Iraq Study Group: Situation Iraq WORSE than previously believed....
Over at the UK Independent, historian Andrew Roberts makes the case that President Jimmy Carter "was the worst US president ever, there's no question of that." Continuing with Mr. Robert's appraisal (as published in the UK Independent on-line:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1963227.ece
<< People who look at the situation on a historical basis will see that {Bush] overthrew Saddam Hussein with the loss of 2,000 men. You would get that on a bad weekend on the Western Front in the First World War. It was a glorious victory.
As long as America stays the course it will win. The real danger is that it will wind up electing a different route. >>
Yet Mr. Roberts glosses over a lot of history and facts with his casual assertions. #1. It was not Ronald Reagan who was the core of the support for the Afghan resistance to Russia, it was Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China, with Reagan and America playing Johnny-come-lately. (For example, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida group was already coordinating resistance battles against the Red Army in Afghanistan before US aid started arriving, and Al Qaida itself never got much US backing even then.) Indeed, the title of the book "Charlie Wilson's War," about how Congressman Charlie Wilson was the most ardent proponent of support for the Mujahadeen resistance, indicates that it was Wilson more than Reagan who deserved 'credit' for the eventual US/CIA support for the Mujahadeen fighters which finally broke the back of the Red Army there.
Which brings up another point: Roberts should see the parallel between the US in Iraq and Russia in Afghanistan. One might suppose that the initial Russian invasion of Afghanistan was 'brilliant,' too. For a relatively small loss of life, Russia expanded its empire by thousands of square miles! But that is obviously not only an "incomplete" story, but, in total, a COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS ONE.
The fact is, one of the VERY FIRST THINGS the Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney administration do upon assuming the White House and DoD in early 2001 was to DISBAND the US Army's Department of PEACEKEEPING in the Pentagon. For those paying attention, this was a dreadful case of hubris, arrogance, and foreshadowing. Even a single college-level examination of "Peacekeeping" reveals that KEEPING THE PEACE is often far more difficult than winning the combat phase of a given war, indeed, the combat phase is often brute simplicity, simply drop bombs and big guns on a target until you get a local surrender. Any decent study of "Peacekeeping" as a subcategory of International Conflict (or International Relations) will compare the US's Haiti mission with the US's Somalia "Blackhawk Down" mission. The former was an example of humility and relentless dedication NOT to employ US firepower, because the leaders of the mission realized that ANY success by the "bad guys" to put US troops in a bad light, would make the mission look like a US occupation, and would empower the opposition to hire snipers and protesters and possibly even instigate a massacre by the US of locals. AWARE and conscious of these restraints, and the deadly consequences of a massacre by US firepower, the US command AVOIDED that basic trap. Getting the more powerful invaders to MASSACRE your own people is TACTIC #1. of ALL guerrilla wars and commanders! Following these constraints, the US mission in Haiti was a remarkable success, WITH NOT ONE US COMBAT FATALITY. The Somalia mission, on the other hand, has been described by IR experts as a textbook example of "HOW NOT to conduct an intervention." The FIRST thing Warlord Mohammed Aideed did was PROVOKE American forces into attacking his militias, CULMINATING in the wholesale massacre of Mogadishu residents (of Aideed's clan) as US gunships suppressed entire crowds seeking to kill or capture American soldiers during the exit phase of that chaotic mission.
One of the international conflict magazines published a cover photo which summed up the US debacle in Somalia, a picture of a huge, muscular US Sergeant kicking at a wry Somali boy who was obviously pestering the American.
Which brings us back to Jimmy Carter. It may be easy to deride Carter as "WEAK" for his lack of a massive, confrontational response to Russia's invasion of Afghanistan or Iran's Islamic revolution and holding of US prisoners, but 30 years later the US is in almost exactly the quagmire that Russia was in back in 1980. In his four short years as US president, Carter succeeded in putting a WHITE HAT back on international perceptions of America, and American image that had been TARRED by the Vietnam war and support of such murderous dictators as Marcos, Noriega, and even a blind eye (support!) for Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. (Thanks to Henry Kissinger, aka 'Dr. Death.') By fighting for HUMAN RIGHTS and DEMOCRACY and OPEN GOVERNMENTS, Carter SUCCEEDED in broadcasting the POSITIVE image of America that would, ironically, become the foundation of Ronald Reagan's "defense of freedom" PR projection, even as Reagan was supporting death squads (Iran-Contra) in Latin and Central America.
As well, some IR experts have theorized, Reagan's DEPARTURE - running away from - Beruit after the US Marine corps barracks were suicide-bombed there, may well have LAID THE FOUNDATION for the COLLAPSE of the Soviet Union. According to this theory, IF Reagan had instead STAYED in Lebanon, and RATCHETED UP the US military presence there, it would have signaled an expanding neocolonialism that Russia (the Soviet Union) and the Arab nations would have been FORCED to react to. Instead, America RETREATED, the Marines were withdrawn, a crisis flashpoint was destressed, and in 1991 Gorbachov DID NOT VETO the US-UN resolution against Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. As a result, the US was able to create a GENUINE COALITION, including ARAB states! against Saddam's aggression, and the USA was able to capitalize on the collapse of the Soviet Union with the quick, almost bloodless victory in Iraq,
ALL of that might have been impossible - including the rapid and bloodless collapse of the Soviet Union - had Reagan committed to a US military presence in Lebanon, which would have been seen as a provocation by Russians, Arabs, and non-Arab Muslims alike.
We will concede that all the above is conjecture, but returning to Mr. Robert's characterization of the invasion of Iraq as a "GLORIOUS VICTORY," at the very, very least the US occupation has created a breeding ground for guerrilla warfare and terrorist training, and has EMPOWERED unemployed Iraqis to make a name for themselves by simply killing American soldiers. This is ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE at its clearest: a dozen unemployed Iraqis become the match for the professional soldiers of the US military, at the end of long supply lines, and with thousands of dollars of training and equipment behind them. It would be like rewriting the American-Injun wars, except instead of bows and arrows the Injuns have an almost unlimited supply of AK-47s, RPG, and high-explosive bombs. Not only was Saddam Hussein "OUR MAN" in Iraq all through the 1980s, but HE was only able to maintain his control through RUTHLESS SUPPRESSION and genocide: see the "Anfal" campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Iraqi Kurds (and marsh Arabs). The Bush1 administration TWICE assisted or enabled Saddam in his campaigns against Kurds, Shittes, and other separatists, the second time immediately after the 1991 war, when the US command ALLOWED Saddam to use helicopter gunships to suppress the armed revolt, which many in Iraq thought President Bush had encouraged. Body count from that campaign, alone, 300,000, with Peter Galbraith ("End of Iraq") describing multiple executions of captured rebels, their nooses tied to tank barrels which when elevated hung several victims at one time.
Perhaps it is fitting that the younger Bush has stirred up the hornet's nest glossed over by history of the elder Bush's support for Saddam's repressive regime. And if Mr. Andrew Roberts thinks the US-British presence in Iraq is so "glorious", maybe he can set up a news bureau there and report, in person, all the good news!
==============================
The situation in Iraq is "even worse than we thought''
Iraq Study Group Meets with Bush Monday
By Frank Davies
MediaNews Washington Bureau
http://www.thestate.com/mld/mercurynews/news/15987947.htm
WASHINGTON - The situation in Iraq is ``even worse than we thought,'' with key Iraqi leaders showing no willingness to compromise to avoid increasing violence, said Leon Panetta, a member of the high-powered advisory group that will recommend new options for the war.
The Iraq Study Group, including Panetta, plans to meet with President Bush and his national security team Monday at the White House, and gather more data on the war through briefings and interviews next week. Panetta was chief of staff in the Clinton White House.
The blue-ribbon group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and ex-Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, plans to make recommendations to the Bush administration and Congress next month on new ways to handle the war. Members said they wanted to wait until after the election, to remove a debate about Iraq from campaign pressures.
After the election, their influence grew and their job became more urgent.
Fueled by discontent over the war, the Democrats scored a sweeping victory, retaking the House and the Senate. U.S. casualties have mounted in recent weeks. Bush signaled new flexibility on Iraq this week by replacing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with former CIA chief Robert Gates -- a member of the Iraq Study Group before accepting his new job.
Many officials in Washington hope that this group of insiders will offer a way out of Iraq, and give some political cover to Bush and a Democratic Congress.
``This week, the pressure on us just went up a few hundred degrees,'' Panetta said Friday. He is a former Democratic congressman who heads the Panetta Institute at California State University-Monterey Bay.
Panetta would not discuss the options the group is considering, noting that members have not reached a consensus yet, but talked about what he has learned about Iraq. The group spent three days in Baghdad in early September and has been briefed by military, intelligence and diplomatic officials.
Private assessments by government officials are much more grim than what is said in public, Panetta said, ``and we left some of those sessions shaking our heads over how bad it is in Iraq.''
U.S. forces can't control sectarian violence and powerful militias. One of the most disturbing findings, Panetta said, is that many Shiite religious leaders who are a big part of the government have no interest in deals or compromises with Sunnis and other groups, and are ``playing for time because they say it's their show.''
After years of Bush administration rhetoric about establishing democracy in Iraq, Panetta said the only achievable goal is a rough stability, ``which can't be done by the military. It requires political reconciliation.''
One scaled-down goal, he added, is ``how do you maintain a low-level civil war so it doesn't blow up into a full-scale civil war?''
The Iraq group is looking at an array of options, including a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, an accelerated training of Iraqi forces, and diplomatic efforts to involve Iraq's neighbors, according to several media accounts.
Some congressional leaders and retired generals criticized Rumsfeld for arrogance and an inability to admit mistakes and make adjustments in Iraq. Gates will be different, Panetta said.
``He's an old-school pragmatist, like Baker and Brent Scowcroft,'' Panetta said. ``He's flexible and wants to get the job done. He always asked incisive questions, and knows what went wrong in Iraq.''
Gates expressed his frustration with the administration's Iraq policy during a visit last year to the Bay Area.
He shared the stage with former Clinton administration national security adviser Samuel ``Sandy'' Berger at a May 2005 lecture at the Panetta Institute.
Both men expressed surprise that resentment of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere had not resulted in suicide bomb attacks inside the United States.
``I too am puzzled by the fact that there haven't been suicide bombers,'' Gates said. ``That's not an invitation, just an observation. We should count ourselves very fortunate.''
Berger and Gates both were critical of the intelligence apparatus that allowed President Bush to receive false information concluding that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
``Fundamentally, it was just a lousy piece of work,'' Gates said.
The key to a new policy on Iraq, Panetta said, is whether Bush will be flexible, and whether Democratic leaders in Congress will try to work with a president who said during the campaign that voting for Democrats would help terrorists.
``Both sides have been in trench warfare for months, and the real question is whether they will be able to put down their grenades and bayonets and pick up the tools you need to get something done,'' he said.
The seismic shift in power this week reminded Panetta of 1994, when he was in the Clinton White House, rocked by the rejection of voters and the loss of Congress to the GOP.
``We were in a state of shock for days, and then we adjusted,'' he said. ``You can actually get things done in a divided government.''
The Democrats' big victory Tuesday also reminded Panetta of voter discontent in California during the 2003 recall election: ``Voters were angry over gridlock, extreme partisanship, the failure to deal with crises -- and they took it out on the party in power.''
Mercury News Staff Writer Ken McLaughlin contr
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1963227.ece
<< People who look at the situation on a historical basis will see that {Bush] overthrew Saddam Hussein with the loss of 2,000 men. You would get that on a bad weekend on the Western Front in the First World War. It was a glorious victory.
As long as America stays the course it will win. The real danger is that it will wind up electing a different route. >>
Yet Mr. Roberts glosses over a lot of history and facts with his casual assertions. #1. It was not Ronald Reagan who was the core of the support for the Afghan resistance to Russia, it was Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China, with Reagan and America playing Johnny-come-lately. (For example, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida group was already coordinating resistance battles against the Red Army in Afghanistan before US aid started arriving, and Al Qaida itself never got much US backing even then.) Indeed, the title of the book "Charlie Wilson's War," about how Congressman Charlie Wilson was the most ardent proponent of support for the Mujahadeen resistance, indicates that it was Wilson more than Reagan who deserved 'credit' for the eventual US/CIA support for the Mujahadeen fighters which finally broke the back of the Red Army there.
Which brings up another point: Roberts should see the parallel between the US in Iraq and Russia in Afghanistan. One might suppose that the initial Russian invasion of Afghanistan was 'brilliant,' too. For a relatively small loss of life, Russia expanded its empire by thousands of square miles! But that is obviously not only an "incomplete" story, but, in total, a COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS ONE.
The fact is, one of the VERY FIRST THINGS the Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney administration do upon assuming the White House and DoD in early 2001 was to DISBAND the US Army's Department of PEACEKEEPING in the Pentagon. For those paying attention, this was a dreadful case of hubris, arrogance, and foreshadowing. Even a single college-level examination of "Peacekeeping" reveals that KEEPING THE PEACE is often far more difficult than winning the combat phase of a given war, indeed, the combat phase is often brute simplicity, simply drop bombs and big guns on a target until you get a local surrender. Any decent study of "Peacekeeping" as a subcategory of International Conflict (or International Relations) will compare the US's Haiti mission with the US's Somalia "Blackhawk Down" mission. The former was an example of humility and relentless dedication NOT to employ US firepower, because the leaders of the mission realized that ANY success by the "bad guys" to put US troops in a bad light, would make the mission look like a US occupation, and would empower the opposition to hire snipers and protesters and possibly even instigate a massacre by the US of locals. AWARE and conscious of these restraints, and the deadly consequences of a massacre by US firepower, the US command AVOIDED that basic trap. Getting the more powerful invaders to MASSACRE your own people is TACTIC #1. of ALL guerrilla wars and commanders! Following these constraints, the US mission in Haiti was a remarkable success, WITH NOT ONE US COMBAT FATALITY. The Somalia mission, on the other hand, has been described by IR experts as a textbook example of "HOW NOT to conduct an intervention." The FIRST thing Warlord Mohammed Aideed did was PROVOKE American forces into attacking his militias, CULMINATING in the wholesale massacre of Mogadishu residents (of Aideed's clan) as US gunships suppressed entire crowds seeking to kill or capture American soldiers during the exit phase of that chaotic mission.
One of the international conflict magazines published a cover photo which summed up the US debacle in Somalia, a picture of a huge, muscular US Sergeant kicking at a wry Somali boy who was obviously pestering the American.
Which brings us back to Jimmy Carter. It may be easy to deride Carter as "WEAK" for his lack of a massive, confrontational response to Russia's invasion of Afghanistan or Iran's Islamic revolution and holding of US prisoners, but 30 years later the US is in almost exactly the quagmire that Russia was in back in 1980. In his four short years as US president, Carter succeeded in putting a WHITE HAT back on international perceptions of America, and American image that had been TARRED by the Vietnam war and support of such murderous dictators as Marcos, Noriega, and even a blind eye (support!) for Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. (Thanks to Henry Kissinger, aka 'Dr. Death.') By fighting for HUMAN RIGHTS and DEMOCRACY and OPEN GOVERNMENTS, Carter SUCCEEDED in broadcasting the POSITIVE image of America that would, ironically, become the foundation of Ronald Reagan's "defense of freedom" PR projection, even as Reagan was supporting death squads (Iran-Contra) in Latin and Central America.
As well, some IR experts have theorized, Reagan's DEPARTURE - running away from - Beruit after the US Marine corps barracks were suicide-bombed there, may well have LAID THE FOUNDATION for the COLLAPSE of the Soviet Union. According to this theory, IF Reagan had instead STAYED in Lebanon, and RATCHETED UP the US military presence there, it would have signaled an expanding neocolonialism that Russia (the Soviet Union) and the Arab nations would have been FORCED to react to. Instead, America RETREATED, the Marines were withdrawn, a crisis flashpoint was destressed, and in 1991 Gorbachov DID NOT VETO the US-UN resolution against Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. As a result, the US was able to create a GENUINE COALITION, including ARAB states! against Saddam's aggression, and the USA was able to capitalize on the collapse of the Soviet Union with the quick, almost bloodless victory in Iraq,
ALL of that might have been impossible - including the rapid and bloodless collapse of the Soviet Union - had Reagan committed to a US military presence in Lebanon, which would have been seen as a provocation by Russians, Arabs, and non-Arab Muslims alike.
We will concede that all the above is conjecture, but returning to Mr. Robert's characterization of the invasion of Iraq as a "GLORIOUS VICTORY," at the very, very least the US occupation has created a breeding ground for guerrilla warfare and terrorist training, and has EMPOWERED unemployed Iraqis to make a name for themselves by simply killing American soldiers. This is ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE at its clearest: a dozen unemployed Iraqis become the match for the professional soldiers of the US military, at the end of long supply lines, and with thousands of dollars of training and equipment behind them. It would be like rewriting the American-Injun wars, except instead of bows and arrows the Injuns have an almost unlimited supply of AK-47s, RPG, and high-explosive bombs. Not only was Saddam Hussein "OUR MAN" in Iraq all through the 1980s, but HE was only able to maintain his control through RUTHLESS SUPPRESSION and genocide: see the "Anfal" campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Iraqi Kurds (and marsh Arabs). The Bush1 administration TWICE assisted or enabled Saddam in his campaigns against Kurds, Shittes, and other separatists, the second time immediately after the 1991 war, when the US command ALLOWED Saddam to use helicopter gunships to suppress the armed revolt, which many in Iraq thought President Bush had encouraged. Body count from that campaign, alone, 300,000, with Peter Galbraith ("End of Iraq") describing multiple executions of captured rebels, their nooses tied to tank barrels which when elevated hung several victims at one time.
Perhaps it is fitting that the younger Bush has stirred up the hornet's nest glossed over by history of the elder Bush's support for Saddam's repressive regime. And if Mr. Andrew Roberts thinks the US-British presence in Iraq is so "glorious", maybe he can set up a news bureau there and report, in person, all the good news!
==============================
The situation in Iraq is "even worse than we thought''
Iraq Study Group Meets with Bush Monday
By Frank Davies
MediaNews Washington Bureau
http://www.thestate.com/mld/mercurynews/news/15987947.htm
WASHINGTON - The situation in Iraq is ``even worse than we thought,'' with key Iraqi leaders showing no willingness to compromise to avoid increasing violence, said Leon Panetta, a member of the high-powered advisory group that will recommend new options for the war.
The Iraq Study Group, including Panetta, plans to meet with President Bush and his national security team Monday at the White House, and gather more data on the war through briefings and interviews next week. Panetta was chief of staff in the Clinton White House.
The blue-ribbon group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and ex-Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, plans to make recommendations to the Bush administration and Congress next month on new ways to handle the war. Members said they wanted to wait until after the election, to remove a debate about Iraq from campaign pressures.
After the election, their influence grew and their job became more urgent.
Fueled by discontent over the war, the Democrats scored a sweeping victory, retaking the House and the Senate. U.S. casualties have mounted in recent weeks. Bush signaled new flexibility on Iraq this week by replacing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with former CIA chief Robert Gates -- a member of the Iraq Study Group before accepting his new job.
Many officials in Washington hope that this group of insiders will offer a way out of Iraq, and give some political cover to Bush and a Democratic Congress.
``This week, the pressure on us just went up a few hundred degrees,'' Panetta said Friday. He is a former Democratic congressman who heads the Panetta Institute at California State University-Monterey Bay.
Panetta would not discuss the options the group is considering, noting that members have not reached a consensus yet, but talked about what he has learned about Iraq. The group spent three days in Baghdad in early September and has been briefed by military, intelligence and diplomatic officials.
Private assessments by government officials are much more grim than what is said in public, Panetta said, ``and we left some of those sessions shaking our heads over how bad it is in Iraq.''
U.S. forces can't control sectarian violence and powerful militias. One of the most disturbing findings, Panetta said, is that many Shiite religious leaders who are a big part of the government have no interest in deals or compromises with Sunnis and other groups, and are ``playing for time because they say it's their show.''
After years of Bush administration rhetoric about establishing democracy in Iraq, Panetta said the only achievable goal is a rough stability, ``which can't be done by the military. It requires political reconciliation.''
One scaled-down goal, he added, is ``how do you maintain a low-level civil war so it doesn't blow up into a full-scale civil war?''
The Iraq group is looking at an array of options, including a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, an accelerated training of Iraqi forces, and diplomatic efforts to involve Iraq's neighbors, according to several media accounts.
Some congressional leaders and retired generals criticized Rumsfeld for arrogance and an inability to admit mistakes and make adjustments in Iraq. Gates will be different, Panetta said.
``He's an old-school pragmatist, like Baker and Brent Scowcroft,'' Panetta said. ``He's flexible and wants to get the job done. He always asked incisive questions, and knows what went wrong in Iraq.''
Gates expressed his frustration with the administration's Iraq policy during a visit last year to the Bay Area.
He shared the stage with former Clinton administration national security adviser Samuel ``Sandy'' Berger at a May 2005 lecture at the Panetta Institute.
Both men expressed surprise that resentment of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere had not resulted in suicide bomb attacks inside the United States.
``I too am puzzled by the fact that there haven't been suicide bombers,'' Gates said. ``That's not an invitation, just an observation. We should count ourselves very fortunate.''
Berger and Gates both were critical of the intelligence apparatus that allowed President Bush to receive false information concluding that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
``Fundamentally, it was just a lousy piece of work,'' Gates said.
The key to a new policy on Iraq, Panetta said, is whether Bush will be flexible, and whether Democratic leaders in Congress will try to work with a president who said during the campaign that voting for Democrats would help terrorists.
``Both sides have been in trench warfare for months, and the real question is whether they will be able to put down their grenades and bayonets and pick up the tools you need to get something done,'' he said.
The seismic shift in power this week reminded Panetta of 1994, when he was in the Clinton White House, rocked by the rejection of voters and the loss of Congress to the GOP.
``We were in a state of shock for days, and then we adjusted,'' he said. ``You can actually get things done in a divided government.''
The Democrats' big victory Tuesday also reminded Panetta of voter discontent in California during the 2003 recall election: ``Voters were angry over gridlock, extreme partisanship, the failure to deal with crises -- and they took it out on the party in power.''
Mercury News Staff Writer Ken McLaughlin contr
posted by verifi at 9:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home