"The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War"

The war. When will it end?:

The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Commentary, Washington Post: Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States should end its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their possible inauguration. The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a hundred years, until "victory." The core issue of this campaign is thus a basic disagreement over the merits of the war and the benefits and costs of continuing it. ...

The contrast between the Democratic argument for ending the war and the Republican argument for continuing is sharp and dramatic. The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for "staying the course" draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios. President Bush's and Sen. John McCain's forecasts of regional catastrophe are quite reminiscent of the predictions of "falling dominoes" that were used to justify continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. ...

[T]he war has become a national tragedy, an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster and a global boomerang for the United States. Ending it is thus in the highest national interest.

Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military decision. It will require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S. capacity to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat ...; it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for the Iraqi armed forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The decision to militarily disengage will also have to be accompanied by political and regional initiatives designed to guard against potential risks. We should fully discuss our decisions with Iraqi leaders..., and we should hold talks on regional stability with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran.

Contrary to Republican claims that our departure will mean calamity, a sensibly conducted disengagement will actually make Iraq more stable over the long term. The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour byproduct of the destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it shatters Iraqi society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British colonial era, the longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups will have to compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. ...

Ending the U.S. war effort entails some risks, of course, but they are inescapable at this late date. ... U.S. military disengagement will accelerate Iraqi competition to more effectively control their territory, which may produce a phase of intensified inter-Iraqi conflicts. But that hazard is the unavoidable consequence of the prolonged U.S. occupation. The longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be for a viable Iraqi state ever to reemerge.

It is also important to recognize that most of the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq has not been inspired by al-Qaeda. Locally based jihadist groups have gained strength only insofar as they have been able to identify themselves with the fight against a hated foreign occupier. As the occupation winds down and Iraqis take responsibility for internal security, al-Qaeda in Iraq will be left more isolated and less able to sustain itself. The end of the occupation will thus be a boon for the war on al-Qaeda...

Bringing the U.S. military effort to a close would also smooth the way for a broad U.S. initiative addressed to all of Iraq's neighbors. Some will remain reluctant to engage in any discussion as long as Washington appears determined to maintain its occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Therefore, at some stage next year, after the decision to disengage has been announced, a regional conference should be convened... -- ...which would help mitigate the unavoidable risks connected with U.S. disengagement. ...

The overall goal of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to undo the errors of recent years should be cooling down the Middle East, instead of heating it up. ...

We started this war rashly, but we must end our involvement responsibly. And end it we must. The alternative is a fear-driven policy paralysis that perpetuates the war -- to America's historic detriment.

Andrew Sullivan forecasts the fate of Bush and Cheney.

Comments

[ilsm]

Bush give America back her children.

All Mc Cain proposes is face saving with our childrens' lives.

[ken melvin]

I do hope they are tried. I think there will someday be a suit by Iraq against the US for damages in the hundreds of billions.

[pgl]

I posted this over at Angrybear sprinkled with the usual neocon nonsense posted as question which ZB's oped just shoots down with stunning clarity and logic.

[Bruce Wilder]

The classic riposte from Vietnam applies.

How can we leave Iraq?

By ship or plane. Either is good.

Seriously, the most difficult conundrum, I suspect, is the "residual forces" problem. The U.S. is deservedly the logical object for a lot of Iraqi hostility. We are not going to protect those foolish Iraqis, who cooperated with U.S., least of all the hapless, long-suffering Kurds. And, at some point in a reduction of forces, we won't have sufficient forces to protect even our own against reprisal. Nobody wants to be clambering onto the last helicopter leaving the Green Zone, and nobody wants to be President when the photograph of that last helicopter splashes across the New York Times website (or, in the case of a Democratic President, the video of same is played on an endless loop on Fox News).

Personally, I would recommend detente with Iran, with the Iranians left in the step-Dad role. Let the U.S. leave utterly and completely. Don't even bother with an embassy for at least ten years.

[Bruce Wilder]

It will be interesting to me, to see how broadly Bush uses his pardon power to immunize members of his Administration. Maybe, he'll be the first President to pardon himself.

Of course, the President's pardon power does not extend to international war crimes, and he could always be shipped off to The Hague. It seems like a rather unlikely development, but I, personally, would be unreservedly in favor of sending him to stand trial before an international body. It would be greatest gift the U.S. has given to the cause of law, since the founding of the United Nations.

[anne]

Zbigniew Brzezinski has been among the foreign affairs specialist-officials who have been against war in an occupation of Iraq. A thoroughly agreeable essay, though events have move so quickly and distressingly with the attacks on Muktada al-Sadr's supporters I wonder whether this most reasoned specialist's commentary can be as reasonably read as even days ago.

I am grateful for the commentary, and thinking.

[ken melvin]

What does Juan say?

[ken melvin]

Using the most sophisticated air power in the world against those with no air defense is immoral.

[James Killus]

I'd like to expand upon ken melvin's point. Aerial bombardment, and that is what the U.S. has been doing in Iraq (and elsewhere) for years, even before this current war, inevitably involves "collateral damage" which is newspeak for the killing of innocent people. It is rarely moral even within the context of a justifiable war (and its effectiveness has been contested countless times even in those circumstances). When such tactics are used simply because they are "cheap" in terms of domestic politics (the deaths of foreigners never being seen as "UnAmerican" or "unpatriotic"), they descend to being war crimes, and are shameful for our country.

[esb]

No person should be so naive as to believe that the recent actions of "the puppet" Maliki in Basra do not follow directly from the Cheney "visit" to Iraq and the rest of the region.

This is , and always has been, Mr. Cheney's war, not Mr. Bush's.

------------------------------

HOW DIFFERENT THE WORLD COULD HAVE BEEN

There was a day of great significance a little more than two decades ago.

George Walker Bush was standing in the front doorway of his Midland, TX home, dangling a bottle of Johnny Walker Red Label scotch by it's neck.

His face was unnaturally reddish, like it was hot, even steaming, his eyes bloodshot. The man was plastered.

On the porch facing him was Laura Bush, a look of absolute determination on her face. In the back seat of the family car in the driveway sat the two little girls, Barbara and Jenna, peering through the back seat window at their parents.

"This is really it, George, we're leaving. Its either me and the girls or that bottle," said Laura, pointing down at the nearly spent bottle of Johnny.

George raised the bottle chest high, looked lovingly into it, looked up at Laura and , well we all know the direction that history took.

But just imagine this ... had George, following that loving look into the Johnny Walker, looked up at Laura, looked back into the bottle and said unto it,

"Well, it looks like its just gonna be you and me, John."

Yes, just imagine how different the world would be today.

On that day on that porch in a dry West Texas town, the fates of a million innocent people (now dead) were settled.

If only George had been holding the vastly more appealing Johnny Walker Black label rather than the Red.

Sigh.

[anne]

http://www.juancole.com/2008/03/mahdi-army-unsubdued-iran-asks-for-end.html

March 30, 2008

Mahdi Army Unsubdued; Iran Asks for End to Fighting
By Juan Cole

Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times does a good job in clarifying * the rivalry between the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (with its Badr Corps paramilitary) and the Sadr Movement (with its Mahdi Army paramilitary). The Iraqi government is supporting, and supported by, Badr. An ISCI cleric, Jalal al-Din Saghir, openly admits that the conflict is over control of the provinces.

Someone leaked the information that ** US special forces are fighting alongside the new Iraqi Army to quell the Mahdi Army.

The British forces also began fighting *** alongside Iraq military.

Aljazeera English does a report on the fighting between the Iraqi government and the Mahdi Army. The video shows that the Mahdi Army is still in control of its Basra neighborhood strongholds:

The Iranian foreign ministry called Saturday for an end to the fighting, **** saying that it strengthens the US hand in Iraq and may have the consequence of prolonging the US presence. Iran tends to back the Da'wa Party of Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki, and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, so it is significant that Tehran is criticizing this push by those two to destroy the Sadr Movement. I take them at their word. They are genuinely afraid that al-Maliki's poorly conceived campaign will backfire and that Bush will use it to insist on keeping troops in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Turkey claimed that it shelled northern Iraq late last week, ***** killing 15 members of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) guerrilla group. The Iraqi Kurds denied the report.

* http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-shiites30mar30,1,1596179.story

** http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL30612974

*** http://news.scotsman.com/politics/British--join-Iraqis-in.3928544.jp

**** http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-32752620080329?sp=true

***** http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7320508.stm

[anne]

[Corrected comment, please ignore initial comments, this corrected comment may not post possibly because of links.]

http://www.juancole.com/2008/03/mahdi-army-unsubdued-iran-asks-for-end.html

March 30, 2008

Mahdi Army Unsubdued; Iran Asks for End to Fighting
By Juan Cole

Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times does a good job in clarifying * the rivalry between the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (with its Badr Corps paramilitary) and the Sadr Movement (with its Mahdi Army paramilitary). The Iraqi government is supporting, and supported by, Badr. An ISCI cleric, Jalal al-Din Saghir, openly admits that the conflict is over control of the provinces.

Someone leaked the information that ** US special forces are fighting alongside the new Iraqi Army to quell the Mahdi Army.

The British forces also began fighting *** alongside Iraq military.

The Iranian foreign ministry called Saturday for an end to the fighting, **** saying that it strengthens the US hand in Iraq and may have the consequence of prolonging the US presence. Iran tends to back the Da'wa Party of Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki, and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, so it is significant that Tehran is criticizing this push by those two to destroy the Sadr Movement. I take them at their word. They are genuinely afraid that al-Maliki's poorly conceived campaign will backfire and that Bush will use it to insist on keeping troops in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Turkey claimed that it shelled northern Iraq late last week, ***** killing 15 members of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) guerrilla group. The Iraqi Kurds denied the report.

* http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-shiites30mar30,1,1596179.story

** http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL30612974

*** http://news.scotsman.com/politics/British--join-Iraqis-in.3928544.jp

**** http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-32752620080329?sp=true

***** http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7320508.stm

[hari]

ZB is a guy I'd have chosen to do my Ph.D. under when he was running the Russian Studies Centre at Columbia (But I found out his Centre's budget was partly financed by CIA - like East-West Centre in Hawaii). So, I stayed put in Sweden.

He's hails from Karakow (Poland) intellectual ancestry - the Polish Pope/Cardinal was also from Karakow.

His writings on national security are not the same stuff as Kissinger's (German/Bismarkian) or today's Rice. He sees the world thru his ideological binoculars and then tries to find ways and means of diminishing the "enemies" strength and influence before making a dash for a (final) solution. For him historical antecedents are critical and relevant to understanding the structure and function of a society/nation.

[anne]

Since I became aware of Muktada al-Sadr in late 2003, I have noticed al-Sadr opposing the occupation of Iraq. The opposition to occupation in early 2004 led to fierce assaults against al-Sadr's supporters, and after losing protection from Spanish forces al-Sadr disappeared from public view emerging finally wearing a burial shroud to preach both peace from supporters and an end to occupation.

The sense I have is that coming elections presented a problem because al-Sadr has only gained in supporters and even though continually affirming a peaceful stance is still asking occupation's end. For whatever purpose though, al-Sadr's supporters have been attacked as in 2004.

President Bush has made it clear that we are supporting the attacks against al-Sadr's supporters, as are the British finally.

[ilsm]

"Using the most sophisticated air power in the world against those with no air defense is immoral."

It is more senseless than immoral.

Fast moving jets can only "hit" stationary targets with GPS guidance or laser designation.

SO, how does that work with guys running through allies other than to make the locals mad?

This is the high tech US supporting Maliki's war on Iraqi people. People who may or may not want him as their US puppet.

Airpower is the expensive hammer and every terrorist looks like a nail.

But the collateral damage makes the strike foolish.

How much should it cost to kill one terrorist or "criminal fighter" as the US propaganda is beginning to state?

The better question should be what is the value of killing that "criminal fighter"?

But value requires strategy and a reason to state the value.

Airstrikes are not immoral. Their use absent strategy is!

[anne]

Hari:

"Zbig sees the world thru his ideological binoculars and then tries to find ways and means of diminishing the "enemies" strength and influence before making a dash for a (final) solution. For him historical antecedents are critical and relevant to understanding the structure and function of a society/nation."

Interesting description.

[kotzabasis]

This is old fogy strategic thinking on the part of a former National Security advisor. For any nation that is already fighting its enemy by means of military operations to abandon the latter and open instead the door of negotiations and diplomacy, is to admit defeat. And hence negotiate with its now more emboldened and confident enemy from a position of weakness. In such conditions of military “surrendering”, especially to a religiously inspired fanatic enemy, it would be utterly foolish to consider and believe that such a nation, in this case America, could achieve any of its initial goals through diplomacy, other than its conditions of “surrender”, is to make a mockery of the art of Talleyrand

And the 100 years war of McCaine until victory is a blatant and shameful lie, and stains indelibly the intellectual integrity of Brzezinski.

[anne]

"For any nation that is already fighting its enemy by means of military operations to abandon the latter and open instead the door of negotiations and diplomacy, is to admit defeat. And hence negotiate with its now more emboldened and confident enemy from a position of weakness."

An almost impossibly strategic absurity, as well an impossibly destructively amoral comment.

[anne]

"For any nation that is already fighting its enemy by means of military operations to abandon the latter and open instead the door of negotiations and diplomacy, is to admit defeat. And hence negotiate with its now more emboldened and confident enemy from a position of weakness."

Definitively destructive, an definitively morally self-defeating. I am stunned at the amoral absurity.

[ken melvin]

You guys (and gals) are fantastic!

[acerimusdux]

"For any nation that is already fighting its enemy by means of military operations to abandon the latter and open instead the door of negotiations and diplomacy, is to admit defeat."

Well, if that's the way you want to look at it, then I guess this at least wouldn't be the first President Bush to lead us to defeat in Iraq.

[anne]

There are so many problems with regard to our invasion an occupation of Iraq who can tell where to begin, but the word enemy may be as useful as any beginning. Iraq was no threat to us in 2002, as United Nations inspectors as well as our own investigations and simple reason made completely clear. Nonetheless we invaded Iraq, deposed the government, occupied a country even when definitively clear beyond clear there had been and was no threat.

We appointed a Viceroy who on the very day of coming to Iraq understood so well who are enemy was that our senior officers were illegally ordered to shoot looters. Our senior officers refused the illegal order, but the atmosphere was already poisonous.

[anne]

Iraq was after all the enemy, the Iraqi government was the enemy, the supporters of the Iraqi government were the enemy, assorted Iraqis who might be spotted looting, whatever looting might mean, were the enemy. Sunnis were the enemy, but Shiites were the enemy. Muktada al-Sadr was the enemy., even though al-Sadr had been the enemy of our enemy. Al-Sadr supporters became our enemy.

Iran was our enemy, even though Iran was the friend of our few friends in Iraq. Syria was our enemy even though Syria became home to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis driven from the country and no enemy of ours. Turkey was our friends, but the Kurds who were our friends were the enemies of Turkey.

Am I getting closer?

[hari]

@ Anne -

It's usual, in human history, leaders who wear *blinders* cannot get their vision-thing right or corrected.

Now, you'll ask me to develop it further...

You chose a man to be your *decider* who has no half-penny kind of generous thought about *civilization and its discontent*.

A Moron will always be a Moron!

[anne]

Muktada al-Sadr went from being our likely friend to mysteriously being our enemy to being our friend to being our enemy. We launched above 1,400 bombings of Iraq in 2007, years after invading a country that was no threat, replacing the government with us and them and occupying for 4 years now become 5. There were about 1.7 million Iraqis living in Basra in 2003, while possibly 2 million lived in Sadr City. No matter, we attack as though all were enemy because we only attack enemy even when we have no sense of who is enemy.

Am I being clear?

[ilsm]

I suggest the Maliki is about the same as the British vice roy in India in the nineteenth century, and the US military the same as the British regiments posted to Indja to subdue the rajs and ranis the viceroy could not bribe.

The US is in the middle of a civil disorder which it cannot reordered by our vice roy.

All the king's bombers and all the excess payroll tax receipts malappropriated for the war machine won't put Maliki on top.

[hari]

Lets compare Sadr to Hammas (in Gaza) -

*Sadr's father was a great Shia - son inherited the post. I don't know his age, but he's still quite young ....

*Sadr City is their home - conscience of his father who preached there for ages. It's quite poor and destitute. But that's the way it has been for long time under Sadam....

*Hammas, in comparison, is *root* of Palestinian Family Tree.
Fatah is an expatriate part of Palestinian family which transfered from Tunis along with Arafat (Madrid Accords).

*Hammas root is the social services inside WestBank and Gaza including education and healthcare and whatnots (while Arafat was in excile). Can you imagine their old leader in wheelchair was bombed by Israeli to make them surrender. They didn't. Hamas would never have stood against Arafat during an election - but after Arafat died the corruption of Fatah leaders led to their dismal failure and they lost power. The rest of the story you know.

Israelis know too well who Hammas is (otherwise why would they kill the old guy in wheelchair?). Rice allowed the election to go forward because she was, in fact, ignorant of the Family Tree! Israel didn't approve of her policy. Now, I understand Israelis are negotiating incognito with Hammas to find an interim settlement...to go forward.

If the moral of Hammas story is applied with Sadr, the rest of the story will foretel sooner than later.

[anne]

How we are to understand the motivations in terms of philosophy of Nuri al-Maliki or ally Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is speculative, but I think we do need to look to analogies in other colonial efforts.

Please develop the Indian analogy, Ilsm.

[anne]

Hari:

"You chose a man to be your *decider* who has no half-penny kind of generous thought about *civilization and its discontent*."

Please develop further the reference to Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontent" or unease.

[anne]

Hari, please develop the sense in which the Sadrists socially serve in Iraq. I have no sense at all of the Iraq government as effective in social service. Who is serving Iraqis, especially serving the poor among what has become an increasing poor people? An interesting theme to follow.

[hari]

Let's leave Freud alone...for GWB to sort it out. He got America into this moras and he'll leave it same way when he leaves office. What's the moral of such a leader?

Do Americans understand Arab culture and civilization? Our Flying Dutchman *Wilder* (not Bruce) just now released a film desecrating Allah in an allmighty ungodly prejudice - and condeming truebelievers of the Koran. How can this be a just and intelligent manner of dialogue and discussion? Of all places, in the land of Calvinism!

Anne, you have to accept - under Sadam - the Shias had to become self-supporting in order to survive. Among the Shias there are divisions (as we witness it now in Sadr City). I might even go far as to call them *castes* or similar stuff because of their emphasis is on *a* part of the Koran in which their leaders/preaches prevailed when the Prophet died.

Unlike *enlightenment* and *renaissance* in European civilization, the Arab civilization remained more or less feudal. There's no Pope who can dictate the TRUTH of the messaiah and excommincate the heretics. So they've many *Popes* and that's the genesis of Arab discontent. Only they can resolve what's the future of Arab civilization.

Recall, until 6th cent, lands between the parallel Crete-Sicily-Anadalusia were part of Arab culture and civilization. There was also a point in Roman history when Arab might in the Mediterranean was formidable - based on advanced math and science - but the Romans finally prevailed.

[oops]

before we lionizing ZB let's remember that he was quite the hawk in his day as well. wasn't he the one arguing for invading iran to prop up the shah when the islamists were about to take over?

that would have been one of those cheap wars that europe would have agreed with right?

i like ZB and he was a great cold warrior but it is a little hard to take this article as much more than election year politics as usual when he says things like "Ahmadinejad's recent visit to Baghdad offers ample testimony that even the U.S.-installed government in Iraq is becoming susceptible to Iranian blandishments." and "we should hold talks on regional stability with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran." when that visit is obviously backdoor diplomacy with iran. ahmadidude couldn't have even flown in a plane over iraqi airspace without approval from the white house and his security would, at the least, need coordination with american forces while there.

pleeease ZB- who are you fooling here?

[chris]

"This is , and always has been, Mr. Cheney's war, not Mr. Bush's."

!!!!?????

Bush was so ready for this war that it was the easiest sell imaginable. Of course it is HIS war, and Rummie's war, and the Neocons' war, and Israel's war, and the militarists' war, etc., etc.....it is a lot of stupid people's war. Not, for sure, just "Mr. Cheney's war."

[esb]

chris:

By that I meant that the "decider" has always been Cheney.

Nothing happens without his "sign off."

But I agree with you that the rest of the crew was there standing in line and saluting.

(I suspect that we now have something of a "co-Presidency" with Cheney and Paulson the co-equal "co"s.

This is an awfully full plate for the mind of GWB, with the war and the economy and all,

so we are all really fortunate to have such luminaries as Cheney and Paulson there to look after him (and us).

Right?

Right?

[anne]

Zbigniew Brzezinski's proposal for peace in Iraq could be criticize line by line, for the proposal shows little remarkably understanding of of how disastrous for Iraq an America the war and occupation have been, however for a foreign policy specialist of such influence this is a singularly encouraging advance by a specialist against war and occupation from the beginning.

America's foreign affairs specialists have been overwhelmingly in favor of war and occupation, and are a prime problem in our ever leaving Iraq. So I am completely thankful for Zbig and a few less influential specialists.

[reason]

kotzabasis

For any nation that is already fighting its enemy by means of military operations to abandon the latter and open instead the door of negotiations and diplomacy, is to admit defeat.

Besides the obvious corollary that your statement implies that any military conflict must be persued until the opposition is eliminated (if the opposition follows the same dictum), who exactly in this case is the enemy and what is the definition of "defeat" or for that matter "victory". That was always and remains the problem. The aim of the occupation is not exactly clear.

And besides is "defeat" in a pointless and expensive undertaking necessarily such a bad thing?

[ken melvin]

ZB is a product. We must find a way to utilize such potential without following the same well worn, blood stained trails.

[Farrar]

This is really ridiculous -
"For any nation that is already fighting its enemy by means of military operations to abandon the latter and open instead the door of negotiations and diplomacy, is to admit defeat."

And even if it weren't, it's not applicable in this case.
When Obama is elected, he will be able to say honestly that he always thought this war and occupation was a bad idea, and that he's changing the policy.

[piglet]

"before we lionizing ZB let's remember that he was quite the hawk in his day as well."

One could say, with some justification, that Zbigniew Brzezinski is the guy who brought us into our current mess in the first place. He was an early advocate of USA intervention in Afghanistan, with the goal to destroy a secular, socialist government in order to install an islamist regime that would in time spawn Al Qaida and the Taliban movement, so that later US governments could lead us into a neverending GWOT. He didn't foresee any of this, of course, But it was very well known in the 1980s that the islamic radicals and terrorists that the US was so effectively propping up in Afghanistan were anti-Western and anti-American as much as they were anti-Communist. American governments have that incredible talent to consistently create their own enemies, while mercilessly fighting potentially friendly democratic or at least secular political movements as enemies.