What About Iraq's Oil?

Christopher Hayes wants to know why "the word oil never crossed the lips of any of the reporters at today’s press conference" with president Bush, and why reporters don't ask about the establishment of permanent bases once the war has ended:

Oil Law, by Christopher Hayes: Listening to the President’s press conference..., something caught my ear. ... Bush mentioned that a key to unifying the country would be getting Iraq’s new oil law passed. The idea is, I imagine, that once Iraq’s new government has figured out how to equitably share oil revenues among various factions, everyone’s going to get along just fine. Of course, along with bringing Iraqis together, the new law might just also provide a boon to American energy companies A win-win!

As Antonia Juhasz shows in a new cover story for In These Times (not yet on line), and argued in the LA Times earlier this month, access to oil continues to drive US policy in Iraq:

The Bush administration hired the consultancy firm BearingPoint more than a year ago to advise the Iraqi Oil Ministry on drafting and passing a new national oil law. Plans for this new law were first made public at a news conference in late 2004 in Washington. Flanked by State Department officials, Iraqi Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi (who is now vice president) explained how this law would open Iraq’s oil industry to private foreign investment. This, in turn, would be “very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies.” The law would implement production-sharing agreements. ...

In July, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced in Baghdad that oil executives told him that their companies would not enter Iraq without passage of the new oil law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies considered passage of the new oil law more important than increased security when deciding whether to go into business in Iraq.

There are two elephants in the room when it comes to Iraq, and for some reason the establishment press can never quite bring itself to broach the subjects: permanent bases and access to oil. It’s fairly clear that Bush is not going to withdraw from Iraq no matter what happens. Part of this is due to the fact that he has decided that as long as we stay in Iraq we can’t lose the war, and he doesn’t want to lose. But there’s also the not-so-minor fact that if we withdraw from Iraq we’ll have a hard time establishing permanent bases and may not have any secure access to the country’s oil.

So why is it the word oil never crossed the lips of any of the reporters at today’s press conference?

Update: In response to comments, let me add that I think the form of the contracts/law matters. Access is different from control/property rights and that's where people may be talking past each other.

If, for example, the law gives U.S. companies the right to some of the oil in return for developing the infrastructure destroyed in the war, preferential treatment about who gets the development contracts, etc. - the kind of cronyism we've seen again and again - that's one issue, and one that merits raising. It's this phrase:

The law would implement production-sharing agreements.

that caught my eye in that regard.

If it's just access, the so long as the oil hits world markets, then that's another issue, and I agree that it won't affect price, etc.

Update: Angy Bears follow up - see PGL, then Steven Kyle.

Comments

[pgl]

Access to oil is easy - you buy the stuff. What part of free markets doesn't Chris Hayes get?

[Typo fixed - Mark].

[Bruce Wilder]

"What part of free markets doesn't [Christopher] Hayes get?"

The tricky-details part, where it is decided who profits?

[billy]

"The law would implement production-sharing agreements."

That in a nutshell, tells the whole Iraq war story - why democrats and republicans, the majority of the people, pretended not to hear anything, that was against attacking Iraq.

Why should reporters ask about this? Is there an American constituency that is unhappy about the American gains out of Iraqi oil? If there is, they are fools, who dont know whats good for them.

[Christopher Hayes]

Anyone who thinks the international oil market is a "free market" doesn't read the newspaper. Remember how "easy" access to oil was back in the 1970s when the OPEC embargo and the Iranian revolution created a supply shock that helped send the US economy into the worst inflation in decades?

[anne]

PGL

"Access to oil is easy - you buy the stuff. What part of free markets doesn't Chris Hayes get?"

Please do explain the rhetorical question and comment. I do not understand.

[billy]

"Access to oil is easy - you buy the stuff. What part of free markets doesn't Chris Hayes get?"

Any country that knows what's good for it, will not allow PSA. It is the equivalent of the payday loan in the oild industry.

[anne]

Notice by the way that the effect of the oil price increase internationally have been completely different than in 1980, both here and in country after country. This is worth thinking about.

[Bruce Wilder]

I noticed that the American intervention in Iraq pretty much foreclosed French and Russian efforts to secure Iraqi oil, as sanctions eroded.

I noticed that the American intervention prevented resumption of Iraqi oil production, elevating world oil prices and the profits of major American oil companies.

I'd like to see the Congress fully fund all Pentagon requests of Iraq funds, with an oil profits tax.

[howard]

christopher, without wanting to revisit that hardy perenial (what caused inflation in the '70s), other than some immediate dislocations, it wasn't hard to get oil in the '70s, just expensive.

which, anne, is pgl's point: we don't need an imperialist land base to secure oil, we merely need to walk up to the "oil for sale" window and buy some.

which isn't to say that christopher isn't onto something: i always wondered why war supporters were unwilling to acknowledge that the fact that iraq owns a bunch of oil reserves was part of the invasion mindset....

[evagrius]

No Oil= No Freedom. We fought to make Iraq free. That's plus. Freedom = Oil.

There. The equation balances.

[Bruce Wilder]

howard: "we don't need an imperialist land base to secure oil"

Obviously, an administration dominated by oil company executives sees the problem a little differently from us lowly consumers of oil.

Bush is not in Iraq to secure oil for American consumers. American consumers can count out on low gas prices for about six weeks before election day during Republican Administrations, and that's it. ("Free Market" believers are referred to yesterday's Producer Price Index release, for the course of gas and fuel prices, post November 7; worst report in 30 years! But, I'm sure the timing is purely coincidental.) Bush is in Iraq to secure rents for clients and principals of the Greater American Plutocracy, including Exxon/Mobil, Halliburton, King Abdullah and the Sultan of Dubai.

[ken melvin]

Damned high priced oil, this Iraqi oil.

[pgl]

Anne - I do two things: (a) explain my comment as you fairly requested; (b) apologized to Christopher for confusing him with Stephen Hayes (DUH).

[pgl]

That'd be over at Angrybear, that is (been a long day).

[Mark Thoma]

Just added this as an update: I think that the form of the contracts/law matters. Access is different from control/property rights and that's where people may be talking past each other.

If, for example, the law gives U.S. companies the right to some of the oil in return for developing the infrastructure destroyed in the war, preferential treatment about who gets the development contracts, etc. - the kind of cronyism we've seen again and again - that's one issue, and one that merits raising. It's this phrase:

"The law would implement production-sharing agreements."

that caught my eye in that regard.

If it's just access, the so long as it hits world markets, then that's another issue, and agree that it won't affect price, etc.

[evagrius]

From the Mahablog;

The January 2007 issue of Harper’s (the cover art is a photograph of a rubber duckie) has an article by Chalmers Johnson titled “Republic or Empire: A National Intelligence Estimate on the United States.” It’s not online and won’t be for awhile (once again, Harper’s policy about not putting articles online until they’re a couple of months old makes me crazy), but reading the article in light of Baker’s news story is guaranteed to scare the living bleep out of you.

In the article, Chalmers discusses “military Keynesianism,” in which “the flow of the nation’s wealth — from taxpayers and (increasingly) foreign lenders through the government to military contractors and (decreasingly) back to the taxpayers.” As a result, “the domestic economy requires sustained military ambition in order to avoid recession or collapse.” Then, he ties military Keynesianism to the “unitary executive” theory and Bush’s increasingly unchecked power. Meanwhile, citizens and media dutifully “abet their government in maintaining a facade of constitutional democracy until the nation drifts into bankruptcy.”

Note that Chalmers is a serious guy with sterling Establishment credentials. Among other things, from 1967 until 1973, Chalmers was was a consultant to the Office of National Estimates (O.N.E.) within the CIA. In that capacity he mostly dealt with issues involving communist China and Maoism. There’s more about Chalmers and his work here.

In 2004 Chalmers told an interviewer he wasn’t always so concerned about military adventurism:

Johnson thought antiwar demonstrators during the Vietnam were naive. He voted for Ronald Reagan. In retrospect, Johnson told John Wilkens of the San Diego Union-Tribune, he was “a spear carrier for the empire.” …

… “I fear that we will lose our country,” Johnson writes in his latest book, “The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic.”

Bush and the Pentagon are bankrupting the nation, dismantling the Constitution, and leading us down the path to endless war. America is afflicted with the same “economic sclerosis of the former USSR,” Chalmers explains in a ZNet interview. But at least Mikhail Gorbachev tried to reform the Soviet Union before it imploded. No such luck with Bush and the neocons. “The United States is not even trying to reform, but it is certain that vested interests here would be as great or greater an obstacle. It is nowhere written that the United States, in its guise as an empire dominating the world, must go on forever. The blowback from the second half of the twentieth century has only just begun.”

In this TomDispatch interview, Chalmers explains how he evolved from being a loyal, spear carrying Cold Warrior to a being a prophet of doom howling in the wilderness. Max B. Sawicky of MaxSpeak wrote of Chalmers,

Johnson remains a conservative, staunchly pro-capitalist, limited government. No goofy Buchanan-type xenophobia. There’s a fair amount of overlap with Chomsky. People type the latter as “left” but I would argue that both of their approaches to U.S. foreign policy are empiricist and Madisonian. I’m no expert, but neither are the loons running this government.

The Johnson analytical framework harkens back to New Left treatments of “Pentagonal capitalism” and “military Keynesianism.” It emphasizes the brute fact of U.S. military outposts around the world, the breadth of resources devoted to imperial overstretch, and the impacts on the locals. I tend to discount the money aspect — what’s $450 billion in a $13 trillion economy? To me the ideology — the thirst for influence, control, and dominance — is most important.

The part about “limited government” sets some alarm belts off, too, but I respect anyone who’s actually thinking. Unlike some of our recent libertarian commenters.

Marc Cooper interviewed Chalmers in 2004 (emphasis added):

So where does that leave today’s authentic patriots?

The role of the citizen now is to be ever better informed. When Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” he replied: “A republic if you can keep it.” We’ve not been paying attention to what we need to do to keep it. I think we made a disastrous error in the classic strategic sense when in 1991 we concluded that we “had won the Cold War.” No. We simply didn’t lose it as badly as the Soviets did. We were both caught up in imperial overreach, in weapons industries that came to dominate our societies. We allowed ideologues to capture our Department of Defense and lead us off — in a phrase they like — into a New Rome. We are no longer a status quo power respectful of international law. We became a revisionist power, one fundamentally opposed to the world as it is organized, much like Nazi Germany, imperial Japan, Bolshevik Russia or Maoist China.

Indeed, your thesis is that since September 11, the U.S. ceased to be a republic and has become an empire.

It’s an extremely open question if we have crossed our Rubicon and there is no going back. Easily the most important right in our Constitution, according to James Madison, who wrote much of the document, is the one giving the right to go to war exclusively to the elected representatives of the people, to the Congress. Never, Madison continued, should that right be given to a single man. But in October 2002, our Congress gave that power to a single man, to exercise whenever he wanted, and with nuclear weapons if he so chose. And the following March, without any international consultation or legitimacy, he exercised that power by staging a unilateral attack on Iraq.

The Bill of Rights — articles 4 and 6 — are now open to question. Do people really have the right to habeas corpus? Are they still secure in their homes from illegal seizures? The answer for the moment is no. We have to wait and see what the Supreme Court will rule as to the powers of this government that it appointed.

Going back to the Harper’s article — Chalmers writes,

Military Keynesianism … creates a feedback loop: American presidents know that military Keynesianism tends to concentrate power in the executive branch, and so presidents who seek greater power have a natural inducement to encourage further growth of the military-industrial complex. As the phenomena feed on each other, the usual outcome is a real war, based not on the needs of national defense but rather on the domestic political logic of military Keynesianism …

… George W. Bush has taken this natural political phenomenon to an extreme never before experienced by the American electorate. Every president has sought greater authority, but Bush … appears to believe that increasing presidential authority is both a birthright and a central component of his historical legacy. …

… John Yoo, Bush’s deputy assistant attorney general from 2001 to 2003, writes in his book War By Other Means, “We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts laws, the President enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.”

Let’s go back to Peter Baker’s article for a moment:

A substantial military expansion will take years and would not immediately affect the war in Iraq. But it would begin to address the growing alarm among commanders about the state of the armed forces. Although the president offered no specifics, other U.S. officials said the administration is preparing plans to bolster the nation’s permanent active-duty military with as many as 70,000 additional troops.

A force structure expansion would accelerate the already-rising costs of war. The administration is drafting a supplemental request for more than $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this fiscal year, according to U.S. officials. That would be over 50 percent more than originally projected for fiscal 2007, making it by far the costliest year since the 2003 invasion.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as for terrorism-related operations elsewhere. An additional $100 billion would bring overall expenditures to $600 billion, exceeding those for the Vietnam War, which, adjusted for inflation, cost $549 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Now, what will Bush not do to pay for all this expansion? Raise taxes, that’s what. Instead, he’s going to borrow more money from China and Japan and who knows who else. In other words, this is a major expansion of military Keynesianism. Which, once again, is what happens when “the flow of the nation’s wealth — from taxpayers and (increasingly) foreign lenders through the government to military contractors and (decreasingly) back to the taxpayers.” As a result, “the domestic economy requires sustained military ambition in order to avoid recession or collapse.”

And I think Chalmers is right about not losing the Cold War as badly as the Soviets did. We could still lose, however. Although a great many factors contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, my understanding is that the collapse came about primarily because the Soviet economy just plain couldn’t support the cost of their military, their secret police, and their subsidies to client states like Cuba. Soviet citizens increasingly depended on a black market economy to survive, and Gorbachev’s reforms came way too late to do any good. Eventually the whole business fell like a house of cards.

Now, our economy might be able to pay for all the stuff Bush wants to spend money on — I honestly don’t know — but the plain fact is that it is not paying for those things because of Bush’s tax cuts. Instead, we are borrowing money from foreign countries and going deeper into debt every time we breathe.

And, frankly, this scares the bleep out of me.

It’s probably the case that the military does need the expansion because of the strain Bush’s War has put upon it. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that we must haul our asses out of Iraq to save ourselves. Yes, that will leave a nasty mess behind, and that’s too damn bad. But Bush’s War is itself the greater danger.

See also: Digby, Robert Scheer, and xan at Corrente.

Update: Via Digby — the Associated Press reports –

The Pentagon is still struggling to get a handle on the unprecedented number of contractors now helping run the nation’s wars, losing millions of dollars because it is unable to monitor industry workers stationed in far-flung locations, according to a congressional report.

The investigation by the Government Accountability Office, which released the report Tuesday, found that the Defense Department’s inability to manage contractors effectively has hurt military operations and unit morale and cost the Pentagon money.

“With limited visibility over contractors, military commanders and other senior leaders cannot develop a complete picture of the extent to which they rely on contractors as an asset to support their operations,” said the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.

[maria]

It is naive to think oil is our only objective in colonizing Iraq. We are doing it more in order to have a base from which to repress all attempts of the Arab people to free themselves from Western colonialism. Freedom for them would be the overthrow of the puppet regimes supported by the West who do our bidding in the Middle East. Our warmongering colonialists are determined to prevent Arab popular nationalism from rising up and throwing us and our puppets out. Iraq is crucial in that strategy. And also to counter Iran, a nation that our stupidity (from the colonialist point of view) has strengthened and that has taken for itself the role of liberator of the Arab peoples.

[evagrius]

"And also to counter Iran, a nation that our stupidity (from the colonialist point of view) has strengthened and that has taken for itself the role of liberator of the Arab peoples."

Which is somewhat ironic since Iranians are not Arabs.

[maria]

Abizaid has opposed a major increase in U.S. troops in Iraq -- an idea President George W. Bush is considering -- saying extra forces would only increase Iraqis' dependency on U.S. forces and strain a U.S. military that's already stretched.

Abizaid, at a press conference in Baghdad today, said ``the time is right'' for his retirement and ``it has nothing to do with dissatisfaction'' with U.S. strategy in the war. Abizaid was with new Defense Secretary Robert Gates who's in Iraq to reassess that strategy. ---Bloomberg News

Why do these people always lie? Another fed up realist finds he can't continue to serve the lunatic, fantasist Bush.

[maria]

Iranians are Muslims and have long been the only real support for Arab Palestinians in their struggle for liberation. It might seem ironic. Ironic only to Westerners, I suspect.

[steve kyle]

I just posted something over at Angry Bear which is in the spirit of your update - The Chinese are busy giving oil backed loans to countries in Africa so that they already have title to the oil when the loans come due. And if the oil is being administratively allocated somehow at that point then they have bought enough good will to be at the front of the line

[ilsm]

This comment applies to all DoD contracts not just Iraq, only there the proximity to the deadly side of the waste is nearer.

“With limited visibility over contractors, military commanders and other senior leaders cannot develop a complete picture of the extent to which they rely on contractors as an asset to support their operations,” said the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.

There is method. These senior government officials become contractors after they retire.

I know the drill!!!

I are doing the "after retired" bit.

As to owning Iraqi oil, let's put the military costs of Iraq each year on each barrel of Gulf oil we import. I suspect we could do a lot of alternatives for that price tag, to say nothing of the price in our kids' blood.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Let me try to provide some perspective on the Iraq oil issue. Early on, just after the fall of Baghdad, there was quite a bit of talk of “privatizing” (selling off) Iraq’s oil industry. There was also discussion of giving every Iraqi family “shares” in the national oil company and paying dividends (potentially a decent idea).

The US quickly discovered that the one thing (the only thing?), every Iraqi agreed on, is that this was out of the question. Any attempted change in the structure of the oil industry, on the part of the CPA, would lead to an instantaneous revolt of all Iraqis against the US.

Wisely, the US backed off and started to handle the Iraqi oil industry in a sane way. The oil ministry was the first ministry returned to Iraqi control (or so I remember). The Army Core of Engineers did quite a bit of work fixing refineries and other petroleum infrastructure. Of course, none of it works quite right because of endless terrorism, corruption, mismanagement, and fast rising demand….

To avoid any suggestion that the US is using Iraq’s oil for our own purposes, the military imports its own fuel from other countries (a very expensive proposition). Much of it comes from Kuwait and Turkey I believe.

As a consequence, control over oil has been far less of a rallying point for the insurgents than might be otherwise expected. They mention it from time to time of course. However, the day-to-day reality is that Iraqis run the Iraqi oil industry and the people in power know it. Indeed, the oil ministry is plum in the endlessly internecine world of Iraqi politics.

As of this late date, nothing has really changed. Iraqi nationalism, particularly with respect to oil, hasn’t exactly disappeared. Any attempt on the part of the US to get control of Iraq’s oil would end in a much bigger disaster and the folks involved know it. Could a future Iraqi government enter into some joint-development agreements with American companies? Perhaps, but not likely given the likely denouement of our role over there.

The sad irony is that oil is one of the very few aspects of America’s Iraqi misadventure that has been well handled. That was not the original intent. However, in this case at least, the folks on the ground listened and learned and acted appropriately.

The other irony is that Iraqis are too obsessed with oil. They can’t imagine that their country could ever develop sources of wealth and income other than oil. Hence, the endless battles (rhetorical and real) over the distribution of oil revenues.

[Movie Guy]

maria - Abizaid, at a press conference in Baghdad today, said ``the time is right'' for his retirement and ``it has nothing to do with dissatisfaction'' with U.S. strategy in the war. Abizaid was with new Defense Secretary Robert Gates who's in Iraq to reassess that strategy. ---Bloomberg News

Why do these people always lie? Another fed up realist finds he can't continue to serve the lunatic, fantasist Bush.

John Abizaid didn't lie.

SecDEF Rumsfeld had already extended General Abizaid's tour at CENTCOM per agreement with Abizaid. John stayed on as requested and was intending to retire in July 2007.

The battle over increasing/not increasing the number of troops in Iraq has been a point of consideration contention with Abizaid who opposed such an increase, as did General Casey and the Iraq multi-national corps commander. Abizaid told a public audience on November 17, 2006 that he was looking forward to retirement. I provided the transcript and video links for Abizaid's presentation.

With the departure of SecDEF Rumsfeld, it is quite logical that John didn't see the point in going through a SecDEF transition, including all the direction changes and demands that may be forthcoming. So, he moved his intended retirement up three months.

For you to say that Abizaid lied and "is another fed up realist [who] finds he can't continue to serve the lunatic, fantasist Bush" is one of the biggest distortions possible. Abizaid fully supports battling the transnational terrorists and finishing the job in Iraq. His words are available to others at the Harvard web site or here:

I recommend listening to or reading the words of General John Abizaid (video, transcript) before making such bogus claims in the future.

John Abizaid is an outstanding patriot who always tells it like it is. He has not changed that well known trait since his days at the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York.

You obviously don't know him or know much about him.

[Movie Guy]

Mark,

I believe that these sources of information might bumb the discussion up a few levels.

Iraq oil law stuck on contracts
Kurdish Media

Much more here
Kurdish Media

Iraq Updates - Crude Oil

Iraq oil law stuck on contracts
Iraq Updates
* Notice the huge list of related articles at the bottom of the page.

Global Policy Forum - Iraq Oil

[Bruce Wilder]

I agree with Movie Guy: maria, you are getting carried away and wrongly projecting things onto Abizaid, an honorable officer.

Abizaid has been in his job a long time. He's failed in that job, by any reasonable standard. But, I know of no evidence that he ever had the good judgment to oppose Bush's conception of the war on terror or the war in Iraq.

For an informed, but critical view of Abizaid, his capability, dedication and overall performance:
http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2006_11_19-2006_11_25.shtml#1164070286

[maria]

I love to read posts praising killer warriors and their war and that presume to know all the inside info about their motivations. Most TV commentators opined that he left now ("the time is right" he said) because he couldn't stomach any more of Bush's insanity. Nothing would prevent his tour being extended, if he were happy doing it. He's only 55. But you can't stay on if you are diametrically opposed to the boss's strategy and he is.

[Movie Guy]

This may help, too.

Pretty good deal in the first link. The other is general briefs.

Iraq Draft Oil Law Recommends Production Sharing Deals
Gulf Oil and Gas
Dec 6, 2006

More briefs here
Gulf Oil and Gas

[maria]

Bruce: I tend to get fed up with praise for the "dedication" of killers and murderers, even if they are dressed in nice uniforms. Hitler and Stalin were "dedicated" too, but I never thought to praise them. And I never thought of any warrior as "honorable". I don't honor those who give orders that kill thousands and thousands of innocent people.

[Bruce Wilder]

I don't think Abizaid was ever opposed to his boss's strategy. I think he should have been, but he wasn't, and, as far as I know, still isn't.

Conflict -- sometimes desperate and violent -- is inevitable. Of all those involved and enmeshed in conflict, the warriors may be the only honorable ones.

[bullbust]

Could a future Iraqi government enter into some joint-development agreements with American companies? Perhaps, but not likely given the likely denouement of our role over there.

"Perhaps". How convenient.

The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was just in joint development of Iran's oil fields with Iran, no? Was Mossadegh a "local"?

[maria]

"Abizaid made clear his continued opposition to a major surge of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the current 140,000, arguing that it would perpetuate a mentality of dependency by Iraqi forces and increase resistance among Iraq's population."

Is Bush's strategy not to increase the troops in Iraq beyond 140,000? The news outlets say the opposite.

It must be comforting to you to think of the Iraq war as "inevitable." I thought it was a stupid endeavor concocted by a stupid President. I might add that one of the problems of contemporary America is its blind adoration of things military and its complacency about filthy wars, always visited, of course, on other peoples.

[Movie Guy]

Bruce, I had read that Henderson piece.

maria, your statement that all U.S. military leaders (warriors was your term) are "killers and murderers" and that none are "honorable", "even if they are dressed in nice uniforms" is a sick portrayal of not only John Abizaid but many fine and outstanding commissioned officers, senior NCOs, and warrant officers.

The media hasn't quoted any statements from Abizaid, retired general officers, or his friends that I am aware of which support the lame notion that Abizaid didn't believe in what he stated in public at Harvard on 17 November 2006 or at any other time. It's "schoolgirl gossip and BS hype" according to some retired generals and classmates who know John. And, yeah, they know the score.

This statement made by you is a complete falsehood: "But you can't stay on if you are diametrically opposed to the boss's strategy and he is."

You're the kind of person who appears to not understand much about national defense, commitment to a nation's allies, and take pure delight in scoffing and spitting at military personnel and leaders. But you would cry like a baby if your life was in immediate danger and you would screw bloody murder if the U.S. Armed Forces didn't protect from an international threat.

Just because you don't have an appreciable understanding of the issues that John Abizaid and other leaders in Iraq have addressed clearly (as did John), doesn't mean that the threats are not real. You can pretend that the threats do not exist, but where is your foreign affairs, intelligence, and international relations knowledge and background at senior levels to back up your arrogant remarks? Where is there any evidence that you know Abizaid and others are liars? Where is any of that?

I don't care that you disagree with Abizaid's Harvard presentation (which you may not have read or listened to), but telling lies about him and his positions is over the line. You don't the facts nor his opinions other than what he has stated or shared with friends who have spoken publicly. You don't what you're talking about.

[Movie Guy]

maria - "Abizaid made clear his continued opposition to a major surge of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the current 140,000, arguing that it would perpetuate a mentality of dependency by Iraqi forces and increase resistance among Iraq's population."

Is Bush's strategy not to increase the troops in Iraq beyond 140,000? The news outlets say the opposite.

You're starting to catch on. There is more, but this isn't the place to discuss it.

[Movie Guy]

Correction: scream bloody murder - for the second post up.

[Bruce Wilder]

The war on terror and the War in Iraq were stupid endeavors concocted by a stupid President. Nothing fundamental to either about either has ever been opposed or effectively modified by John Abizaid.

America's all-time favorite war was one it visited upon itself.

The news outlets are moronic in their favored judgments and narratives.

[anne]

Thank you PGL and Howard.

[Movie Guy]

Bruce,

What would have been your response to 9/11, the USS Cole, or any of the other terrorist attacks of the past decade?

[maria]

From Max Hastings in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/
0,,1976577,00.html

[maria]

There never were any "threats" in Iraq until we created them there. I marvel at the persistence of those who try to justify a filthy war as well as its agents and enablers that is being fought for no valid reason and that has brought us and many many thousands of others only disaster and untold misery. Rommel may have been a "dedicated and honorable" man to Nazi Germans. To me he was Hitler's willing agent in evil and wickedness. I would be ashamed to praise him in the slightest degree.

[ilsm]

"Abizaid fully supports battling the transnational terrorists"

You should know what Saladin did to the King of Jeruslem is what Saddam has done to the US.

The terrorists have won when they draw our (cold war) resources into the desert and can whittle away at them.

Hell, yes we all want to preserve America.

Hell, yes we all want freedom to prevale.

Hell no meaningless to the Iraqis 'democracy' in Iraq has nothing to do with the first two.

And battling terrorists, whomever they may be on their own terms is like the Frankish knights charging over the hill into massed Muslim infantry and archers.

You fight the enemy on your terms not on theirs.

But these guys are experts and they know when they set forth there will be results.

Where? When?

[Movie Guy]

Many of the transnational terrorism actions are not sitting on the public's desk or coffee table.

As for the programs involved, the huge list is outlined in detail at the State Department web site.

You can boo hoo the transnational terrorist threats all day, but that doesn't mean that you know what is happening over than a few hints via the news. I read your remarks on the transnational terrorism threats before. I think you're being a bit arrogant in quickly dismissing them. But it doesn't matter because key members of Congress on both sides the isle know better as will the next administration.

This isn't a game.

[Lafayette]

pql: "Access to oil is easy - you buy the stuff. What part of free markets doesn't Chris Hayes get?"

One buys oil on the spot market at "Brent prices" in London at the daily rate and get in line for only approximate delivery, or you sign long-term contracts that assure supply with the national oil companies. The second is far more preferable.

What part don't you understand? Not to worry, Dubya knows what's best for his buddies. Dick reminds him daily.

[Lafayette]

"Which is somewhat ironic since Iranians are not Arabs."

Don't bother people who regurgitate the conventional wisdom. It simply befuddles them.

This one is probably still looking for WMDs in the dessert. Indiana Jones, maybe he thinks he is?

[Lafayette]

"You obviously don't know him or know much about him."

He speaks Arabic and, as such, is/was a precious asset over in the sandbox. Whatever run-in he had with Rumsfeld, who would broach no competition for the spotlight, is almost irrelevant.

Rumsfeld, beginning with Bremmer, has been wrong all the way down the line, one error after the other.

Watch Abizaid to pop up in the next Democratic admin, with a special focus on the Middle East. He knows it much better than the Neanderthals currently ensconced in Washington.

Two more years ...

[Movie Guy]

Abizaid won't work for a marshmallow president, so the Dems will have to put up a real candidate first. That focus isn't visible at present.

But, yes, Abizaid is bright, well informed, and does not have any difficulty speaking his mind.

Abizaid's take on Middle East and Eurasia activities is outstanding. He knows what is happening. He knows what is being planned by various M.E. leaders.

John gets it.

Those who scoff at Abizaid are ill-informed or arrogant fools.

[Lafayette]

maria: "There never were any "threats" in Iraq until we created them there.

Hussein was a tyrant guilty of genocide. He killed approximately 150,000 human beings, having once gassed 5,000 Kurds in one fell swoop (Halabja, 1988).

Is it at all possible that we look at Iraq other than through the obsessive lens of US involvement (up to its ass in a quagmire)?

Had we had this same obsession with Hitler that prevented American involvement in WW2, we'd probably all be writing here in High German. And, the Internet would be full of sites claiming that the Nazis "never really killed all those European Jews".

[Lafayette]

"Abizaid is bright, well informed, and does not have any difficulty speaking his mind."

Have you heard him in Arabic? No? So you don't really know, do you?

It is the last of the above attributes that will do him in. Prancing about with general's stars, "letting it all hang out", will get you automatic attention in any army.

Doing the same as a diplomat will obtain just the opposite. Finesse is a better quality. Let's presume that he learns easily.

Different horses for different courses.

[Movie Guy]

Lafayette - [MG:] "Abizaid is bright, well informed, and does not have any difficulty speaking his mind."

Have you heard him in Arabic? No? So you don't really know, do you?

My brother has heard him. Both speak Arabic. Both are West Point grads who were there during the same period. I have heard him speak Arabic in video taped interviews and settings, but I only understand the translations other a few words.

Just because a person speaks his mind doesn't mean that the communication is course or rude. John doesn't have that problem. He is sharper than you probably imagine. He is well liked in the Middle East for reasons other than his language capabilities.

[Movie Guy]

that should read "coarse".

[maria]

Guardian today has an excellent article by Sydney Blumenthal on how Bush's most recent lunacy (more troops to Iraq) is inspired by a Neocon recipe ("A Plan for Success in Iraq") that can be read on the American Enterprise Institute site. Will we ever be rid of these tireless warmongers? Probably not as long as we are not rid of Israel. Hey it's only American boys that will be dying, you know. They are like peanut butter and jelly or ham and eggs.... etc., etc.

[Lafayette]

"He is sharper than you probably imagine."

I'm not imagining anything personally about the man. I don't know him.

I have worked in the Middle East. I know that one must be very careful about what one speaks and how they speak. Their prides are sensitive objects.

I will presume that Abizaid is an intelligent officer. I know that he had, at the onset some years ago, a favorable impression amongst particularly the Jordanians. But, any American army general who speaks other than Yankish was bound to capture interest. It was such a rarety.

They knew he could understand them. He knew that they knew he could understand them, which develops trust in a world where the sentiment is hard to come by.

Rumsfeld must have sensed the challenge from someone who could "get into their skin", meaning the indigenous of the area. Which is why what happened, happened.

As I wrote, he'll be back.

[maria]

Here is a link to the Kagan piece:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25292/pub_detail.asp

[maria]

The shorter Kagan recipe:

America faces a critical moment in Iraq. Sectarian violence threatens to destroy Iraq's government and society and what's left of America's will to fight. Yet the consequences of accepting defeat would be horrendous. Iran and Iraq's Sunni neighbors would vie for dominance, and the conflict would likely expand throughout the Middle East. Al Qaeda could establish a base in the ensuing vacuum. Abandoning Iraq to chaos would harm America's vital interests immeasurably.

Resident Scholar Frederick W. Kagan
Resident Scholar
Frederick W. Kagan

It is essential, therefore, to adopt a new strategy. We must secure Iraq's population and thereby bring the violence under control, abandoning the failed attempt to hand responsibility over to the Iraqis prematurely.

As we saw in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, military forces, together with political and diplomatic initiatives, can control ethnic and sectarian conflict. A large scale two-year effort to clear and hold critical areas in Baghdad that are the center of sectarian violence in the capital can succeed today. U.S. forces secured Tal Afar in 2005 and parts of Sadr City in 2004.

U.S. commanders admit that recent attempts to gain control of Baghdad in Operation Together Forward II failed through lack of resources. Many neighborhoods were cleared, but there were too few American troops to maintain security in those areas. U.S. military forces know how to establish security and maintain it, but they cannot do so without the necessary resources and time.

Securing the critical areas of Baghdad would require a surge of at least 35,000 more U.S. combat troops into Iraq (some would go into Anbar province and elsewhere to contain any spillover from Baghdad). This surge would come from extending the tours of soldiers already in Iraq and accelerating the deployment of a few brigades. It would require two years to succeed, accompanied by economic reconstruction and political efforts to strengthen the Iraqi government. Training of the Iraqi army would continue, and the Iraqis would have to take responsibility for their own security at the end of these efforts. They can only do so, however, if we bring the violence down as we train the Iraqis up.

Some argue that these actions would "break" our Army by destroying morale. But with more than a million men under arms, these claims are not credible. The extensions are modest and within the bounds of what the United States has done in this conflict. Above all, let us consider the alternative: A defeated Army would have to withdraw under fire, humiliated, watching as the enemy tortures and kills the Iraqis it had worked with and defended. Nothing would break the Army more surely than ignominious defeat.

The options in Iraq are stark: withdrawal, defeat and regional disaster, or an effort to secure the population to permit the political, economic and social development and national reconciliation needed for Iraq to move forward. The president's determination to win with a comprehensive new strategy isn't stubbornness. It is wisdom.

Frederick W. Kagan is a resident scholar at AEI.

If at first you don't succeed, try again HARDER, and HARDER. LOL.

[maria]

Lafayette:

Really! Saddam's wickedness was never a stated cause for war; it became one only when the other "causes" all collapsed as a bunch of lies. If we decided to unseat all wicked rulers, why not start with Africa? That would keep us busy for the next century. Saddam never threatened us or Western civilization or the UK. Hitler at least threatened the UK and possibly Western civilization. The two situations are not at all similar. Please!!!

[Peter Schaeffer]

Maria,

Before the first Gulf War, Saddam had a rather large nuclear weapons program. See Iraq's Programs to Make Highly Enriched Uranium and Plutonium for Nuclear Weapons Prior to the Gulf War and Inside Saddam's secret nuclear program. The first report details the likely schedule for Iraq’s bomb development efforts. Had it not been for the first Gulf War, Iraq would have assembled a nuclear arsenal by the mid-1990s. See also Iraq's Reconstitution of Its Nuclear Weapons Program for a detailed discussion of Iraq’s post-war nuclear efforts and the long-term prospects for stopping an Iraqi bomb (as understood in October of 1998).

[Cyrille]

If the policy really was to help democratic transitions and remove evil rulers, then the very first target would be Zimbabwe, where Mugabe is basically starving his entire people, and where there is a legitimate democratic alternative supported by the people.

Then, many of the USA "allies" (aka brutal torturers) in the former Soviet Union would collapse lick a pack of cards while there could be an alternative who could actually run the country.

Saddam Hussein indeed did terrible deeds, being encouraged by the west for most of them incidentally. In recent times however, he was nowhere near as murderous AND the ensuing chaos caused by his removal was all too predictable -and in fact predicted.

If the target had really been to improve local peoples' lives, Iraq would never have been the first target. But of course, we all know that.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Cyrille,

If you check out the SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) reports you will find that the USSR and China were Saddam’s #1 and #3 suppliers of arms. France was #2. See Arms transfers to Iraq, 1970-2004 for some detailed data. See The Facts Stand Alone for a chart of this data. Note that the United States barely makes the list (and wouldn’t at all if SIPRI hadn’t misclassified certain transactions).

Between them the USSR and China (not the West) supplied 69% of Saddam’s weapons. Neither has ever been criticized by anyone for their role. Of course, I could point that the largest suppliers of Saddam’s chemical weapons program were India and Singapore (not the West). Nor have they ever been criticized.

[evagrius]

Abizaid is of Christian Lebanese descent, ( which I thought).
This means that he comes from a long line of people who are well versed in the art and skill of diplomacy.

His speech was nothing earth shaking but spoke quite directly about the major problems in the Mid-East.

His number one priority; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Of course, that gets ignored immediately by the Wise Men of Washington.

So he went to number two- Iraq, which he sees as another Lebanon and not Vietnam, ( an insightful, rather "cosmopolitan" viewpoint compared to the "local" viewpoint of most U.S. commentators :) ).

[Lafayette]

"Saddam never threatened us or Western civilization or the UK."

Since you are insensitive to genocide as argument, I shall try another tack.

He attacked two neighbouring countries and occupied one of them, both oil producing countries, and threatened to do the same to a third, Saudi Arabia.

He would have put his hands on half the world's petroleum supply had he succeeded.

Think of that next time you fill up the gas tank. He was a direct threat to "your way of life". What part of that statement do you not understand?

[Lafayette]

"This means that he comes from a long line of people who are well versed in the art and skill of diplomacy."

LOL.

Lebanon is about to explode again because the Christian factions remain adamant about not letting Hamas into power. They are a minority in an Arab dominated world and they are faring far less well than another country in the same predicament, Israel.

And, they are losing politicians and Ministers to murder squads at a frightening rate as they insist on France protecting them from Syria. Calling on France to help them out of the "merde" is not diplomacy. It is very deep anxiety.

[adam]

cyrille-

saddam didn't do a lot in the since gulf war 1 because we enforced a no fly zone and imposed heavy sanctions on him that resuted in the deaths of an estimated 500K iraqis, mostly women and children.

in '96 sec. state albright was asked by sixty minutes if it was worth killing that many iraqis through sanctions in order to keep saddam in weakend state. her reply was "we think it is".

somthing different was indeed predictable. polls of muslims showed during the sanctions they they were second on ly to our support of israel in what they didn't like about american policies.

[Movie Guy]

maria - "Saddam's wickedness was never a stated cause for war; it became one only when the other "causes" all collapsed as a bunch of lies."

Why do you make this kind of statement? For political effect?

Here:

A Decade of Deception and Defiance
White House Background Paper on Iraq
U.S. Department of State
September 12, 2002

Saddam's Chemical Weapons Campaign: Halabja, March 16, 1988
Bureau of Public Affairs
U.S. Department of State
March 14, 2003

Fact Sheets - Iraq
Bureau of East Asian Affairs
U.S. Department of State
January 21, 2001 - present

[adam]

mg-

don't forget operation desert fox in '98 for saddam's un defiance and bombing of intel hq in '93 when he attempted to assasinate bush sr.

[Richard]

maria - "Saddam's wickedness was never a stated cause for war; it became one only when the other "causes" all collapsed as a bunch of lies."

The stated reason for entering Iraq was the purported weapons of mass destruction. Everyone saw the presentations in the press, the footage of Powell, the scare tactics of the president and vice president.

After occupying Iraq, of course, the rationale changed when no such weapons were discovered. And the course has continued in that direction ever since.

It is to this, I suspect, that maria directs her arguments: the quality of Husseins governanance and the viciousness of his dictatorship became a lead argument _only_ when the previous issue of WMDs became moot. As such, pointing that out after the fact becomes more than a bit disingenuine.

[Movie Guy]

You should read the UN speech presented by the President. For a recap of what it contained, check the the September 12, 2002 paper linked two posts up.

Far more was presented to the UN than what you have stated. I agree that it was U.S. public and news media eyewash, but it wasn't enough for the UN support.

As evidenced in the first and second documents above, Hussein's rule was addressed in some detail prior to the invasion. There are other references available at the third link.

[fiskhus_jim]

PSA's are, by analysis and tradition, inappropriate to a situation like Iraq. PSA's are ONLY appropriate when there are substantial exploration and development costs associated with production. In Iraq, the reserves and their extent have been known for many, many years - and the development of the resources is essentially nil, also.

In the case of Iraq, PSA's are nothing but looting the Iraqi treasury and profiteering and exploitation by Big Oil. Which is what Jimmy Baker has been after for 25 years.

[Bruce Wilder]

"What would have been your response to 9/11, the USS Cole, or any of the other terrorist attacks of the past decade?"

I assume you are asking me to play a counterfactual game of "Under My Government . . ." as a way of elaborating my critique of Bush's policies.

First of all, I would have responded to the USS Cole incident, which neither Clinton nor Bush did. I think even before the Cole, I would have been investing in capability. This is where I would fault Clinton: he should have recognized that the impotence of earlier responses indicated that necessary, foundational capabilities at Defense, NSA and CIA simply did not exist.

I had occasion to meet with one of the agency principals actually tasked with pursuing Bin Laden under Clinton -- I won't mention names or agencies, because it wasn't a public meeting. A bigger fool for that job would be difficult to imagine. It wasn't that he did not have intelligence and talents, but he did not know his role. He was a bad bureaucrat. His attitude was vaguely similar to that evidenced by Clarke on 9/11 -- the attitude that prompted Clarke to show up in the White House situation room with a loaded sidearm. My point is we didn't need jockeys for those jobs. Jockeys bomb aspirin factories and use millions of dollars of cruise missiles to blow up dust around on desert hillsides.

The U.S. lacked and desperately needed basic capabilities, and has lacked them for a very long time. Many years ago, I served on a review board for the State Department's Foreign Service program. As you know, the State Department has long run its own civil service program, complete with examinations and career paths and all that stuff. I was completely appalled. What should be an elite service is anything but.

I am giving you this elaborate preface, because I am going to say that one response would have been to build fundamental capability. I would have done very specific things, like infiltrate Bin Laden's organization, just like the FBI would infiltrate a Mafia organization. If a kid from Marin County could do it, it couldn't have been that hard. And, considering how bad the intelligence proved to be on other retaliatory attacks, it was obviously needed. As far as I know, it didn't happen, and wasn't even seriously tried. That's bad -- very, very bad.

I should say something about so-called human intelligence, the stuff the CIA and FBI do. Both CIA and FBI are really, really bad at it. Every single Soviet, who spied for the U.S. in the Cold War was found out, and most were killed. That is an unconscionable record. CIA, in particular, desperately needed a turn-around, and neither Bush I, who certainly should have known as much (duh!), nor Clinton, did it.

Infiltrating Al Quaeda is obvious, but, really, a much broader foundation was needed. We should have been spending some really serious money in the 90's on Arabic language and culture in universities, and tying programs at first rate U.S. schools to Arab institutions. DIA, NSA and State needed to be able to draw on such institutions. State, in particular, but also CIA, needs to be able to provide career paths thru such academic programs, which can also form a net with U.S. multinationals.

You cannot tackle these kinds of problems with an individual, no matter how talented. Zalmay Khalilzad and John Abizaid are talented individuals; the problem is that they are not part of a talented team, or a talented system: there ought to be a couple of dozen Ambassadors with a similar resume to Khalilzad at State, and there are not. Ditto for Abizaid in the Army -- there ought to be a couple of dozen Generals and more colonels, with the same familiarity with cultures, issues, language fluency, etc., and there aren't. In the Baghdad Embassy, out of roughly 1000 Americans, 6! speak Arabic fluently. (And, I can tell you that is typical of American embassies throughout the world: language capabilities of our diplomats are lacking, outside of the Spanish-speaking world; we don't have an adequate or competent staff at any embassy, anywhere in the world today.) I am not as familiar with the Army, but from what I read in the newspapers, they are not adequately staffed: they don't have a tenth of the translators they need, and need translators ten times more often than would be reasonable in critical political tasks. And, don't say that these things can not be accomplished overnight. We fought a war in the Middle East under Bush I, and it was obvious that we might have to fight another; it is like not having desert boots or sand-resistant lubricants in stock.

I wandered off into a long, digressive answer, because I wanted to avoid just reciting cliches. So, now, I'll throw in some cliches. I would have gotten Bin Laden -- captured or killed, I would have gotten him. I know it is wrong, to exploit a counterfactual to claim a specific result, instead of explain a different strategy, but that's the best way to explain one important way my strategy would have differed. I would have been relentless and I would have sought redundancy against failure: Bush has done neither -- he's not concerned, he says, and he fatally economized at Tora Bora (and, as far as I am concerned, gone on economizing his search for Bin Laden right out of existence).

I think I would certainly not have declared a generalized "War against Terror". I knew that was idiocy the moment it came out of Bush's mouth, just as I knew Bush was an idiot when he opened his first 9/11 tv address with "Good Evening".

I've read Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", so I know that the whole PNAC vision is the height of predicable foolishness.

I think 9/11 might have been a great occasion to build a new, more peaceful world order of cooperation of international institutions and cooperation. I would have patched up relations with Syria and Iran, not lumped them together as an "Axis of Evil"; I would have expressed gratitude for their cooperation. I would have gotten North Korea its fuel oil. And, I would have pressed the Israelis and Palestinians and pressed and pressed; Israeli right-wing politicians would have found me restraining them at every turn, when I wasn't actually hostile.

There are a lot of problems of domestic security, which were exposed by 9/11, and none of which have been adequately addressed. I would never in a million years have formed a "Department of Homeland Security": that was one of the stupidest things ever done in the organization of the U.S. government. It eroded the capabilities and focus of every single one of the two dozen agencies lumped together there. It has not just been FEMA: the Coast Guard spent billions on ships that don't float; the FBI is a mess.

I would not have gone forward with ballistic missile defense; what an enormous waste of money! I would have funded a lot more research in genetics and microbiology, and would have created a capability to rapidly create and distribute vaccines, anti-virals and the like. We really need to have some smart people working on a 21st century version of the quarantine (I know quarantines, per se, don't work -- but we need to know what can work and be able to put it into place).

One thing I actually thought might go forward is a system of personal identification. We desperately need a system that enables people to protect their identities and personal privacy, while enabling legitimate surveillance in an efficient and non-obtrusive way. Instead, we have to show up at the airport 3 hours before an international flight -- like the flight isn't long enough! It is bs. And, we have the Republican RealID -- a complete nightmare from a privacy standpoint. Meanwhile, we have identity theft, and no system of medical records and pay 18+% on credit cards. Absurd.

I don't know if I would have invaded Iraq. I have never been a fan of trade sanctions and diplomatic isolation. It is very costly all around and it doesn't work well, most of the time, as far as actually prompting the evolution of better nation-state governments. How long have we been boycotting Cuba? Anyway, the sanctions regime was eroding slowly and Saddam was a bad guy. Clinton's careful and relatively economical intervention in Bosnia suggested that a different course could be devised. (Clinton, of course, was building on Bush I's Gulf War, in terms of carefully crafted international cooperation.)

One thing I do know, I would not have invaded Iraq, against strong international opposition. I would not have sent Colin Powell to lie before the Security Council. I would not attempt to deceive the American People in my State of the Union. And, above all, I would not invade and occupy essentially without a plan. Again, I am specifying a result, but, really, would anyone have done Iraq as badly as Bush? Is it even conceivable?

Without a Plan. That's what he did. I often assert, "Bush is a moron" in exasperation with someone with whom I am discussing current events. And, this is what I mean: acting from a position like President of the United States without an elaborate policy planning process guiding the decision-making process. Bush does this, as quite a few have testified and as the outcome in Iraq shows, it is potentially catastrophic.

A President, who planned the invasion of Iraq might well decide not to risk it. Because doing a real plan would have made clear to everyone involved in the decision-making just how dangerous and costly an undertaking it would be. I wouldn't necessarily want to argue the case, today, of whether it would be possible to topple Saddam without destroying Iraqi society. But, President Bush took that decision without any plan, whatsoever. I've read Tommy Franks' book: there was no planning for after. I've read Ricks' Fiasco. I've read State of Denial. I have a couple more on the shelf, and I don't know if my morale can stand it.

There's no way we could have accomplished anything in Iraq without a carefully considered and executed Plan. And, we did not have one. (Well, the State Department had a good outline, but it was ignored!)

Never mind, my personal "Under my government . . . " speculation -- would any other American leader/administration since WWII do such a thing?

That's where and why I look at Colin Powell, Peter Pace and John Abizaid and others with jaundiced eye. I can't figure out why Tommy Franks supported Bush's re-election.

In some ways, I understand how a lack of competent leadership at the top, and a broken decision-making process, can cause breakdown throughout. The Pentagon has an extremely elaborate CYA scheme going on, which makes inadequate-resource-to-task-problems, particularly prone to dysfunction.

At this point, I see Iraq as being a situation, where inadequate-resource-to-task has gone on so far, that the situation should be regarded as beyond salvation. Even if adequate resources could be marshalled -- which is doubtful, since the need has escalated as the situation has worsened -- we still have a President, who operates without a plan.

The President is capable of screwing up any "strategy". Anything done on this scale without a plan is not going to turn out well. No one can force Bush to be competent.

I know that many in the military want to adopt a narrative frame, where Iraq is simply a particularly desperate and difficult situation. The difficulty accounts for the lack of accomplishment, in that forgiving frame, and there is no failure, until a higher authority withdraws support for persisting in the effort. And, then the failure belongs to the higher authority, not the guy, who "has done his best" in the trenches.

In an authoritarian hierarchy, that is a very useful narrative frame, particularly when some higher-up is available to step in and take responsibility for failure. It is a psychologically healthy way to proceed, which many management consultants recommend.

But, in Iraq, how the U.S. has conducted itself is a very large contributor to failure. It has become an extremely difficult situation, because of our abject failures to date.

The heroic narrative, where we met a difficult challenge and have not yet been able to overcome it, is something of a lie.

The U.S. created a very difficult situation, and proceeded to make it almost infinitely worse, by failing to perform basic functions adequately.

I'm sure Abizaid would prefer to cast himself in the former drama. Unfortunately, he has played a part for four years in the latter.

[fiskhus_jim]

Point for Evagrius:

The ignorant and uninformed believe that Reagan brought about the end of the USSR.

However, in an editorial in the Guardian the other day, it was made very clear that Reagan and Bush I's activities, far from enabling democracy, strangled Gorbachev's drive for Parliamentary democracy.

Especially insidious were the Reagan & Bush (& even Clinton) efforts to use so-called "privatization" to enrich the already wealthy elite in the USSR, at the expense of the Russian people.

[fiskhus_jim]

But, as far as an Al Qaeda threat goes, there is, perhaps, a basic humint need to infiltrate - but more important is the need to recognize what Al Qaeda is: it is a network of social relationships that are established among many, varying groups that have grievances with, variously, the West, Big Oil, the US, etc.

The only way to combat a social network of this type is to conduct a "counterinsurgency" that consists, not of military threat and action but, of Disaggregation. Specifically, we need to address/redress the grievances of the smaller groups that form Al Qaeda. That kind of counterinsurgent social action will deprive Al Qaeda od social resources.

And, lest any neoliberal/neocon call such redress "appeasement", we must remember that it is not only smart but also compassionate to approach the problem this way, not to mention palliative and preventive in a way that mere police action or military terrorism (i.e., the Bush "Doctrine") can never be.

[adam]

fj-

if bin laden could have anything he wanted he'd take saudi arabia. he has plenty self serving oil ambitions himself.

want to see what he's about? take a look at afghanistan where women couldn't go to school. thousand year old buddhas blown up. kids couldn't fly kites. u.s. movies evil and banned. internet access banned.

yeah there should be large chunks of land in the world that only muslims should be allowed to set foot on. women that want to prosecute rapists should have to produce 5 male muslim witnesses.

al qaeda consists of radical sunnis who hate and are threatened by information flow, commerce and a growing world trend toward democracy.

yeah let's just give them some of what they want. dipolmacy is key here.

[Movie Guy]

Bruce Wilder,

Appreciate your outstanding thoughts.

Well stated.

I recommend that you save that post.

Thanks for the time and fine effort in spelling that out. I have very little to quibble over, if any, and know that you could have added another few pages to its length.

We are behind the power curve on too many programs and issues. As you pointed, behind by a decade or two in some instances. Or worse. It is embarrassingly absurd, covering a number of Administrations.

I do not recall a period of time when I have been more concerned about certain trends in government performances at the federal and state levels than during the last eight to ten years. I did not believe that I would ever note some of the problems that are either on the surface or bubbling just below.

The nation has considerable work to do in order to restore many of its operations to levels of performance that can weather future difficulties.

Thank you, again.

Merry Christmas!

Movie Guy

[maria]

I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume.
--George W. Bush

Don Rumsfeld is the finest Secretary of Defense this nation has ever had.
--Dick Cheney

"This is scary. The president of the United States of America has created a hellish disaster that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of American soldiers, and he's resting well. The vice president believes that the man responsible for three of the greatest military blunders in U.S. history (attacking Iraq without devising a strategy for securing the country after the invasion; dissolving the Iraqi army, creating armed and trained recruits for the incipient insurgency; and mounting an extensive de-Baathification campaign that destroyed the governing infrastructure of the nation) did his job well.

Such comments suggest that the two people in charge of this country are not living in denial but detachment. They must realize that Iraq is a mess perhaps beyond remedy. But that doesn't seem to affect them. How can that be?"

----David Corn

It is interesting to compare Bush today and Hitler in July of 1944. After the Allied landing in France, sensible Nazis knew the war was over and that its continuance would simply result in Germany's utter destruction. So they attempted to assassinate Hitler and take over the government to sue for peace or simply surrender. They failed and Hitler still had enough power to try and hang them, evidently with general public approval. So the war went on and there were no more attempts of Hitler's life and Germany, as the officers behind the putsch foresaw, was utterly destroyed as a result of his obstinancy.
Today the US public has made it clear they do not support the continuation of the war in Iraq (Bush's approval re the war down to 12%) and want our troops out, settlement or no settlement. But Bush defies the public and like Hitler is determined to pursue his war to the bitter end.
Hitler at least had a rational reason to refuse to give up in that he would almost certainly have been tried and executed if Germany had admitted defeat and surrendered. But Bush is hardly in personal peril if he were to admit defeat and stop the war. In this sense, Bush is even more irrational than Hitler. Why does he persist? I suspect Americans need to face the fact that he is more disturbed mentally and emotionally than people dare to admit. And that is very very disturbed indeed.

[calmo]

You figure this is "fair an balanced", maria"I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume."
--George W. Bush or missing a little context, a little link maybe to fuller text, a note about when or where he made that remark...I mean maybe his mom asked him how he was sleeping, you know?
U B so mean spirited...and so mean un-spirited.

I was just subjected to (I will get even ken melvin) no less than an MSM clip starring Mr Jaws (It B true: I don't know all the news anchors or rodes...or weathermen...so sad.) telling the viewer that The President was, well, past it. (Worse: All alone. Isolated.)
Now you, maria, could have written this startling script that shows/means those approval ratings of 15% or whateverlo are way high. [Yes, High.] So, time to readjust your views of "American" here:I suspect Americans need to face the fact that he is more disturbed mentally and emotionally than people dare to admit. And that is very very disturbed indeed. Well, atleast it is no longer disturbing to you who are over it. Somewhat.

[evagrius]

Movie Guy ;

Don't you think that the U.S. would have benefited from some more "cosmopolitan" experts?

I'm referring to Mr. Wilder's post stating that only 6 people out of 1000 in the Bagdhad Embassy are fluent in Arabic. He also points out how few U.S. officials in other embassies can speak a foreign language other than Spanish.

Can't have both you know...."local" ignorance and "cosmopolitan" insight.

says...

Steve Bell cartoon:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/
0,,1977599,00.html

[maria]

Robert Fisk: An essential read---

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/
article2097774.ece