Category Archives: Iraq War

The “Plan”

Posted on by

David Sanger writs in tomorrow’s New York Times,

President Bush’s new Iraq strategy calls for a rapid influx of forces that could add as many as 20,000 American combat troops to Baghdad, supplemented with a jobs program costing as much as $1 billion intended to employ Iraqis in projects including painting schools and cleaning streets, according to American officials who are piecing together the last parts of the initiative.

Why couldn’t he have created a jobs program for New Orleans? But pay close attention to this section:

When Mr. Bush gives his speech, he will cast much of the program as an effort to bolster Iraq’s efforts to take command over their own forces and territory, the American officials said. He will express confidence that Mr. Maliki is committed to bringing under control both the Sunni-led insurgency and the Shiite militias that have emerged as the source of most of the violence. Mr. Maliki picked up those themes in a speech in Baghdad on Saturday in which he said that multinational troops would support an Iraqi effort to secure the capital. …

…The American officials who described the plan included some who said they were increasingly concerned about Mr. Maliki’s intentions and his ability to deliver. They said senior Bush administration officials had been deeply disturbed by accounts from witnesses to last Saturday’s hanging of Saddam Hussein, who said they believed that guards involved in carrying out the execution were linked to the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia that is headed by Moktada al-Sadr, whose name some of the executioners shouted while Mr. Hussein stood on the gallows.

“If that’s an indication of how Maliki is operating these days, we’ve got a deeper problem with the bigger effort,” said one official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing internal administration deliberations over a strategy that Mr. Bush has not yet publicly announced.

Thanks to the BooMan for pointing this out.

This AP Associated Press story gives more clues to the meticulous planning and U.S. – Iraqi coordination that is going into the “Plan.”

Al-Suneid and al-Maliki insisted that this drive to contain militants, as opposed to a largely ineffective joint operation with the Americans in the second half of 2006, would succeed because it would be in the hands of Iraqi commanders who have been promised American backup and airpower if they call for it.

But U.S. political and military officials — in a message of congratulation on Iraq’s Army Day — tempered Iraqi claims of full independence.

”As stated by the prime minister today, MNF-I (U.S. forces) will provide appropriate assistance as determined by Iraqi and coalition (American) field commanders, for the implementation of the new plan for securing Baghdad and its surrounding environs,” said the statement from U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and overall American commander Gen. George W. Casey.

And, of course both Khalilzad and Gen. Casey are being replaced — see Dam Froomkin.

Back to the jobs program — Atrios writes,

In all seriousness, of course throwing huge amounts of money at Iraqis to rebuild the country is the obvious thing to do. It was such the obvious thing to do that some of us were a bit confused when we realized they weren’t doing it. Had there been a massive public works program which hired Real Live Iraqis instead of whoever the hell Halliburton was importing to do the work, and instead of painting the goddamn schools they’d managed to turn the lights on for more than a couple of hours per day there’s some chance things could’ve worked out a bit better. My opposition to the war was never based on predictions of the disaster we have now, the scope of which is at least in part due to the fact that we have drooling imbecilic ideologues who couldn’t run a lemonade stand running this thing. I’m not saying the “incompetence dodgers” have a point – the war was a horribly wrong idea for so many reasons – just that it is clear that had there not been so much incompetence things would be at least a bit better.

And just to show that there’s absolutely no hope the White House team will be any less incompetent, see Mark Benjamin in Salon:

Hawks gathered in the plush, carpeted suites of the conservative American Enterprise Institute on Friday to discuss a new course in Iraq they say should be spearheaded by tens of thousands of new troops camped out in Baghdad neighborhoods in active combat roles well into 2008.

The plan is not to be dismissed. Unlike the much ballyhooed Iraq Study Group, these are the people President Bush listens to, many of them the same influential voices who were predicting in 2002 that the war would establish a flower of democracy in the Middle East. Sitting in the overheated, standing-room-only conference hall, a Department of Homeland Security official leaned over to me to note the irony that reporters had paid so much attention to the workings of the Iraq Study Group, as opposed to the troop-surge plans being cooked up at AEI. “This is the Iraq Study Group,” he quipped.

Among those in attendance to bless the plan were Senators John McCain and, of course, Joe Lieberman.

Glitches

Posted on by

I am having more computer problems this morning (with the spare laptop), so I want to get something up quickly while I still can.

First off, have any of you using McAfee security software noticed your PCs doing some inexplicable things lately? Like suddenly turning off for no apparent reason? I ask because this week I’ve had spontaneous shutdowns on two separate computers while McAfee was doing scans and updates in the background. That may be a coincidence, but I do wonder.

Second, yesterday Cindy Sheehan led a group of protesters who shouted down and stopped a House Democratic press conference on ethics reform. Rahm Emanuel, of whom I am wildly ambivalent, was the leader of the press conference.

“Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership can no longer tell us what is on the table,” Mrs. Sheehan said. “We are the ones that put them in power and they are not including the peace movement. … It needs to be at least included in the discussion.”

She demanded the elimination of funding for the war, an investigation and impeachment of President Bush for what she called “lies” to justify the war.

Mrs. Sheehan was leading about 75 others lobbying congressional offices when they happened upon the press conference. The Democrats were there to present new ethics proposals as part of the 100-hour agenda with which they plan to begin the House majority today.

I’d like to hear your opinions on this. I was in the middle of a commentary on this very matter when the PC shut down (and fortunately recovered), and I may still finish it, but you guys have your say first. Points to ponder:

I’m all for holding Dems’ feet to fire, and if, say, in 2006 Sheehan had accomplished a similar shutdown of a Republican press conference we might have applauded (or not; I don’t generally like disruptive tactics that shut down speech). Are we being hypocritical if we complain about yesterday’s protest?

Is it really fair to slam Nancy Pelosi for not being sufficiently antiwar after she went out on a limb to get Jack Murtha appointed House Majority Leader?

Is it really fair to slam Dems for not holding investigations when Joe Biden is about to begin hearings on the Iraq War? Which is not something they could have done until now.

Did Cindy Sheehan actually play a role in getting Dems elected in the recent midterm elections? I honestly don’t recall.

Finally, do you think protesting in this matter could play a productive part in ending the war, or might it be counter productive by making an antiwar position more politically untenable?

What Would Caesar Do?

Posted on by

It’s the kind of speculation that maybe only a history nerd (like me) would love, but the Los Angeles Times published it, anyway — four historians discuss what Julius Caesar, George Washington, Genghis Khan, and Abraham Lincoln might say about Iraq. Excerpts —

Adrian Goldsworthy speaks for Julius Caesar:

When Caesar led his legions into Gaul — basically present-day France and Belgium — in 58 BC, many of the tribes there greeted him as a liberator. Six years later, almost all of them rebelled against him in a war fought with appalling savagery. Through skill and luck, Caesar won. He then spent the better part of two years in painstaking diplomacy. As one of his own officers put it: “Caesar had one main aim, keeping the tribes friendly and giving them neither the opportunity nor cause for war.” It worked, and Gaul remained at peace when he left in 49 BC.

Joseph Ellis channels George Washington:

Until the winter of 1777-78 at Valley Forge, Washington thought of the war against Britain as a contest between two armies. When the British army presented itself for battle, as it did on Long Island in the summer of 1776, Washington felt honor-bound to fight — a decision that proved calamitous on that occasion and nearly lost the war at the very start. That’s because the British had a force of 32,000 men against his 12,000. If Washington had not changed his thinking, the American Revolution almost surely would have failed because the Continental Army was no match for the British leviathan.

But at Valley Forge, Washington began to grasp an elemental idea: Namely, he did not have to win the war. Time and space were on his side. And no matter how many battles the British army won, it could not sustain control over the countryside unless it was enlarged tenfold, at a cost that British voters would never support. Eventually the British would recognize that they faced an impossibly open-ended mission and would decide to abandon their North American empire. Which is exactly what happened.

Jack Weatherford represents Genghis Khan, who conquered Mesopotamia in 1258:

Genghis Khan recognized that victory came by conquering people, not land or cities. In contrast to the Americans in 2003, who sought to take the largest cities first in a campaign of shock and awe, the Mongols in 1258 took the smallest settlements first, gradually working toward the capital. Both the Mongols and the Americans used heavy bombardment to topple Baghdad, but whereas the Americans rushed into the capital in a triumphant victory celebration, the Mongols wisely decided not to enter the defeated — but still dangerous — city. They ordered the residents to evacuate, and then they sent in Christian and Muslim allies, who seethed with a variety of resentments against the caliph, to expunge any pockets of resistance and secure the capital. The Americans ended up as occupiers; the Mongols pulled strings, watching from camps in the countryside. …

… Fundamentalist Muslims look back at Mongol secularism as a scourge. But, although U.S. rule in Iraq has produced a constant flow of refugees, particularly religious minorities, out of the country, under Mongol rule Christian, Muslim, Jewish and even Buddhist immigrants poured into the newly conquered Iraq to live under the Great Law of Genghis Khan. It was said that during this time a virgin could cross the length of the Mongol Empire with a pot of gold on her head and never be molested.

Harold Holzer discusses Abraham Lincoln:

So what might Lincoln do today?

First, focus on the real enemy: terrorists. When advisors suggested he start a war with England merely to woo patriotic Southerners back into the Union, Lincoln replied: “One war at a time.” He also rejected adventurism against French-controlled Mexico. Today Lincoln would fight only the war that needs fighting.

Second, embrace flexibility. Seek the right generals, strategies, troop levels and weaponry, and be willing to change course and personnel swiftly.

Third, communicate objectives with frequency, passion and precision. No one can match Lincoln’s eloquence, but no president should abandon Lincoln’s commitment to engage the public.

Fourth, spend more time at the front. Lincoln visited the troops often, absorbing their pain and boosting their morale. Maybe his case was better, but his manner of symbolizing it was best.

Finally, abandon the notion of divine will to justify war. Even the pious Lincoln came to realize it was fruitless, even sacrilegious, to invoke God as his ally. “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God,” he lamented. “Both may be, and one must be, wrong.” As Lincoln understood: “The Almighty has his own purposes.”

It should be noted that Caesar and Genghis Khan achieved their goals in ways that are frowned upon in civilized circles today. But although tactics might have to be modified, it doesn’t hurt to look at their strategies.

Apparatchiks With Shovels

Posted on by

Here’s a seriously disturbing story from TPM Café. Vali Nasr writes,

It now looks like the administration has adopted the surge strategy as its mantra. Simply put it means no new political road map for Iraq in place of the “national unity government” formula that has so far failed (has not delivered on the insurgency but has managed to alienated the Shias, and has actually caused more rather than less sectarian violence since the U.S. adopted it); going it alone (ignoring ISG’s recommendation to talk to the neighbors); and putting more boots on the ground. This last item deserves special attention. The language of the administration suggests that the surge will be used to fight radical groups and sectarian militias—Sunni ones and especially Shia militias and death squads associated with Muqtada al-Sadr. But listen closely; what they mean is that surge is in fact meant to finish off Sadr. And there lies the danger.

This is stunning. This means that the war will escalate, and our troops will be taking on multiple sides of a civil war at the same time. And by taking on Shia militias, Nasr says, we run the risk of inciting a Shia insurgency, which is about the only sort of violence Iraq hadn’t seen already.

The generals (who, we’ve been told until now, were making “decisions on the ground”) are opposed to the surge. But as if on cue, today several news outlets have reported that soldiers in Iraq support the surge. David Cloud of the New York Times writes,

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, talking to enlisted soldiers on his second day in Iraq, heard broad support today for a proposal to send more American forces to Iraq, an idea that has emerged as a leading option as the Bush administration considers a strategy shift.

“I really think we need more troops here,” said Specialist Jason T. Glenn, one of several soldiers at a breakfast meeting with Mr. Gates who backed the idea. “With more presence here,” he said, security might improve to a point that “we can get the Iraqi Army trained up.”

You can read essentially the same story from the Associated Press. Thomas E. Ricks and Howard Schneider report for the Washington Post,

Bush said this week he is waiting to hear from Gates after the new defense secretary returns from Iraq before making a final decision on the issue.

In a breakfast earlier in the day with more than a dozen enlisted soldiers, however, Gates got an earful about the need for more personnel.

“I really think we need more troops here, with more presence on the ground. More troops might hold [the insurgents] off long enough to where we can get the Iraq army trained up,” said Spec. Jason Glenn, a member of an intelligence unit in the first infantry division.

“I think we do need more troops over here,” agreed PFC Cassandra Wallace, a support soldier in the Tenth Mountain Division. “More troops would help us integrate the Iraqi army into patrols here.”

You don’t have to wait for the White House speechwriters to put this together for you, do you? You know that sometime soon President Bush is going to announce that soldiers are asking for more troops in Iraq, so we have to send them.

I guess now we’re bypassing the generals and are asking the soldiers to make decisions on the ground.

Secretary Gates is, in fact, doing a heck of a job hearing what Bush wants to hear. According to Ricks and Schneider, not only is Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declaring stoutly that Iraq will “take the lead role in solving the country’s security problems,” (translation: See? Iraqification is working!) but Gates is saying that both Iran and Syria are playing “a very negative role” in Iraq. Iran especially (translation: Just forget about discussions with Syria and Iran).

You know that Bush has already decided what the Great Leap Forward to Victory will be, and that it will look remarkably like the old plan on meth. What we’re seeing now is just the pre-leap ceremony.

It’s a Joke

Posted on by

Stop me if you’ve heard this one:

There was an old man in France who used to get up at the crack of dawn every day and sprinkle white powder all around his house. When his neighbor asked him what he was sprinkling, he replied that it was elephant repellant. The neighbor exclaimed “There are no elephants in France!” to which he answered “I guess it must be working then!”

It’s an old joke. I’ve heard it told better. But now there’s an updated version, as reported by Melinda Henneberger:

I like dreamers, so I was really trying to follow what Bill Kristol had to say on the Daily Show last night. The gist of it was that though the war in Iraq had been mismanaged, yes, it had also kept us from being attacked here at home since 9/11, so Bush should get some credit for that.

I didn’t see this segment, so I can’t judge how well Kristol told the joke. I’m guessing it went something like this:

    STEWART: The Iraq War isn’t going so well. What are we trying to accomplish?

    KRISTOL: It’s to keep away al Qaeda.

    STEWART: How is it keeping away al Qaeda?

    KRISTOL: Have there been any al Qaeda attacks in America lately?

    STEWART: No.

    KRISTOL: See? It must be working.

I like the elephant version better.

Update: C&L has the video.