is hitting you hard is, um, not a very savvy approach to what is of course a test of wills. After landing in Baghdad, Gates flew by helicopter to Camp Fallujah, for a briefing by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman. Fallujah, where U.S. Marines make up the bulk of the U.S. force, is a stronghold for Sunni insurgents. But commanders there have been saying violence has dipped and they are optimistic about progress in western Iraq. Where AQI's barbarism and arrogance - and surely no small volume of taxpayer's money delivered to local big shots - have TEMPORARILY made us the lesser evil. I could be wrong, but my impression is that in the west, as elsewhere, we have fallen far short of making real the "worst enemy" portion of the Marines' excellent "worst enemy, best friend" formula. |
| Posted by:Verlaine |
| #9 Allow me to cheer your well-bespoke sentiment, Frank. Gates added, "Frankly I would like to see faster progress." So, why not begin destroying the This lack of demonstrated resolve has been a fundamental error - perhaps the most important one - since the get-go. I am unable to think so, Verlaine. The consistent conflict of interests that manifest in the Iraqi legislature are a Root Cause of the problem. Support for fractious assholes like Moqtada Sadr do far more to exacerbate the problem than our own lack of resolve. It's a given that our firepower coupled with greater determination could bring some substantial change, but lasting alteration to Iraq's political landscape will demand some true commitment from their politicians and that is still forthcoming. Still - the fantasy of conflict resolution without winners and losers. Agreed, this is one of the biggest stumbling blocks of all. It is impossible to imagine an outcome whereby all Iraqi parties come out ahead. The Baathist and Sunni factions have poisoned the well and simply cannot expect much more than lip service in their favor. The "environment in which violence could be reduced" is one in which the Sunni rejectionists and their foreign allies have been routed through a combo of direct attrition and coercion on the surrounding communities sufficient to negate the intimidation and/or sympathy on which they rely. For southern or Shi'a areas, the issues are really quite different, more akin to warlordism and lawlessness, and will over time succumb to less military-centered responses. Spot on, Verlaine! Finally, we are agreed upon the notion that we must become the insurgency's "worst enemy". Blasting hostile mosques and killing radical imams would be a great place to start. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-20 21:17 |
| #8 IIRC - Verlaine is back in San Diego, safely, thank God |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-20 16:18 |
| #7 "To light a bigger fire under Maliki? " Yes, obviously. With all due respect to Verlaine, who is there, while Im not, Gates has access to alot more info than either of us, including reports from Petraeus and other commanders on the ground, as well as from Khalilzad, etc. and from defense intell, and from CIA. Evidently some folks think there ARE Sunnis who can be won over who havent been. I cant judge from here. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-04-20 15:17 |
| #6 This could be a sop to the dems, basically giving them a media bone that they can chew on that says they matter and are effective. Meanwhile the firm run away dates are removed from the supplemental spending bills. Maliki needs a kick in the ass too. It is idiotic for our guys to keep getting killed in drips and drabs if the locals aren't going to stand up and give a shit. I know logic doesn't work with these folks, but threat to survival might. The downside is if a threatened Maliki runs to another "strong man" (Iran) rather than leading his own countrymen to control their destiny. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2007-04-20 10:51 |
| #5 Gates added, "Frankly I would like to see faster progress." Frankly I'd love to see an E-type Jag in my garage, but you know what, Bob? I know that if I want that, I'll need to DO SOMETHING to make that happen. How 'bout you, Mr. Secretary? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-04-20 10:46 |
| #4 Gates added, "Frankly I would like to see faster progress." Progress? Yeah, right-out-the-door progress! We gotta get outtah there quick! My real estate deals are teetering in the balnace! |
| Posted by: Harry Reid 2007-04-20 06:51 |
| #3 Gates is fast becoming a 'lame chick' to the 'lame duck'! The easiest money one could make for the next 21 months. |
| Posted by: smn 2007-04-20 02:17 |
| #2 "I'm sympathetic with some of the challenges that they face," Gates said of the Iraqis. But, he said, "the clock is ticking." Gates added, "Frankly I would like to see faster progress." damn, did anyone ever hear Dwight D Eisenhower being so offhanded like this in front of the press during WWII? What's the fucking purpose? To light a bigger fire under Maliki? or perhaps a reverse-morale kick in the |
| Posted by: RD 2007-04-20 00:38 |
| #1 Considering his involvement (more specifically, his lack thereof) when Saddam Hussein's government massacred revolting Shiites and Kurds post GWI, Gates is no ally of the Iraqi people. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-04-20 00:18 |