No way to run a war on terror

ARTICLE: 'Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam: He Says Pullout Would Be Disastrous,' By Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post, August 23, 2007; Page A01

To me, this is Bush subordinating U.S. foreign policy to that of Israel and the House of Saud re: Iran, based on an overwrought read of Tehran's perceived "rise." We have this tendency to overestimate state-based enemies and underestimate stateless ones--time and time again.

No way to run a war on terror...

I just see it as another misdirection on our part to hang what Sunni-Shia violence inevitably results from our inevitable pullback/drawdown on some perceived "loss of (strategic) face" by America. This is an odd and inappropriate resurrection of Cold War thinking. Tell me, which great power takes "advantage" here?

If Iran's your Hitlerian rationale, then God bless you for swallowing that one hook, line and sinker, because now you fulfill the fantasy of every anti-Semite who contends U.S. foreign policy is a tool of Tel Aviv ("You go, Big Devil!").

Having broached such nonsense, I'll tell you that these signs of unyielding commitment (which once again confirm this administration's lack of strategic imagination) seem more a sop to the Saudis, in that classic sort of we-can-have-our-cake (anti-American jihadism to occupy our unredeemables and make us look like strong Muslims)-and-eat-it-too (while engaging in proxy war vis-a-vis those f--king Persians in Iraq).

I just don't understand why Bush overtrumps the Iran threat (zero nuclear warheads to Israel's 200) when he should be effectively turning Iran's meddling in Iraq to our advantage by saying to the Saudis: "Look, I'd love to stay in Iraq in full force for as long as I can, but my public won't let me. I know you--just like me--don't want to negotiate with Tehran over Iraq, so I need you to pick up the slack in what will inevitably be a bloodbath in southern Iraq as we pullback. But since you value your co-religionists so much on this one, it's only right that you guys put your treasure and your blood where your mouth is."

After the Saudis calm down, then we talk to them about how they're going to help us on Israel and the Fatah-run West Bank, letting them transfer their anti-Iranian fear into something useful for us and we're off to the races on Sarah Kass's scenario there. That regional pressure on Iran, plus pulling the Saudis in line, gets us where we want to be for a regional security dialogue on Iraq as well.

THAT would be Bush prepping the strategic battlespace to our advantage. This sort of unblinkingly brave talk about Vietnam-like endgames--in contrast--makes us look the strategic fools.

Good God! Must everything be a rerun of Vietnam with these Boomers?

We have got to get past this navel-gazing need to define "victory" in Iraq. It is strategically infantile to maintain a requirement that serves no purpose but to enhance our national self-esteem. The Big Bang isn't about getting credit. It's about getting what we want.

Bush just seems like he's in over his head at this point, saying what he thinks he's supposed to say because his administration's run bone dry on strategic thought.

Meanwhile, the board's in better play right now than it's been for months, thanks to Hamas. If only we could get our heads out of our asses and see the light right now, we'd be running this whole regional security dynamic to ground and Bush could go out a winner instead of a whiner.

Comments

[Ted O'Connor]

Just be thankful this guy was not eyeball to eyeball with the Russians in 62.

[Christopher Thompson]

It is blunt, take-no-prisoners insights like these that are the reason I read this blog. Everything else I have read today was either about near-term political effects or the Vietnam war. Doesn't anyone care about America's long-term strategic interests anymore!?

[CitSAR]

I agree the message is a childish approach to motivating people. I agree Saud has to change and we need to make life without us look really, really bad to do it. I completely admit I am frustrated with the whole darn thing.

I see, work with, give orders to, take orders from, every darn day - a very undereducated American electorate that needs everything boiled down to the "war is bad" simplicity level just to keep their attention for a 10 second sound bite. Hense the other simple message "Pull out, pull out, the sky is falling!" and "Why are we always telling everyone else to do? I hate it when people tell me what to do so we shouldnt!" People otherwise occupied go for the easy way out every darn time. Sys Admin being the hardest, longest and yet most honest way ever conceived to "get out" - even if it will surely work.

If someday, some one can coin a phrase that makes peace through common sense and old time hard work popular - we all win. until then whats a tongue tied President to do!?

[Christopher Thompson]

I am baffled by comments that the two sides on the Iraq war are "Stay the course" and "Pull out, pull out, the sky is falling!" While "stay the course" may be close to its mark, the American people have paid a trillion dollars and unknown political costs for six years and still want to do the right thing in this huge mess we have made. Nobody thinks the sky is falling. I think they see the difference between the easy way and the wrong way.

It used to be that "peace through common sense and old time hard work popular" was called diplomacy. An intellect (who would have understood Barnett's statement that "...isn't about getting credit. It's about getting what we want.") once said -- keep your friends close and your enemies closer. The administration has alienated it friends and does not want to understand its enemies. The results are predictable.

[CitSAR]

The argument about simplicity is moot, the President lost the ability to frame the strategic future a long time ago and he cant go back to explaining the details. No one is listening. The present political argument will not be about common sense. Its about a bumper sticker phrase. Read below, I rest my case.

Carville Wants Bumper Sticker Ideas

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:34 PM Article Font Size

Political pundit James Carville has sent out a mass e-mail on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee seeking “the bumper sticker slogan that will carry us through the 2008 elections.”

Carville – lead strategist for Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign – said the slogan will be used on the DSCC’s Web site, on campaign literature and on the “bumpers of jalopies from coast to coast.”

The e-mail to presumed Democratic supporters states: “We need a turn of phrase that really jumps out and tells you right off the bat what this election is all about. In 1992, it was ‘It’s the Economy, Stupid.’ In 2006, Democrats simply said, ‘Had Enough?’

“We got a few ideas … Take a look and then, do us the favor of voting for one of our top picks. But if you got something better, we’ll throw that in the mix too.”

[J Canepa]

In his VFW speech, President Bush not only mentioned Graham Green's The Quiet American, but also incorrectly mentioned Pyle as the book's principle character.

A detailed discussion of this is in Editor and Publisher http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=100362945

Pyle represents all that is wrong with this country. His false flag murder of innocents was pure evil, no matter how noble he thought his purpose. For Bush to cite Pyle favorably is an incredible gaff. One would want to now if Pyle legacy were still going on and how many people are being killed by American false flag operations.

Joe Canepa

BTW. The Michael Cane movie The Quiet American was delayed for a year, as it would have came out right after 9 11. It might have been thought that a movie showing an American false flag simulated terrorist operation might not be timely right after 9 11. I saw the movies in Palm Beach in 2003. A Netflix version, which I saw two years after, omitted the scene, which made the CIA complacent with Pyle's actions.

[Christopher Thompson]

I am really do not see how quoting a political operative on either side doing what they do is any indication of where the American people in general have been or are on Iraq. The quote above is not even about Iraq, but a general campaign slogan. Yelling "Look at James Carville or Carl Rove!" will not make Iraq go away or change the facts on the ground or make the tough decisions that we need to make for our long term interests go away.

[Julie]

I'm a bit surprised by your analysis of the Bush speech--overemphasis on Vietnam and missing the point of our past military engagements and their positive results--and Iraq in general in light of your propositions spelled out in your book, "The Pentagon's New Path". Isn't Iraq smack in the middle of the non-integrated Gap? Aren't we going to militarily end up engaged in this Gap as the new front for the 21st Century? So why is withdrawal to allow chaos to continue on its merry way a viable option, not excluding the bloodbath that might ensue?

My understanding of your position was one where the US must take responsibility for this integration both economically and militarily, which we are doing in Iraq. Forget Europe, they're going to be Islamized in the next quarter-century. And Iran, you're comparison of the more than half century old Democratic government of Israel with 200 nukes--which have never been used--in juxtaposition to the totalitarian, religiously radical Iran whose leadership has stated clearly it's desire to wipe a nation off the planet with no nukes is rather specious, don't you think?

Just because the US took the longer road of lower military casualties but higher economic costs to affect change in the Middle East, verses the historical subjegation of the enemy vis-a-vis WWII, doesn't mean that because it's costing a lot in dollars we should wholly abandon the Iraqi people to a bloodbath. Geez, I thought you were a compassionate liberal Democrat.

[stuart abrams]

I know Dr. Barnett has pooh-poohed Syrianna/Michael Moore/Saudi conspiracy theories, but I find it almost impossible to find any explanation for the policies of the Bush/Cheney administration other than that they are being driven by a slavish desire to serve the interests of the House of Saud. I certainly don't see any possibility of Saudi troops replacing American troops in Iraq. So far as I can see, the Saudis don't "do" warfare - they get others (like us) to do it for them.

[stuart abrams]

To J. Canepa -I'm sure Bush never read Greene's strongly anti-American novel and he probably fell asleep during the movie. While Greene is usually viewed as a leftist in his later years, and was a fan of Castro, my view is that he was really a Niall Ferguson-ish conservative who had a certain nostalgia for European colonialism and resented American ascendancy, particularly because he felt that Americans made extremely incompetent imperialists.

[Michael]

Julie, in Iraq we have the following options:a) bug out. Probable consequence (as you've pointed out) is a bloody civil war.b) Put enough soldiers in to actually control the country. I call it an option for the sake of completeness, but it's not. After years of heavy rotations in and out of Iraq and Afganistan, too much of our force is exhausted. Even if we started a draft tomorrow, it would be a year or two before we could get enough soldiers in place to do this.c) Reduce our forces to levels we can manage long-term, and do the best we can with them. Essentially what Dr Barnett is talking about. We can protect the Kurds, we can TRY to get the neighbors to take responsibility for the chaos (especially since many of them are causing it). We can TRY negotiating with different Arab factions to get them fight each other less. We can target known Al Qaeda groups within the Arab areas. We cannot canvas the land, we cannot stop Arab infighting with force of our own.

As for Iran, there's a quote I like from Napoleon: "Never interrupt when your enemy is busy losing the battle." The Iranian economy is on the rocks, and the government is having to work harder to maintain control. We offer them deals where we can which trade long-term better behavior on their part for some breathing room on their internal problems; otherwise, we let them stew.

[Christopher Thompson]

Just because the US took the longer road of lower military casualties but higher economic costs to affect change in the Middle East, verses the historical subjegation of the enemy vis-a-vis WWII, doesn't mean that because it's costing a lot in dollars we should wholly abandon the Iraqi people to a bloodbath.

The choice is not between which road to travel (a WWII style war is not possible anyway) but about traveling the road intelligently or foolishly. No one is talking about wholly abandoning the Iraqi people, so that is not really germane to the issue. It is a bloodbath already, has been for a number of years, and will be for a few more. An intelligent strategy for "getting what we want" while sticking to our values is what is needed -- and the honest presentment of that strategy and goal to the American people.

[Christopher Thompson]

Good God! Must everything be a rerun of Vietnam with these Boomers?

William Kristol just wrote a piece in the Weekly Standard strongly supporting Bush's speech. He seems to rerun his own version of the Vietnam war. The key for him seems to be that the enemy is the same in Iraq as it was in Vietnam.