Fighting The Next War

Long and frightening Seymore Hersh article argues that the Rumsfeld/Gates switch doesn't necessarily indicate an administration-wide change of approach to national security. Cheney is still Cheney and still wants to start a war with Iran and Bush just might do it.

Meanwhile, I have to say I sort of hope Baker-Hamilton doesn't recommend negotiations with Syria and Iran. The official hawk line on why we shouldn't do this is that it won't accomplish anything. Meanwhile, it would be the easiest thing in the world for an administration that doesn't want to negotiate with Syria and Iran to "agree" to negotiate, do so in bad faith, walk away having achieved nothing, further poison the diplomatic atmosphere, and thereby "prove" that such negotiations are useless. In fact, they're vital, but to do any good they need to be done in good faith. That means either a genuine change of heart by the president (unlikely) or else a new administration in 2009.

Comments

They already guaranteed diplomatic failure by having surrogate Saudi Arabia threaten to use oil production as a weapon against Iraq.

Posted by: mal on November 30, 2006 10:45 AM

"the Rumsfeld/Gates switch doesn't necessarily indicate an administration-wide change of approach to national security."

Wow! Who woulda thunk it?

In other breaking news, ice cream is yummy and pandas are cute.

Posted by: Petey on November 30, 2006 11:00 AM

The preferences of the best mobilised interest group in both US political parties on policy towards Iran can be observed by reading Marty Peretz's blog. So no good faith negotiations are possible either now or after 2009.

Posted by: otto on November 30, 2006 11:06 AM

I don't get what Syria and Iran are supposed to do. Will Iran tell the Sunnis and Shiites to stop fighting? No, Iran is hardly a neutral party to the Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds. Same with Syria. I'd be glad if they could do something, but I haven't seen anyone outline, plausibly, just what Iran and Syria could do.

Posted by: American Citizen on November 30, 2006 11:17 AM

Baker-Hamilton isn't going to recommend that the administration "negotiate" with Iran or Syria. At most, the panel will recommend direct contact with Iran and Syria, to "recommend" or "insist" (depending on how much pull the hawkish panel members have in the ultimate consensus) that that Iran and Syria use their influence to curb the violence, which will accomplish precisely nothing, by design.

Baker-Hamilton, despite however the panel may view its own role or merits, will be cynically manipulated by this administration into a smokescreen against domestic criticism, so that Bush can say that he convened a bipartisan panel to consider all good policy options, while his critics (the incoming Democratic congress) have offered nothing constructive but cling to a naive "cut and run" strategy. It is entirely obvious and predictable that this is how Baker-Hamilton will ultimately play out, because it is how this administration plays it every single time.

Posted by: DS on November 30, 2006 11:40 AM

There's no solution in Iraq possible without a change in government in the US.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on November 30, 2006 11:53 AM

American Citizen may be right that there's not all that much that Iran or Syria can do to help us out. But suppose Iran and Syria are aiding the "bad guys" in various ways, and we'd like them to desist.

What might they ask in return?

Syria might ask for the return of the Golan and a free hand in Lebanon. Iran might ask that we cease trying to sanction them for developing nuclear weapons. I doubt if the administration wants to say yes to any of these requests, and except for the first, I'm not sure that it should.

Bush is really GOOD at concocting messes extrication from which is bound to be quite costly.

Posted by: rainsborough on November 30, 2006 12:01 PM

The thinking goes, that neither Syria nor Iran are interested in seeing an all-out civil war next-door. But what could be more convenient? A neutral ground up for grabs in which to extend their influence by proxies. There's the potential refugee problem, of course, but they could presumably just stop up their borders. As far as Syria is concerned, that would be more of a worry for Iran, whose border is more extensive and less desert (and therefore more accessible), so why should they care? Besides, it's not as though either government is accountable to its citizens short of a coup d'etat, so a refugee problem would just be something unpleasant for the refugees, with few political consequences. Just thinking out loud here. Am I wrong?

Posted by: Bill on November 30, 2006 12:44 PM

You spelled "Seymour" wrong.

Posted by: Cryptic Ned on November 30, 2006 12:47 PM

Does Seymour Hirsch just make up these stories about the Bush Administration getting ready to attack Iran "soon", or does the act of him publishing them actually stop the attacks from happening? Can't figure that one out.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on November 30, 2006 12:51 PM

"They already guaranteed diplomatic failure by having surrogate Saudi Arabia threaten to use oil production as a weapon against Iraq."

Obvious typo--should be Iran.

Posted by: mal on November 30, 2006 01:03 PM

That's a good point, Cranky. Informed insiders should only warn us about things after they've already happened.

Posted by: Cryptic Ned on November 30, 2006 01:23 PM

Cranky, I think Hersch's articles are comprised almost entirely of leaks from deep within the internal debate: sources who are very worried and excluded from the decision-making loop, hoping that creating an external pressure will create the influence they lack. I read Hersch as writing in some kind of peculiar Washintonian subjunctive.

Posted by: Jackmormon on November 30, 2006 01:25 PM

> Cryptic Ned:
> That's a good point, Cranky. Informed
> insiders should only warn us about things
> after they've already happened.

I am not advocating that Ned, but he has been saying the attack on Iran (with or without tactical nukes) is coming "within three months" for more than a year now.

Jackmormon: Good observation, thanks.

Posted by: Cranky Observer on November 30, 2006 01:43 PM

Jackmormon, I think you got it right: "sources who are ... excluded from the decision-making loop." Hence, Hersch's track record making predictions: sometimes spot on, frequently just plain wrong.

Posted by: ostap on November 30, 2006 01:44 PM

I don't get what Syria and Iran are supposed to do. Will Iran tell the Sunnis and Shiites to stop fighting? No, Iran is hardly a neutral party to the Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds. Same with Syria. I'd be glad if they could do something, but I haven't seen anyone outline, plausibly, just what Iran and Syria could do.

I see four important reasons and bases for constructive US-Iranian cooperation on Iraq:

1. The first task is to persuasively demonstrate to the Sunni Arabs, jihadists and Baathists alike, that their hopes of bringing about some return to their earlier position of primacy in Iraq, of wrecking the Kurdish and Shiite movements for autonomy, or of establishing some other form of Sunni rule throughout the country - are dead. Until they are persuaded of this fact, the insurgency will continue to harbor hopes that following the "Saigon moment", after having driven the US out of Iraq, they will be able to go on to depose the government, crush the Shiite militas and restore themselves to the position of primacy they once held. They will continue to fight.

But once they are convinced that Shiite autonmomy in southern Iraq is here to stay; that the Shiite community will be supported heavily and materially by the Iranians with American cooperation and support; that the strategy of weakening their Shiite opponents by playing the Shiites' two rival backers - the Iranians and the US - off against each other will not work; and that neither the Saudis nor any other regional power is going to come in to support them, then they may finally begin to resign themselves to the need to avail themselves of the autonomy framework and confine their ambitions to their own limited region.

2. A second important reason to work with the Iranians is to keep them out of Iraq: that is, to limit their support for their friends in Iraq to external assistance and covert action - and not armed intervention. We will have to deal something to the Iranians to secure this commitment, and also work with our old friends the Saudis to prevent intervention on their part. But if we can keep the Iranians out, that may keep other regional powers out as well and help prevent a regional war (and the US draft such a war would ultimately entail).

3. A third reason is to enlist Iranian influence to curtail maximalist ambitions among the Shiites in Iraq. All of the Kurds, and most of the Shiites, have embraced the formula for regional autonomy that was written into the constitution, and the current Iraqi government is nothing bt a way-station on the road to that autonomy. What is necessary now is to force Sunni Arabs in Iraq to accept the inevitability of a final disposition along those same lines. Two things are holding that up: the first I described in item (1) above. But the second is related to the intentions of some of the Shiite groups. Some maximalist Shiite factions appear determined to subjugate Anbar province and the other predominantly Sunni towns and cities in central Iraq, under a strong central state with majority Shiite rule. While many Sunnis have maximalist aims of their own, they will also feel compelled to continue fighting so long as the US persists in its futile effort to extend Shiite rule, under the guise of the Baghdad government, over all of Iraq. The US must cease and desist in this effort. But we need the Iranians to help get their Shiite brethren to back away from these maximalist goals and accept a regional solution.

4. A fourth reason is to demonstrate to the Saudis that we are perfectly capable of working with other powerful and oil-rich states - including their chief rival - to secure our interestes in the region, and that they can thus not dictate to us the terms of our own departure from Iraq, as Mr. Obaid tried to do yeasterday.

In short, we need to work with Iran in Iraq so we can get out of Iraq.

Posted by: Dan Kervick on November 30, 2006 02:17 PM

Meanwhile, I have to say I sort of hope Baker-Hamilton doesn't recommend negotiations with Syria and Iran. ....

... That means either a genuine change of heart by the president (unlikely) or else a new administration in 2009.

By 2009 it will be too late. The situation is urgent. Bush and Cheney are stupid, stubborn and intransigent, but they are not omnipotent. Our only hope is to create a broad national groundswell in favor of negotiation with regional powers, particularly Iran, that becomes so politically irresistable that even Bush and Cheney are no longer able to buck it. There are a number of prominent Republicans eyeing the White House in 2008, and many others trying to retake the Congress. As it becomes increasingly clear to Republicans that Bush is driving them - and the rest of us - off a cliff, they will work to paralyze his ability to do more damage.

Posted by: Dan Kervick on November 30, 2006 02:25 PM

he has been saying the attack on Iran (with or without tactical nukes) is coming "within three months" for more than a year now.

He's been saying it is coming in a half-Freidman for more than two Friedmans!

Posted by: Al on November 30, 2006 02:41 PM

Oops, pressed "post" too quickly.

Does that make our unit of measure: 1 Friedman = 2 Hersch?

Posted by: Al on November 30, 2006 02:42 PM

I am forced to agree with Al. Have Senator McCain shoot me now (per his pre-election pledge).

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on November 30, 2006 03:07 PM

No, he hasn't said it's coming. He's said that there are elements within the administration that want it to come. He's also said there are other elements within the administration (like the heads of the military) who don't want it to come. And he hasn't put a definite timetable on if/when it will come.

And that's important reporting, because it's news that there's even a debate within a U.S. presidential administration over a policy this stupid and immoral. Under a sane administration, there wouldn't even be a possibility of something like this happening.

Posted by: JP on November 30, 2006 05:16 PM

First of all, foreign fighters make up less than 10% of the insurgency. Iraqis, not foreign fighters or Al Qaeda in Iraq, are causing most of the violence.

Second, Iran and Syria will only take action to stop the violence in Iraq if it's in their interest to do so. Iran is backing the Iraqi Shia, and they're winning, so why would Iran want it to stop? Unless the situation in Iran poses a threat to Syria or Iran, they don't have a lot of incentive to intervene.

Third, there have been rumors about a possible US strike on Iran for months. If they are concerned about a possible strike, it's very much in their interest to support the insurgency and keep us stuck in Iraq. They'd be stupid not to, and I don't think they're stupid.

Finally, the Bush administration's bellicose foreign policy is coming home to roost. If you put Iran on the b.s. Axis of Evil list and threaten to overthrow Syria's government, why would they help us out in Iraq? Syria sent combat troops to Iraq in the Gulf War (and the fact that neither they or any other Arab country joined the Coalition of the Willing shows that they didn't see Iraq as a threat). In 2003, Iran and Syria both offered to help the US fight Al Qaeda, and the Bush administration blew them off.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11539

Posted by: croatoan on November 30, 2006 07:53 PM

Dan, thanks for the list. Unfortunately, any change from the current path depends on the Bush administration implementing the change.

Posted by: American Citizen on December 1, 2006 11:04 AM

I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings. I congratulate you.

Posted by: North Cyprus Holiday on August 9, 2008 08:43 PM

thanks a lot

Posted by: fibercement on September 12, 2008 10:55 AM

mantolama yapalım.

Posted by: mantolama on September 12, 2008 10:56 AM

teşekürler salih abi.

Posted by: turksiding on September 12, 2008 10:57 AM

hekimboard kullanmayanları uyaralım.

Posted by: hekimboard on September 12, 2008 10:57 AM

thanks.

Posted by: söve on October 20, 2008 04:11 AM

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com

Posted by: sexshop on November 5, 2008 06:47 AM

Post A Comment

advertise_liberally.gif