Article

2008-10-06 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-10-06 02:22|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 It would be the McCain-Palin team that is best positioned to engage in fruitful diplomatic dialogue with the Iranians.

Uh - wrong. The McCain part of the team, and the team itself, would be immeasurably better in every respect (in all likelihood) than the ridiculous opposition team, when it comes to foreign policy.

But "fruitful diplomatic dialogue" is not an objective, nor even a plausible development WRT Iran. Period.

Having cleared that up, I have to report that I'm still deciding whether the country will redeem itself by picking the quite imperfect M-P team, or if even by putting the preposterous Dem candidate in a position to become president, it has already disgraced itself and become unserious. Also, whether Iran and others like it will have already drawn conclusions based on this unbelievable state of affairs, regardless of the November outcome.

Speaking of which, I still think - and, a separate thing, hope - that things will turn out a bit differently than the media and the Beltway idiots now expect. If it doesn't, hard to see a down limit on the negatives.

Posted by Verlaine 2008-10-06 02:39|| 2008-10-06 02:39|| Front Page Top

#2 No, Iraq was not a distraction: it was the ONLY place in the world where we could expand the war with militant Islam with any force. While Iraq was not the most dangerous opponent it was the most accessible (both politically and logistically, and both are vital). In a way it was like Italy in WWII. None of the reasons listed for going to war were lies, but neither were they the whole truth. In my opinion the two key reasons for taking the war to Iraq were 1) because we could, and 2) because it is the fulcrum for the entire Muslim world - a mix of Sunni & Shia, between Arab and non-Arab, a history of secular and religious, a geographic crossroad. I guess I would call Bush's biggest failure his inability to convince America of the importance of Iraq, but am not sure how that could have been done without being counterproductively open about the above.

Posted by Glenmore 2008-10-06 08:23|| 2008-10-06 08:23|| Front Page Top

#3 The authors of this article have demonstrated such colossal ignorance about the nature of the Iraq War in this piece that I don't know where to even start.

First of all, (authors) Casey and Rivkin have use the classic "Circular Cause and Consequence" fallacy when they suggest that the Iraq War is not a distraction by stating:

Osama bin Laden himself called Iraq the "central front" in his fight against the United States.

But they fail to mention (or are perhaps simply unaware of the fact) that bin Laden and Zawahiri call it so because of US military presence in Iraq. If the US government decided to place 150,000 of its troops in Egypt, then Egypt would become Al Qaeda's "central front" in their fight against the United States; and if it places 150,000 American troops in Indonesia, then Indonesia would become Al Qaeda's "central front" in their fight against the United States.

The argument that Iraq is not a distraction because "bin Laden himself called Iraq the "central front" in his fight against the United States" is completely hollow, since bin Laden's statement is a consequence of US's decision to keep troops there, not its cause. It's like a man who doesn't shower arguing that clothes shouldn't be worn because they smell bad.

Second, it is stated in this article: "with the help of Sen. John McCain's and Gen. David Petraeus's surge strategy, al Qaeda was resoundingly defeated."

Again, more ignorance. Al Qaeda was defeated because of the Sunni Awakening in Anbar. The Surge helped reduce violence (in select locations) in Iraq, most of which was not Al Qaeda related - it was sectarian based. Reduction in inter-sectarian violence is not the same as Al Qaeda's defeat, something that any marginally informed political analyst should be aware of.

Third, it states: "[al Qaeda's] standing in the Muslim world has plummeted."

Because of the Surge??? Utter ignorance! It's because Al Qaeda's decision to target even the neutral Muslims (in multiple countries, by the way, not just in Iraq), not because of the Surge.

Fourth, the article authors foolishly argue again that the Iraq War isn't a distraction by providing the following analogy:

"This is exactly what President Franklin Roosevelt did in World War II when he chose to dedicate initially the bulk of American resources to the European theater, believing that destroying Hitler's Reich was the most urgent task and that Imperial Japan could be dealt with in turn; history proved him right."

The outright inanity of this analogy is mind-numbing. Hitler's war against Europe wasn't a false intelligence report that was obtained through dubious means by the American government. It was fact! But the US decision to invade Iraq to fight Al Qaeda on the basis of "intelligence" that tied Iraq to Al Qaeda, while ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda leadership was actually hiding in the border region of Afghanistan-Pakistan is stupidity of colossal proportions. At best.

To put it in terms of the World War II perspective as the authors of this article have vainly tried to do would be to argue that, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US government should have focused its military might on Brazil, where, it was brought to US intelligence's notice, President Getúlio Vargas was secretly having trade deals with the Japanese, some of whom could possibly be related to the pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor.

Fifth, the authors argue:

"Khrushchev found Kennedy to be ill-informed and weak, and consequently embarked on an aggressive policy in Berlin and Cuba."

Note the deceptive "consequently" added into the statement, implying that somehow Khrushchev foreign policy decisions were hinged entirely on Kennedy's persona at the Vienna Summit. That Khrushchev assumed that Kennedy, being the Emperor-God of USA, would base every single one of his decisions entirely on his own impressions, and would not deign to consult any of his advisors or analysts. That, even though he had a team of people hired to advise him at all times, they were simply worthless antiquities since he, The Mighty Emperor-God John Fitzgerald Kennedy, needed no input from these lesser mortals, and would therefore certainly not act in a manner that might go against the first impression Khrushchev received of Kennedy at that Summit. Khrushchev obviously assumed all this immediately upon observing Kennedy being "ill-informed and weak" at the Summit, and "consequently" embarked on an aggressive policy in Berlin and Cuba.

Sixth, the authors argue:

"Most likely, they would interpret it as a sign of weakness, causing them to accelerate their nuclear program."

"Most likely" is just as deceptive here as the "consequently" in the previous point. After displaying such profound ignorance in international affairs, please spare us any more of your personal opinions, and just stick to the facts.

Seventh, the authors continue to display their utterly delusional assessment of the current situation in Iraq when they state:

"The best way to create a strong negotiating position vis-à-vis Tehran, would be to alter the strategic environment in its backyard, such that the Iraqi government has stabilized that country and maintains strong military and intelligence ties with the United States, while dramatically curtailing Iranian influence."

The idea that Iraq is experiencing "Iranian influence" is another example of the profound ignorance of the authors of this piece. What they don't comprehend is the difference between "influence" and "predisposition". The authors should realize that more than 60% of Iraq's population is Shi'ite Muslim, while Iran is a Shi'ite theocracy (almost 90% Shi'ite). So this "influence" that Iran ostensibly has on Iraq is nothing other than common perspective! Even if Iraq was located at the lower tip of South America, these authors would still observe the same "Iranian influence" that they would like to see curtailed.

The outright absurdity of this argument is mind-boggling. No one says that Italy exerts great influence on USA as evidenced by the Pope drawing immense crowds of supporters in his recent visit, crowds who then vote on religious grounds in elections. No one says this because it is plain stupid. Just like the claim that the common perspective seen amongst the Shi'ite in Iraq and Iranians is due to "Iranian influence" is plain stupid. They simply share the same faith! Obviously, they will have a common perspective, regardless of the "influence" of each other.

Given Messrs. Rivkin and Casey's sheer ignorance about international affairs, they should have the moral sensibility to not even vote until they educate themselves, let alone post articles on a news website.

Posted by fyst 2008-10-06 09:39|| 2008-10-06 09:39|| Front Page Top

#4 I guess I would call Bush's biggest failure his inability to convince America of the importance of Iraq, but am not sure how that could have been done without being counterproductively open about the above.

Please, tell me how he could have done it: teh President doesn't own the MSM and can't order film directors and singers to bolster morale at home and weken eneemy's. The failure uis taht teh Democrats and, in Europe, the botred elistsis, decided to score oplitical points againt Bush/America and to hell with civilization.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-10-06 10:05|| 2008-10-06 10:05|| Front Page Top

#5 I don't care who calls it what. It was well-located to provide a great shooting gallery for taking out lots and lots of young Saudi jihadis. Now we just need to punish the Iranians for interfering.

Posted by Darrell 2008-10-06 10:08|| 2008-10-06 10:08|| Front Page Top

#6 I guess I would call Bush's biggest failure his inability to convince America of the importance of Iraq, but am not sure how that could have been done without being counterproductively open about the above.

Is it me or did he really abruptly stop talking about Iraq after his re-election? It seemed like he went directly to Medicare and/or Social Security reform.

Posted by Grenter, Protector of the Geats 2008-10-06 10:13|| 2008-10-06 10:13|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm not convinced fyst. Your arguments ring hollow. You are convinced of your own logic and I doubt if anyone could say anything that would convince you of any other position.

Posted by JohnQC 2008-10-06 10:22|| 2008-10-06 10:22|| Front Page Top

#8 To JohnQC:

I'm convinced of my own logic because it happens to be correct. If my arguments sound hollow its because you don't want to believe what I'm saying.

I'm no Obama fan, and I still am, and have always been, for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Husein, but that doesn't change the fact that he authors of this article are profoundly and comprehensively ignorant about the situation in Iraq.

The Iraq War was absolutely a distraction, even though good came from it in several different ways.

Posted by fyst 2008-10-06 11:02|| 2008-10-06 11:02|| Front Page Top

#9 I agree that Iraq 2.0 invasion was right but I so strongly have been upset with the performance and reaction of the Bush administration's execution of the post-war plan.

Posted by Thor Shomomp9671 2008-10-06 12:44|| 2008-10-06 12:44|| Front Page Top

#10 sorry i meant to say the execution of the Bush Administration's post war planning and management.

Posted by Thor Shomomp9671 2008-10-06 12:45|| 2008-10-06 12:45|| Front Page Top

#11 Inasmuch as it might have been a distraction, with which I do not agree, Iraq is where tens of thousands of jihadis went and died, where the cream of Al Qaeda's leadership and highly trained specialists and the bulk of their funds disappeared forever. This has made the fight in Afghanistan much easier for the good guys than it would otherwise have been, and that is fine with me.

Equally important, at the time we went into Iraq Saddam Hussein was the leading supporter and trainer of terrorist groups in the world. At the Salman Pak facility Iraq was providing training in biological and chemical weapons production, airplane hijacking, bomb-making, etc and so forth. He was sending funds and weapons to just about all of the terror groups in the region -- including openly awarding checks of US$25,000-50,000 for each attempted/successful suicide attack on Israelis. The invasion of Iraq put a stop to all of that. The War on Terror is not merely a fight with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda conglomerate, but a war with all those who would establish Arab/Muslim rule of the world. Saddam Hussein planned to do that first in 1991 by conquering Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to corner the world's oil supply, and then by sponsoring various jihadi groups to terrorize the world into submission so he could conquer Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and corner the world's oil supply. Why on earth do you think he went to war with Iran? It certainly wasn't because the West was uneasy about the Shiite Revolution in 1979.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-10-06 12:51|| 2008-10-06 12:51|| Front Page Top

#12 The problem with second-guessing Bush Administration post-war plans etc. (or any plans anywhere by anyone) is that you cannot know if an alternative path would have worked better. Case-in-point: 'We should have had more troops on the ground in Iraq from the beginning.' Whatif we had? Would the Sunni Awakenings have awoken or would we just have been more targets for AQ to attack? Where would those troops have come from and what would have happened there, then? Maybe that plan would have worked better, in hindsight we might have reason to think so, but we can never be sure. One thing I CAN be sure of - whatever plan had been implemented we would be very upset with it today.

Posted by Glenmore 2008-10-06 12:53|| 2008-10-06 12:53|| Front Page Top

#13 Rebuttals on the rebuttals by fyst -

On the matter of the "central front" -

Al Qaeda and its ideological allies are not a geographically-determined entity. They had a large establishment in Afghanistan, which was quickly destroyed or forced to flee, but Afghanistan or even Pakistan were peripheral to their base, the Arabs of the Middle East. Thats where the money and ideas come from. Once fled, the only place to chase them was into Pakistan - which implies a far larger war by an order of magnitude, and geopolitical complications likewise. There's plenty of otherwise irrelevant Pakistani cannon-fodder there that the Arabs won't miss, they despise them in any case. Iraq is something else - the Shiite angle alone ensures it, as the AQ Wahabbis could not let them grab a potentially rich and powerful state with all the influence that comes with it. Here the war could be brought into the open where the US could get at many of its enemies who were unable to stay away. Bin Laden was right.

AQ in Iraq was defeated by a host of things, all of which were put in place and critically facilitated by the US. The "surge" in reality added few more men to the mix, it was a small escalation. What it really was was a commitment to stay until victory, without which there wouldn't have been much of an "awakening", or the critical growth and new morale of the Iraqi regular forces. Insurgency wars are won mainly by patient commitment, until the other side loses their enthusiasm. In this one it also required time to create an Iraqi state apparatus and military and civic commitment from nothing. We stayed until they had time to bear fruit. The alternative plans had the US leaving, and committed to abandoning all the positive efforts then underway, which would have undercut all our current allies and partners there.

AQ would have much higher standing irrespective of its atrocities (which on the basis of experience doesn't bother the Arab masses very much, if they aren't Arabs, and the right sort of Arabs at that), had AQ gained anything from its efforts. This is a society that, more than usual, works on the basis of honor and humiliation. Defeating an enemy brings great prestige, losing brings derision.

There was no Ruhr to invade in this case, to address your next point. Pakistan isn't it.

"Consequently" is correct, if it fits into the mix of factors considered by Khrushchev. All policy decisions are made by weighting many factors, potential risks and potential benefits. Khrushchev did see Kennedy as weak. This was a significant factor. It may well (and there is good testimony that it did) have tipped the balance on some of these matters.

You have a point on the Iranian nuclear program - I don't think they have ever slowed it down, they have been going as fast as their ability and resources permit for the last couple of decades.

The last argument is plain pettifogging. I am certain the authors understand all thats claimed they don't. I think rather you don't understand their point very well.

There is Iranian influence and there is Iranian influence. These places are thoroughly interpenetrated - there is likewise Iraqi Arab influence on Iran, culturally and religiously. The point here is Iranian political/ideological influence. The Iranian state is run on the basis of a certain strain of Shiite thought, which by default, being the only such strain with substantial state backing, is the most active and influential, to the detriment of everyone besides the Iranian government clique. There would be a considerable reduction in religious and political tensions if an alternative way of Shiism (such as that of Najaf) gains similar or greater influence.

Posted by buwaya 2008-10-06 12:59|| 2008-10-06 12:59|| Front Page Top

23:25 GK
23:07 Thurong Mussolini2697
22:58 Barbara Skolaut
22:50 Jolutch Mussolini7800
22:44 Old Patriot
22:37 Yosemite Sam
22:28 crosspatch
22:25 Procopius2k
22:21 Besoeker
22:18 Tranquil Mechanical Yeti
22:10 Scribimus indocti
22:07 Spanky Spinetch9985
22:07 Spanky Spinetch9985
22:07 Besoeker
22:06 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
22:02 lotp
21:58 Scribimus indocti
21:56 Zhang Fei
21:50 Besoeker
21:49 lotp
21:46 Besoeker
21:44 Chemist
21:44 Besoeker
21:42 lotp