Putting Lipstick on the Pig in Iraq
By Larry Johnson on September 14, 2007 at 11:18 PM in Current Affairs
So where are we headed in Iraq? The fawning over General Petraeus by the most of the politicians and the media was so sickeningly sweet that diabetics were in danger of a coma. Petraeus was relatively low key and pulled off the pretense that his remarks were crafted without the input or coordination of the White House.
The earnest school boy mien of Petraeus defused MoveOn.org’s clumsy attempt at painting the General as a traitor. But the error of MoveOn does not mean that Petraeus is a reincarnation of General Douglas MacArthur, at least militarily. Many would agree that, in terms of ego, he shares common bonds with MacArthur, but in terms of his actual record the hype does not match the actual performance. Brent Budowsky’s piece published on this blog last week presents chapter and verse on Petraeus’ so-called illustrious career.
But Petraeus is the side show. Where are we headed in Iraq and how do we get out? Pat Lang weighs in with the following:
After listening to the president I think that those in Congress and among the presidential candidates who oppose the Jacobin neocon view of America’s destiny in the Middle East should adopt something like the following program:
- There should be no treaty, agreement, SOFA or any other instrument that commits the United States to the defense of Iraq. The Congress should insist on its prerogative in such matters. Agreements of that kind would preclude a complete American withdrawal from Iraq.
- There should be no permanent American bases of any kind in Iraq. The president’s obduracy in insisting on what can only be seen as a commitment to a permanent American presence makes the public adoption of a policy of “no bases” inevitable. Permanent bases in Iraq will mean conventional or counterinsurgency war involving the US so long as the bases are there.
- Congress should insist that the “surge” force be completely withdrawn on the basis that Petraeus recommended and that the March, 2008 review should produce a schedule of withdrawal that will remove all US combat forces from Iraq by the mid-term election of 2010 with the following exception.
- Congress and the candidates should have in mind that if there remains any relationship to an Iraqi state after 2010, that relationship may require an ongoing training commitment to the forces of that government. Such a force of trainers will inevitably have to be fed, housed, transported, provided medical support and protected. A commitment of that kind would require a continuing presence for a few years, but the end point should be fixed. For the length of its existence such a presence might well consist of 30,000 people. On the other hand, if there is no continuing relationship, than all forces should be withdrawn by November, 2010.
- None of this should be seen as precluding a continuing effort at counter-terrorist operations or support of friendly elements in Iraq from outside Iraq.
- This program of withdrawal should be matched with a determined, aggressive diplomatic effort intended to reduce the “temperature” in the Middle East. (See my article “Toward a Concert of the Middle East.”
There will be those who will say that having such a program is futile because of Dick Cheney. I disagree. Without a program you have no unified goal and path.
Pat’s approach makes the most sense, but I do not believe the Bush Administration will embrace it or implement it. Iran remains the wild card with respect to the future of Iraq. Here are the factors that will influence the future:
- The belief that Iran is killing U.S. soldiers. There is evidence that individuals with ties to Iran are active in Iraq and have provided support for attacks on U.S. soldiers. So far there is no convincing smoking gun. But if support to insurgents/terrorists was the criteria for defining our enemies then Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would quickly eclipse Iran. (That’s assuming we were basing our decisions on facts as opposed to our own twisted national security fantasies). Once there is sufficient evidence to point an accusing finger at Iran for specific attacks then we are likely to bomb Iran. If there is no such case then the possibility of war with Iran will lessen.
- Iran’s role in Iraq. Imagine that Mexico was embroiled in an insurgent war being waged by radical Islamists with close ties to Bin Laden. Imagine that Canada has been invaded by Iran, who is supporting a government controlled by Protestants, who are battling Catholic reactionaries. And imagine that our country, smack in the middle, is controlled by Protestants. Would we be sitting calmly by twiddling our thumbs and ignoring the chaos on our borders? Hell no! Well, welcome to Iran’s world. When it comes to Iraq the primary goal of Iran is to ensure that whatever governmental authority exists that it does not pose a threat to Iran. So far Iran appears to have focused most of its efforts on building up intelligence networks, supporting Shia clerics, training and equipping militia, and taking an occasional poke at the United States. If the United States moves to weaken the control of Shia sympathetic to Iran then Iran will move to protect its interests. If the United State attacks Iran, Iran will defend itself using every resource at its disposal. And it is on this count that they can deliver some serious blows to the U.S. military and the U.S. economy.
- The perception that the U.S. is siding with the Sunnis raises suspicions with Iran. All of the political spin in the United States about the so-called success in Al Anbar feeds distrust of U.S. intentions among the Shia and the Persians. Ignore the reality that the U.S. surge had absolutely nothing to do with the retaliation of Sunni tribes against Islamic extremists identified as Al Qaeda. Our claim that we are backing this effort is being interpreted by many Shia officials as a new double cross. Remember, they have not forgotten the call to arms issued by George Hebert Walker Bush in 1991 and our subsequent failure to back the Shia uprising when it came. We let Saddam slaughter their relatives. New entreaties to the old Sunni crowd, whether perceived or real, at a minimum will awaken distrust. It also could lead to something worse.
- U.S. military disengagement. If the United States continues the current level of military action; including attacks on suspected insurgent strongholds, the insurgency will continue to grow and evolve. This year alone we have reportedly locked up over 60,000 suspected insurgents. Most of those individuals will probably be released in the next year simply because we do not have enough prisons to hold them and stay out of trouble with the Red Crescent/Red Cross. When they return to their hometowns most will be keen on seeking revenge against the “Crusader”. Alternatively the U.S. could decide to turn over most of these operations to Iraqi forces. That means most of the violence will be sectarian (85%of the police are Shia) but at least the United States will not be in the public eye leading the charge. If we are we will get the blame. If we are out of sight we are in a position to start disengaging.
Despite dire predictions that a U.S. withdrawal will lead to chaos in Iraq (and the current situation is what?), the withdrawal of foreign forces from key regions in Iraq will actually produce more stability. The locals will take on the task of protecting themselves. They will look to outside forces for assistance (e.g., weapons, training, money, etc). But a new equilibrium is likely to take hold.
In fact, the imposition of this kind of order in ethnically cleansed areas in Iraq will be perceived as further evidence that the Bush plan is working miracles. Do not be surprised if by spring, as Pat pointed out above, we will be looking at significant withdrawals of U.S. forces because “peace” is breaking out. Of course, this assumes we don’t do something stupid in Iran.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Genrul Betrayus may have suckered the ReichWingers and those desperate ReThugs up for re-election Larry but polls show that a size-able majority of Americans see him for what he is…
A liar.
Now it’s true that the puffed-up bloviators of the beltway are in a tizzy about MoveOn which is going to be stressful for them as I don’t see MoveOn changing their tactics.
As Markos said, paraphrasing here, 4000 of our troops are dead in a losing cause and you want to talk about an as! Get real.
We of Left Blogistan are gonna ‘get real’ all over the political corpses of the ReThugs and their fluffers the ‘Bush Dogs’.
Why should anyone believe Petraeus? Look what happened when Americans — even many liberal Democrats — believed Colin Powell’s elaborate and completely false presentation to the UN in February 2003. It was a pack of lies from beginning to end.
Out beyond the beltway, I don’t think Petraeus has any more credibility than Powell now has. Bush was trying to convince GOP pols in Washington to keep us in Iraq; he may have succeeded, but the damage done to the Republican Party elsewhere in the country will be devastating — I think 2008 will be a landslide for the Dems no matter who their presidential candidate is, and no matter what GOP candidate is nominated. This is a turning point election, just like 1932.
>>> There should be no permanent American bases of any kind in Iraq
I believe that this particular ship has already sailed.
IMO, a fundamental precedent for the Jihad/Caliphate is the separation of East and West and I may be going out on a limb but I consider this goal more pressing for the likes of OBL and Zawahiri than the destruction of the West.
The Middle East could eventually become totally isolated from the West. The test case may have already occurred in, of all places, Uzbekistan. Karimov has kicked out the US, NATO and Radio Free Europe. I do not know if Intel is still viable but, if not, then we do not know what is happening there – it is blank page for terrorist groups to fill in (note the Uzbek connections in the Germany plots).
Larry makes points here on the military options re: the intervention in Iraq. I do not know if you all agree with me but it seems that combination of special ops, intel and training is the most effective role for the US to play re: counterterrorism – anywhere in the World. I am not talking about “cut and run”. I am talking about bringing troops home and changing how we intervene.
The rebuilding of Iraq cannot be privatized but it will be via NWO/Bush connection. It is safe to say that the NWO wants control – no matter what the status – war or peace. Thus, future economic and diplomatic ties with Iraq need to be part of plan to rebuild.
I posted the following comment on the ‘Preparing the Environment’ thread, but very late. It fit’s as well here. The issues raised are extremely important, and I haven’t seen them addressed anywhere else.
In 2002 the US war gamed an attack on Iran. “Millenium Challenge 2002″ was the largest war game ever held, at a cost of 250 million dollars. It did not go well. 16 American warships were ’sunk’ in the first 48 hours, whereupon a time out was called, the ‘fleet refloated,’ and the rules changed. The Marine Corps general in charge of the ‘Red Forces’ then quit, not wanting to associate himself with a ’scripted excercise.’
See the many links at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Has something changed in the last five years, that Iran could no longer do this kind of damage? How would the US respond to the sinking of a few cruisers or an aircraft carrier? The Iraqi military was a hollow shell. The Iranian military is probably not.
Good points, and if we attack Iran, the Shia Iraqi militias, especially the 100,000-strong Mahdi Army, will be going after our troops. Bush will have Iran-friendly forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan attacking our exhausted forces, as well as the formidable Iranian military, and the Islamic zealots in northern Pakistan will likely overthrow Musharraf, so the nightmare will be complete.
Bush’s only option to end the massacre would be to go nuclear, but I wonder if the Pentagon would allow him to launch? After all, considerable numbers of American troops would be detrimentally affected by any nuclear attack on Iran, and such an attack would bring down the world on us. Bush and Cheney may not appreciate the catastrophe they would be uncorking by going to war with Iran, but certainly others still in the government do — even star-chasers like Petraeus.
“if we attack Iran, the Shia Iraqi militias, especially the 100,000-strong Mahdi Army, will be going after our troops.”
Not sure why you say ESPECIALLY the Mahdi Army. Muqtada Sadr and the Mahdi Army are nationalists, and the one major Shi`a group in Iraq who are not affiliated with Iran. Muqtada is, if anything, anti-Iran.
Also, the Mahdi Army have been “going after” – i.e. resisting – your troops from the beginning, and rightly so. As Iraqi nationalists, they have no obligation to accept being occupied by a foreign power bent on turning their country into a dependent, useful client state.
I find it interesting that among all the punditry in the past few days regarding changing troop levels, there has not been one word about changing the levels of … contractors!
In spite of Pat Lang’s wise comment “There should be no permanent American bases of any kind in Iraq.” it’s unrealistic to expect neocon regional ambition will just walk away from that monstosity known as the embassy, and control of the region for that matter; and if it’s not walked away from, it will only continue to fulfill it’s intention if it’s protected by … a base.
The Bush/Petraeus promotion team is in process of pulling off a slick sale that’s the envy of every car dealer, in terms of troop numbers. Pad the price, then make a generous offer on that trade-in; which of course brings you back to the number you started with.
The bottom line is that Bush can be expected, above all else according to his track record, to stubbornly protect himself from the humiliation of being un-wrong.
Since it’s Friday, now it’s time for poetry:
The Grand old Duke of York poem
(based on the old English war of the roses)
The Grand old Duke of York he had ten thousand men
He marched them up to the top of the hill
And he marched them down again.
When they were up, they were up
And when they were down, they were down
And when they were only halfway up
They were neither up nor down.
Nice poem Ybnormal. A very concise assessment too.
The rabid reaction to the Moveon.org ad really gets me. In the runup to Operation Iraqi Quagmire the Right trumpeted that those in favor of the war were in the majority, so the anti-war minority should just shut the Hell up! Well, now Moveon represents the majority and the cry is the same, except now it’s the MAJORITY who are told to shut the hill up! Heads they win, tails we lose.
I think it may be easier to reframe the discussion if Iraq were simply referred to as: “Our Gas Station”.
Someone’s comments posted on 9-14-07 on Dan Froomkin’s Washington Post website about George Sr. asking Ronald Reagan to help find his son, George Jr., some work over twenty years ago:
“”Historical Quote of the Day
“A moment I’ve been dreading. George brought his ne’re-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I’ll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they’ll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.”
– Ronald Reagan in his recently published diaries, May 17, 1986.”"
Patriotic Republicans should be asking themselves “What would Reagan do?” in regards to how to handle George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, because if something isn’t done, and done soon, it may take a long, long time for the Republican Party to recover, to say nothing of our country…unless of course, Republicans, and their progeny, believe that they will be divorced somehow from whatever fate befalls our nation, just as Bush appears now to be divorced from reality and Cheney sees himself as divorced from the executive branch. Denial can sometimes be very, very dangerous, for an individual or for an entire nation.
is the quotation real? If so, it is even more hilarious (and sad)than I thought was possible
From the party that came up with the Willie Horton Ads and Swiftboating, I think that the hysteria over the Moveon ads is very telling in that the GOP is scared of them – threatened by them.
I liked MoveOn’s troop #s TV ad but disliked its Petraeus ad.
What’s that old saying? When one’s enemy is destroying himself, don’t get in his way? (It’s something like that.)
MoveOn has butted in and made itself the hot topic … it gave a talking point to the Republicans. And it hit on a military man, which is a high-risk move because even if most Americans detest Bush and the Iraq war, they have a huge soft spot for our military.
If MoveOn had just stuck to the facts, not trying to smear Petraeus, the Republicans wouldn’t have had a comeback. And now even the Democrats are fighting with each other over it. To wit:
http://www.memeorandum.com/070915/p57#a070915p57
TRUTH: I used Betray-Us in a title here recently, but just did it because it made me laugh. I wonder if I’d have the nerve to put it in a NYT full-page ad.
Thanks for that Reagan diary quote Oracle, that was priceless!
Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer ranked Bush’s speech by the numbers:
Good for the Iraqi make-believe government for not meeting Bush’s self-serving Benchmarks™. Not that anyone could under the circumstances.
Oh, and by the way, didn’t Iceland just remove it’s one troop on the ground in Iraq? In which case, make it 24 the actual number of nations with troops on the ground.
Guess what, while Bushie tells us his strategery is going so well that we’re going to stay in Iraq for years…Bushie smart money is shorting the war. Because there’s $oil$ money to be made in failure.
Oracle,
That quote is urban legend.
Check out the Snopes debunking.
It was a satire piece written by Michael Kinsley.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/kinsley.asp
-GSD
damn . . . it sounded so, so BUSH . . . .
Is the right wing sniveling about Move on having an effect on Public Opinion? I don’t pay much attention to popular culture – an oxymoron if ever there was one. It seems to me that the pro war crowd isn’t only threatened by Move on; they don’t have anything else. I doubt they would put all this effort into raising the public profile of an antiwar group if their own talking points were having any effect.
I’m not so sure MoveOn’s ad was clumsy. Consider the effect it had on the right-wing, which raised the MoveOn ad and the discussion of betrayal to a national issue.
George Lakoff has a great article on Common Dreams about how effective the MoveOn ad was.
Excellent Larry.