Wes Clark is not opposed to withdrawing from Iraq - contrary to what some say.
Submitted by Nick Kelly on December 1, 2006 - 3:58pm.
Iraq
Wes Clark is not opposed to withdrawing from Iraq. He is opposed to withdrawing before we do all we can to gain an agreed plan by governments in the region. He advocates diplomacy, and there is no other candidate with Wes Clark's diplomatic experience and acceptance in the international community.
Arrogance and ignorance have gotten us where we are today in Iraq. Wes Clark understands that there are many other governments and many millions of people with a stake in what happens next. He also realizes that we certainly do not have all the answers, including the answers to the questions as to when and how we should bring our troops home. His call for vastly increased regional diplomacy is not just noble. It is essential to the restoration of our lost credibility in international affairs.
Yes, we might avoid more American casualties by beginning a withdrawal tomorrow. If we can achieve some sort of diplomatic consensus that supports such a withdrawal, I am all for it. However, we would be foolish to believe that a unilaterally determined American withdrawal would necessarily be in our best long term interests. I truly wish that we could confidently predict that that would be the case, but I'm afraid that such confidence is no more justified than was Donald Rumsfeld's confidence that he knew where the WMDs were. Just because we got into this fight through arrogance doesn't justify us leaving it in the same fashion. Let's face it. Like it or not, we are the occupiers of Iraq. Therefore, we owe it to everyone in the region to try our best to help bring Iraq peace, justice and stability. We cannot do that through military means alone. Hence, we must pursue diplomacy.
Let's not make our withdrawal from Iraq the mirror image of Bush's arrogant invasion.
And for those who want us out of Iraq yesterday, just remember that no one else can get us out sooner responsibly.
diplomats to figure out. And the people closest to it are the ones most likely to develop a workable solution. It's why we really need to push for Wes's regional diplomacy to get implemented.
Thanks.
and welcome to CCN.
Here is what General Wes said back in September of 2005 about "get out now". I posted this just the other night again and it's difficult to read....but I guess we can't read it or share it enuff:
Conference Terrorism, Security & America's Purpose: Towards a More Comprehensive Strategy Reflecting on 9/11 and America’s Global Engagement Problem
Wes: "Well the men and women in the armed forces can do it. It will be a fighting withdrawal because the insurgents will be on the heels of the American columns as they come out. I can picture our men and women in those humvees and the dump trucks. You can see them taking fire and asking, "Should I shoot back, if I shoot back who's in that building?" I can see a long and bloody retreat. It will take several weeks to get out of there, four or five weeks. Or if you stage it, it will be bloodier and more difficult for longer. The insurgents will claim they won. But that claim will be disputed by Al Qaeda. They'll say that they drove us out. And the people who helped us in Iraq will be targeted. They already are targeted but they've got some assistance and support. That will go away quickly. These people will be running for their lives. 200, 300, 500, 800,000, a million. Everybody who ever talked to an American. We don't know where the boundary will be. But it won't be pretty. And when it's said that we are coming out, the political process that we've put in place will start to come apart, naturally. People are already preparing. There's plenty of private militias there. They've got scores to settle, territory to gain, cleansing to do, resources to capture and I'm sure the Kurds will decide, you know they aren't Arabs anyway, they'll go their own way. So I would expect a pretty rapid recourse not only to civil war but regional conflict, if we were to pull out and say 'we're coming home.' Now, that's my scenario. It reduces American prestige, influence and power all around the world."
Q: These things have happened already, sir.
General Clark: Well, not to the extent I think I've sketched it out. So what I'd say is, that there is a middle ground or a better ground, than staying the course or announcing a withdrawal. We need to change that course and use America's leadership and power not only militarily but diplomatically and politically in the region to become a focus for regional cooperation. It is not yet too late. The complete transcript of the conference is here:
http://securingamerica.com/tsap/050906
My own musings, fwiw:
Things have changed quite a bit since this time, however, I think this is still what we are facing in Iraq....maybe even worse now. I think Wes may be talking about securing the country enuff now to allow our troops to be able to redeploy at this point. The D- solution?
Also, I read an article the other night about the Dem Leadership calling for an envoy to go to work on the inside in Iraq and try to work out some of the political problems there. Wes has suggested this. Sorry...no link...I tried to go back and find again and couldn't remember where I'd seen it.
Also, there is one thing in the bits pieces leaked on the "Iraq Group" document that seems to be missing.....no permanent bases. I've heard nothing that leads me to believe they will call for letting the region know we are not staying forever. Something Wes has said needs doing.
I've been a little tied up with stuff so haven't had a chance to see what Wes said on Washington Journal yesterday. Tho, I'm anxious to. Perhaps he said more there about the "redeployment".
Hope at least some of this helps.
There was a period of time when I was little upset that General Clark seemed to be in favor of staying in Iraq for a longer period of time than I was comfortable with. But I'm at the point now where I don't get that worked up by any quotes I see from anyone - Clark, other potential candidates, the Prez. The situation is such a mess that there is not a person on earth who knows exactly what should be done and when. People are outlining broad, general principles but bottom line is the situation on the ground will end up dictating.
I'm one of those who opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq when the topic first surfaced immediately post 9-11. Most of my worst nightmares of what would probably happen there have already come true. So, I suppose it's only natural that I opted to be a Kucinich delegate at our state caucus after Clark suspended his campaign. Kerry already had the nomination locked up by the time we caucused, and I supported him as Wes wanted, but was intent on sending Kerry a message that we needed to get out right away.
Well, my brilliant daughter had done her Master's Thesis on 'The Threat of Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Ladin'. She started it in 2000. After 9/11, her thesis advisor hoped that she would conclude her thesis with a call for the invasion of Iraq. She didn't do it because she knew such an invasion was unnecessary, a waste of resources, and bound to end badly. So, you might think that she would now support an immediate withdrawal. But no, she thinks just like Wes Clark on this one, and just before Thanksgiving we discussed the situation and she made me understand just how important it is for us to involve all of the powers in that region before we depart.
When she was christened, the priest told us that we would learn a lot from her. Boy, was he ever right.
would think that invading Iraq had anything to do with al-Qa'ida? We took out the guy who was arguably Usama bin Ladin's biggest enemy in the entire region.
Unfortunately, in the days and months following 9/11 there were some former cold warrior types in academia who knew virtually nothing about al-Qaida and figured the neo-con line was correct. She was unlucky enough to have drawn just such.
"Withdrawal without a plan is no better than invasion without a plan." (Dan Juma)
She was doing a thesis on Middle Eastern studies with a professor who knew nothing about it. There's something wrong there. I hope she goes on, or went on, to a Ph.D. at a university with more appropriate advisors.
- I was in grad school at Stanford - for the most part a pretty liberal institution. But even at Stanford we had scholars in the classically conservative Hoover Institution. They all thought they knew something about Vietnam simply because they knew something about communism.
"And so it goes...." (K. Vonnegut)
"Withdrawal without a plan is no better than invasion without a plan." (Dan Juma)
The US surely provides a significant inhabition for Iraq's neighbors in any desire they might have to seize Iraq's material, political, and strategic resources. Were the US to leave without sufficient diplomacy, Iraq's neighbors would try to preempt eachother from such seizures and this would likely lead to a much greater rate of destabalization in the region. The US currently plays much too pivotal a role in the region to immediately leave and just let the region work it out by itself. Of course, central to the needed diplomacy is the universally appealing incentive of forseeable US withdrawl.
Amb. Joe Wilson will be blogging at Firedoglake this coming Monday,11:00 am PT/2:00 pm ET to answer people's questions about the situation in in the ME. As an experienced diplomat formerly stationed in Iraq during the first Gulf War, his perspective on what is happening now will no doubt be intereting so please join us for the discussion.
He's very good at answering questions and pops into FDL quite frequently, particularly when authors are online answering questions about their books.
He attended YearlyKos this year and is very friendly and approachable.
He will be on the front page at FDL:
I'll be at work, but maybe i can pop in to see.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
pia.
Here's what seems to have prompted FDL to ask him for a return engagement:
"[W]ith every passing day the situation becomes ever more grave. I worry that we might actually have to fight our way out. There are no magic bullets."
The complete thread of the conversation is here:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/11/27/not-as-easy-as-it-looks/
Scary. Just as scary as when General Wes discussed this in 2005. Mostly because of who is saying it.
even Bush isn't opposed to the US withdrawing, either. He just wants some other president to take the responsibility for the loss, sort of like Nixon not wanting to be the first US president to lose a war.
The question is not whether withdrawal, it's when and how. Immediate withdrawal creates a vacuum and even more chaos than today. Gradual handover to other forces (UN, Arab League, regional ad hoc, etc.) could possibly create a situation in which an Iraqi government could experience a soft landing into a stable government.
The real thing to think about it not what is the best option but which option is the least bad option. Luckily Islamic law has a lot of theory of lesser evilism in it. That may not provide an answer (I'm not in favor of Islamic law, myself.) but it may mean that people in the area are used to less than optimum outcomes.
who don't yet know much about Wes, are posting elsewhere (e.g. Daily Kos) that Wes is against withdrawal of our troops, as if Wes favors an unlimited US military involvement in Iraq. They thus unfairly paint him as a hawk on Iraq, little different from Bush/Cheney (except for the chicken part, of course).
Another reason is that Americans are mostly just spinning our wheels by trying to come up with a solution. In reality, it's essential for the people who live there, together with their neighbors, to work out a plan they can all support. We can certainly dream up lots of ideas, but at the end of the day, it's the people of that region who have to own the solution. Which brings us back to Wes's plea for high level shuttle diplomacy, etc.
are (1) Wes doesn't speak sound bite, and (2) most Americans don't understand the military OR diplomatic context of a pullout. They just react emotionally. That wasn't so bad in Vietnam, but Iraq has real dominoes, since there isn't much of an Iraqi nationalism, only Arab nationalism (which is largely discredited with the downfall of Saddam) and Islamic nationalism, which seems to be taking over.
However you look at it, Bush's invasion has made things MUCH worse for America, and all we can do now is try to limit the damage.
That is part of the unraveling. Actually, if this escalates we may see Arab nationalism resurface.
And then there are the undercurrents of the two large militias: Hammas and Hizbullah.
No matter what happens, this is much worse for both America and moderate Arab & Islamic voices.
About not understanding the dynamics of pullout. OMG. I've seen posts that speculate that this would take but a matter of weeks. We have millions of pounds of "stuff" in Iraq. Some of it very sensitive equipment. If you mention how long it would take, the same internet brainiacs suggest that we just leave it there.
I wonder what will happen to the Green Zone?
BTW, I must say that Wes is a great teacher. I've gone to from knowing absolute zero, to grasping about 20%. Just enough to make me crazy.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
As Rumsfeld said, "Stuff happens."
We should have been listening to professionals (e.g. Wes Clark) all along.
Arab nationalism will never be the same, and non-Muslim Arabs are fast leaving the Middle East. Hammas and Hibullah (the Sunni & Shi'ite militias respectively) are are probably the future. Remember how little background most people in the area have about the United States, just action movies for most of them.
The Green Zone? Maybe the next dictator will use it for his palace. It might bolster his prestige as a barbarian defying generalissimo, just like the Shogun.
First of all, Wes is getting better and better at being concise. Second, I think we can do better than just limiting the damage. We can regain our lost credibility, and we can help the peoples of the ME to recover some of their lost hope for a better future.
However, none of this will be easy. Yes, we probably could have withdrawn from Vietnam much earlier than we did without any worse consequences than happened when we did eventually pull out. However, there was no large supply of oil underlying Vietnam. We must be careful to avoid thinking of Iraq as a virtual identical twin of Vietnam.
And since you mentioned Arabs and Islamic identities, I suppose you inadvertently omitted the Kurds.
It's all quite complex, which once again compels me to call for more and better diplomacy.
Kurds have dominoes, too, specifically Turkey. Turkey has plenty of its own problems, made public now by the Pope's visit. The Islamist party in Turkey claims to be the Islamic equivalent of a Christian Democratic party, but then I'm no Christian Democrat myself.
As for Americans thinking of Iraq as an equivalent of Vietnam, it's a byproduct of our ignorance, exacerbated by wellmeaning people who think that pandering to ignorance and isolationism for short-term political ends is the way to go. Do you remember those bumper stickers that said "El Salvador is Spanish for Vietnam"? Real funny if you think Spanish is a joke.
Speaking of which, have you heard this joke about Iraq?
Q: What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A: George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
I've also seen a bumper sticker that reads "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam".
I think you and I might agree on which causes more damage: oversimplification by the well-meaning, or oversimplification by the ill-intended.
When the subject of Pan-Islam vs Pan-Arab, I thought that the Kurds were left out purposely. Somehow I didn't see the Kurds as a party to either of those movements. Although Shi'ites, the Kurds don't seem to associate themselves with their Arab neighbors.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
and as Muslims they would be no more or less likely to be seduced by Pan-Islamism than would Arabs or anyone else. FWIW, Saladin was a Kurd. However, in the context of today, I think their ethnic nationalist agenda probably has more appeal. I just caught a documentary about Kurdistan, and they didn't seem like they wanted to be in alliance with anyone else if they could help it.
Vietnam has centuries of history behind it. Iraq has a few decades. Many Kurds are still unhappy that they didn't get a state of their own when the Ottoman Empire broke up. Should they get one? Should anyone?
The worst part of these issues (and most real issues) is that they don't lend themselves to convenient sound bites if you really want to inform. TV news has created a huge knowledge vacuum with its insistence that everything be stated in two minutes or less (and less seems to be more preferred with every passing year).
Wes is a scholar. He knows that an argument or statement is worthless without all the relevant facts and backgrounds. Too too sad that the American public seems to have an attention span of 15 seconds.
So instead of discussion we have sloganeering, and the guys who come up with the most memorable slogans get the most TV time, and are easily remembered by our ADD society (no offense to true sufferers of ADD, please).
Unfortunately, Wes is going to have to get some slogans. Maybe folks here could come up with some and offer them. They're integral to any successful campaign.
Run, Wes, Run! (Please?)
Wes said something on CSpan that enlightened me. He said that putting the timeline for withdrawal before diplomatic talks was the "cart before the horse." Example: If we want Sadr to disband his militia and we've already set our timeline, then what do we use at the table? Do we then say: "Oh well, if your going to continue using death squads then maybe we'll change our mind about that July 1st date?" Or do you go to the table and say that we need to see Sadr's Army disbanded and then we will begin withdrawal within a date certain?
I realize that my suggest has nothing to do with what might happen, but the philosophy does hold. Why give without the get? Negotiating is about the give to get, and our withdrawal movements, which Clark does support, are going to be a big part of the discussions. Or, at least they should be.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
of 1998, which illustrates the truth of your point. That is, if the British Army had set a date certain by which it intended to withdraw from Northern Ireland, what incentive would there have been for the Irish Republic to remove its claim to sovereignty in those contested six counties? Furthermore, why would any British Unionist have voted to support such an agreement?
In Iraq, there are some (albeit a minority) who have chosen to support the American occupation. The analogous thing is true of British Unionists, who are a minority of the population of Ireland.
My point is that Iraqis deserve a negotiated settlement no less than did the people of Ireland, and the conditions under which we should withdraw should be part of that settlement.
One of the last things to be done before signing the agreement to end the bombing was to secure an agreement with the Kosova rebels to disarm. As I remember the story, General Clark had to helicopter in country to make the sell himself. If Kosovo had been left with an armed militia, it would have meant a very different outcome.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
However, the opposing political groups agreed to use their influence to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons. To a very great extent, this has worked, so far. In fact, at the strong urging of Sinn Féin the IRA has destroyed all of its weapons. Meanwhile, British loyalist groups like the UDA and the UVF have greatly reduced their operations and even declared ceasefires which have been pretty effective most of the time. There is still a big political gap, and the British government continues in direct rule over six Irish counties, but the current levels of violence are tiny when compared to the peak of the conflict.
Anyway, the lesson is that the British government was unable to defeat the IRA militarily, even with the assistance of British loyalist paramilitary terrorist organizations. At the same time, the IRA could not defeat the British government. So, they all got wise and negotiated a solution - one that is still in process. A similar thing is possible in Iraq.
if we leave, there has been some scuttlebutt. The Washington Times (right-wing rag...so suspect) had an article the other day about the Saudis arming the Sunnis, but Steve Clemons wrote about it too. Also, there has been speculation that this is why the Saudis summoned Cheney. Now there is talk about this in Reuters:
Saudi will intervene in Iraq if US withdrawls-aide
WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Using money, weapons or its oil power, Saudi Arabia will intervene to prevent Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from massacring Iraqi Sunni Muslims once the United States begins pulling out of Iraq, a security adviser to the Saudi government said on Wednesday.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29311689.htm
Just FYI, if anyone hadn't seen it.
Wes has alluded to this possibility many times. I found the Clemons' piece very disturbing, although Clemons himself seemed fine with the prospect. The Saudis are under great pressure to get involved. Shi'ites are their poor minority, but that minority lives near and on the oil fields.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
I'm not asking you Donna Z, just posing hypotheticals. Iran is nearly all Shi'ite, so they might counter the Saudis militarily. Meanwhile, Pakistan might just think that it should dump its fairly recent affair with the USA and intervene in Iraq profitably, backed up by one of its longer term allies, China - who has a substantial military, but insufficient oil. And with all that nuclear muscle lurking so nearby, what would Israel do?
The thing is, we don't know what would happen. That's why we need to get the diplomacy underway.
It is Egypt that is encouraging the Saudis. I would think that the Egytians might be ready to help. Besides, it doesn't necessarily mean that the country itself become involved, just additional Sunni fighters. The money is not an object for the surrounding Sunni countries.
I hate to think of what could happen if this war goes regional.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
They already have a long history of conflict with Islamic extremists. They certainly don't need an Iraqi breeding ground with or without US troops on the ground.
I have to admit that I don't know who this "Clemens" is but I have to question his view that the Egyptians are encouraging the Saudis. I've been doing a lot of work recently bringing people, especially my students, together to establish a dialog on that level at least (no reason to wait for Bush). That's brought me into contact with people who do know what the government their is up to and encouraging Saudis just doesn't fit the pattern I'm hearing.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were five years ago?©
Greetings, and welcome to my website. During the days, I serve as Senior Fellow & Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation and, in my spare time, serve as Director of the Japan Policy Research Institute. I’ve also been encouraged by my great friend, Joshua Micah Marshall of talkingpointsmemo.com to start my own blog. So, connected here you will soon find thewashingtonnote.com, where I will more regularly comment on public policy debates that deserve attention. Until then, enjoy the articles and other items posted here.
Run Wes Run!
Thanks. It does occur to me that we're fast reaching the point where it will be easier to ask for a list of people who don't have blogs. It'll be the shorter list. :)
I agree with Clemons. The only thing new is that the Saudis are beginning to say in public what's been said in private. Aside from protecting Sunnis in Iraq they have just plain old fashioned national security interest. They certainly don't want an oil rich, pro-Iranian, state on their northern border.
Of course Clemons makes no reference to Egypt.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were five years ago?©
So next is all out regional war, from Turkey to Saudi Arabia and from Egypt to Pakistan? That is what would happen if we pulled out with no more of a plan than we had when we got in.
Maybe that's the way to frame it. Immediate withdrawal is no more of a plan than we went in with. We need to know what we're doing, whether we get out six days from now, six months from now, or six years from now. Withdrawal without a plan is no better than invasion without a plan.
Just don't forget to credit me. ;-)
I also hope that Wes, or one of his speech writers, is reading this. Can someone bring it to their attention.
OK. It is a nice summary of why we need to up the diplomacy:
"Withdrawal without a plan is no better than invasion without a plan." (Dan Juma)
Some people on D-Kos were stunned when he responded to comments. None of the other politicians on D-Kos use it for anything but a PR press release website.
Personally I don't know how he finds the time to do everything he does, but he does. I'll settle for giving him a free sound bite. AAMOF, I'd be honored if he used it. It probably needs a little editing, though. Everything does.
I've been framing it that we went in unilaterally, with no input from the region, and now you want to leave unilaterally, with no input from the region. Have we not learned that acting unilaterally in the Middle East is stupid?
And like it or not, withdrawal is an ACT.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
It's always wisest to have real allies and real backup.
And when you enter or leave the battlefield, it's always best to have reliable local partisans to cover your flank.
"Withdrawal without a plan is no better than invasion without a plan." (Dan Juma)
Unilateral withdrawal, like unilateral invasion, may be an unfortunate necessity, but it is better to have allies. This invasion wasn't a necessity but this withdrawal might become one. We have to get some allies before withdrawing. Even the administration sees that, and pushes for training an Iraqi military and police.
Hi Dan,
I'd written a long, rambling post about why so many Americans are wetting their pants at the prospect of Iran's emergence as a true regional power in the Middle East. I decided to delete it and focus on two simple questions:
- Who were our partners in the early days after the fall of Saddam's regime? The Iranian-backed Shi'a clerics who pressed for moderation and giving democracy a chance.
- Since the 1980-81 hostage crisis, what has Iran done to harm the U.S.? Nothing.
Iran -- and Shi'a Islam -- has been painted as The Great Evil by the U.S. media. But the truth is, the Shi'a aren't our enemy.
The Wahabist-Salafist Sunni see the Shi'a as an enemy, but the Wahabist-Salafist Sunni are the spiritual foundation of Al Qaeda, so we oughtn't to be taking their word for who's an enemy.
The Saudi government sees the Shi'a and Iran as an enemy, but that has more to do with the House of Saud's Faustian deal with Wahabist-Salafist Sunnism, and Saudi fear of what might happen were they to take their feet off the necks of of their own Shi'a population ... who are a 70% population majority in the oil-rich provinces of eastern Saudi Arabia, but have no political voice whatever.
The Israelis see the Shi'a and Iran as an enemy, but that is because Israel occupied the Shi'a territories in southern Lebanon and got the same response any occupying army would. During that 20-year occupation, the Israelis began pumping the water from southern Lebanon (the historical Shi'a region) into northern Israel, and they've continued that pumping since their withdrawal in 2003. The Israelis sowed southern Lebanon with extensive and unmarked minefields, the locations of which they've refused to divulge, preferring instead to let Shi'a farmers find them the hard way. And when, despite the minefields and diversion of water, the Lebanese Shi'a were able to get a productive, working farm complex going (the Sheebah Farms), the Israelis claimed that this farm was part of the Golan Heights, seized from Syria in the Six-Day War, and thus reoccupied it. (This is why Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers, whose capture led to the recent Israeli-Lebanon War.)
Oh, and the neocons hate Iran and the Shi'a because the emergence of Iran as a major regional power would undercut their hobby horse of the U.S. as the world's only superpower, having no need for regional allies unless they'll do what we tell them to do.
In short ... we're told to hate the Shi'a because the Saudis and Israelis and hate the Shi'a, whom they have been oppressing for the decades. Because Iran backs Shi'a empowerment movements throughout the Middle East, and because an emergent Iran would undercut the neocon policy of U.S. global supremacy, we're told that Iran is really at fault for every bad thing that happens.
And folks like Steve Clemons call for Saudi Arabia to intervene in Iraq to "protect the Sunni" and "curb Iranian influence." And we give currency to such nonsense because we've been programmed to hate the Shi'a and Iran.
If ever there was a case of "backing the wrong horses," this is it.
Crissie
Hi Crissie,
It's my understanding that we originally recognized Sunnis as Saddam's main power base, and hence our principle enemies in Iraq. And while Americans have indeed been programmed to hate Iran and Israel's various enemies, I don't think we've been programmed to hate the Shi'a per se. Anyway, however we parse it, Bush and company are very confused concerning the identities of our real enemies.
"Withdrawal without a plan is no better than invasion without a plan." (Dan Juma)
it's the occupation we're losing - and I could have told them that 3 years ago. (But nobody asked.) My solution, which is probably not a good one at face value, is to remember that Iraq was gerrymandered together by the British some years ago. (Don't know all the facts.) But I would venture that what comprises Iraq was made from land from bordering countries. I would just declare Iraq no longer a country and divide it up into regions governed by their neighbors with the eventual idea of it being totally absorbed by Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. It seems that the Middle East has more loyalty to religion than to state; why not recognize that "countries" aren't that important in that general area and get on with it. (Except for representation in the soccer World Cup, I don't think there's that much loyalty to "country".)
Wes 08
But is was all carved out of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI. The Kurdish parts of Iraq overflow into the Kurdish parts of Turkey and Iran. You might convince the Sunnis to join Saudi Arabia (although I doubt it, they were the group most likely to support Saddam's Ba'athist secularism) but even Shi'ite Arabs would have problems with Iran, since much of Iran's unity is more Persian than Shi'ite. Kurds want their own state (well, not all of them, but many) and a Kurdish state would be a direct threat to Turkey, our (and Israel's) best friend in the region. As for loyalties, you don't just have sectarian and ethnic ones, but local ones to villages and clans or tribes. Ba'athism tried to transcend all that, but only partly succeeded. Now it has been totally discredited by our invasion, and people are looking for a new ideology to drive the barbarian invaders out.
if these klans and tribes were part of Iraq or Jordan or wherever. At least, as part of another country, they would have some semblance of a real government in place instead of trying to create a toothless one out of clay.
Wes 08
and let's ignore the problems of international law for the moment, but mightn't you just be exporting problems to the other countries? Especially with the Kurds going into Turkey? If I were running one of those other countries I'm not sure I'd want to accept part of Iraq. It might be very destabilizing. Look at the effects Palestinian refugees have had in Lebanon, or even Jordan where they speak the same dialect of Arabic. Saudi Arabia would probably think twice about taking Iraqi Sunnis who had been largely secularized and exposed to western ideas about government, life and the relations between men and women.
Which is a good example of why you can't rely on the Internet for all your research and why blogs will never replace books for background research.
But I already digress. ;-)
There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. Don't look for good guys or bad guys here, only try to understand American interests and how our foreign policy can promote them.
Those interests are not only oil, which requires relative stability (though not necessarily democracy) in the area, but as an ideological country we have ideological interests. These include not only freedom and democracy but a secular state (ironically the underpinning of our religious society), ethnic pluralism, and arguably even federalism. It is these interests that originally made us an ally of Israel, although once upon a time and place (1956 Suez) we weren't afraid of breaking with Israel when her interests clashed with ours.
Does Israel hate Shi'ites as a policy? They didn't always and they might not in the future. Israel used to assume that its real enemy was Arab nationalism. It helped foster Islamic nationalism as an alternative. Remember, it used to be axiomatic to Zionism that anti-semitism was a Christian disease that Muslims didn't suffer from, one reason why so many European Jews emigrated to the Middle East, and one reason why so few Palestinian Christians are left in Palestine, most now being refugees in such other countries as Lebanon, Jordan or the United States, driven out by both Zionism and the rise of Islamic nationalism.
In our quest for oil and democracy there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. You ask who were our allies immediately after the overthrow of Saddam's Ba'athist regime and you answer the Iranian backed Shi'ite clerics (SCIRI etc.) We were serving their interests, so they "backed" us, but I fail to see how they, or the invasion, served our interests in any way. There is a long Shi'ite tradition of dissimulation, of hiding one's true intentions and beliefs. It is not unknown among Sunnis either.
You also ask what the Iranian regime did to us since the hostage crisis of 1400. (I use the Islamic year here because it is more significant than the AD year). Personally I have been in favor of better relations between the Iranian regime and the United States, and I had been hoping that the Japanese friendship with both could have had a good impact here, but I am under no illusions. Iran has been flooding the Muslim world with its own publications of _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, Henry Ford's _The International Jew_ and other antisemitic publications of the type that inspired Hitler. You must be aware that they are active in Holocaust denial and have even sponsored conferences of Holocaust deniers. You don't have to be Jewish (I'm not) to object to this in the most strenuous terms, any more than you have to be Fur or Masalit or even black to object to what is going on in Darfur these days. You should also keep in mind that they have been busy spreading the idea that the United States is controlled by these evil Jews. They are dangerous.
Now, rather than go into the indictment of Wahhabism, which is almost as onerous as the Shi'ite lunatic fringe that won the last elections in Iran, I would like to get back to our national interests. We most of all need to prevent a regional war which would disrupt oil supplies. We also need to develop alternative eneregy supplies so that we have more freedom of movement. Finally we need to help development of an educated populace which knows about the reality of the United States (not action movies) and which gradually becomes more tolerant. We have to get people to understand that the United States is not the enemy of any religion, and that religion flourishes in an environment of state neutrality like that of the United States better than it does in an environment of state enforcement, which only turns people from believers into hypocrites. Most of all we need to have an honest dialogue and more exchange of ideas, more people from the US and the Middle East who know about the reality of each other's societies, warts and all, and fewer of the screaming maniacs who seem to dominate the discussion on both sides.
Hi Dan,
Which is a good example of why you can't rely on the Internet for all your research and why blogs will never replace books for background research.
Shall we trade booklists? This is the kind of without-any-proof accusation that anyone can make against anyone, then forcing the accused to defend him/herself.
Crissie
and it's a comment on the medium we are using, not either of our comments.
But your response is an example of how the Internet medium leads to flame wars, unless those who use it read carefully and calmly, without reading into responses more than is meant by them. My own response went on far longer than intended, yet it is at least as oversimplified as yours. That's not a criticism of myself, just another comment on the nature of this medium, which demands short responses and has been chopping everyone's attention span into pieces.
Hi Dan,
I apologize. I misunderstood you.
And yes, I'd written a very longgggggggggggg essay on the history of the region and the (initially) British-French preference for the Sunni (for reasons of simplifying their colonial decision matrices) and etc., etc., etc. I then read through it again and thought ... "no one will read all of this," which is I guess your point. Brings to mind the Billy Joel lyric (from "The Entertainer"):
It took me years to write it/They were the best years of my life/It was a beautiful song but it ran too long/If you're gonna have a hit you gotta make it fit/So they cut it down to three-oh-five.
Alas, international relations lies at the intersection of three different fields: politics, international law, and history. We tend to focus on the politics because, well, there's no quick way to study international law or history. Both are lifelong pursuits, and tend to fall into the category of "The more I study, the more I realize how little I know."
The history of Western-Eastern, Christian-Jewish-Islam-Sunni-Shi'a-etc. relations is ... ohh ... about 1300 years of study....
Crissie
Why not take your "very longgggggggggggg essay" and turn it into a blog entry? I see you have already volunteered to write one for a series about foreign policy. People do tolerate longer blog entries than comments. I'm surpised that the discussion of this blog entry is still going on.
Hi Dan,
Iran has been flooding the Muslim world with its own publications of _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, Henry Ford's _The International Jew_ and other antisemitic publications of the type that inspired Hitler. You must be aware that they are active in Holocaust denial and have even sponsored conferences of Holocaust deniers. You don't have to be Jewish (I'm not) to object to this in the most strenuous terms, any more than you have to be Fur or Masalit or even black to object to what is going on in Darfur these days. You should also keep in mind that they have been busy spreading the idea that the United States is controlled by these evil Jews. They are dangerous.
Yes, the Iranians loathe Israel. That's a mutual loathing. That's not our problem. We need to stop behaving as if our national security rests on Israel's security. It doesn't. And if Israel wants to be less hated in the Middle East, perhaps they could begin by doing fewer hateful things.
Crissie
between Israel's opposition to the anti-Israeli and frankly anti-Semitic policies of the Iranian government and the anti-Israeli and frankly anti-Semitic policies of the Iranian government. Israel does not object to the right of Iran to exist, or to Persian nationalism as such. Neither does it blame Persians for all the ills of the world. There is simply no parallel.
I am not putting Israel's interests above those of the United States. Neither am I putting our own ideological interests above our economic interests, let alone our security interests. However, I do think we have ideological interests. One of our problems in the Middle East today is that we sponsored groups like al-Qa'ida to counter the Soviets in Afghanistan without trying to explain WHY we were engaged in a struggle with the Soviets, and what our own ideology was.
Hi Dan,
I understand where you're coming from. I come at it from a different angle.
When it comes to international relations, I try to look past ideology, because it's been my experience that ideology is largely a matter of self-justifying convenience. (Every country does this, by the way.) That is, we decide what we want and then construct and/or twist an ideology to justify it.
The ideology is then held up as a interest, as if it would exist independent of the original policy objectives. Ideology is not an interest in any real sense; it's a way to avoid discussing (or even thinking about) one's real interests.
I realize this is a minority view in the international relations community. But I've found that when I treat the ideological pronouncements as Schwadenschloße (cloud castles) and look past them for the underlying (usually very banal and selfish) motivations, the interactions of state and non-state actors come into much clearer focus for me.
Crissie
Obviously we have other interests, and I feel those should take priority, but without our Constitution we are nothing. We are not an ethnic or even linguistic group, much less a religious community (BTW, both Iran and Israel have problems deciding which of those identities takes priority for them). We are an experiment in federal liberal democracy. We take our loyalty oaths to our Constitution rather than to a monarch, and our national identity is based on that Constitution rather than on any common descent. Yes, much of the appeal to ideology, even in the US, is cant, but without our core values we have no national identity or unity. Without that ideological unity we don't exist, and can't pursue our other interests.
Hi Dan,
First, we have no "ideological unity," as the past six years has made abundantly clear. Second, our recent "ideological identity" is more a function of Cold War machination than any historical roots. We are a nation-state, and we have exactly the interests that attach to any nation-state: resources, security, some basic level of prestige and credibility, and a seat at the negotiating table. Everything beyond that is Schwadenschloße.
Crissie
I think American ideology is important, but only as it relates to us and our vision for ourselves - it has little to do with getting along with our neighbors in the real life day-to-day.
Every nation-state operates on self-interest, to achieve the things you have laid out, Cristian. Those with markedly different national ideologies still have those same interests. Therefore, to speak of a clash of ideologies as a reason why there can be no agreement is a false premise, and a red herring IMO. We end up insisting that ideology must change to suit us before we can achieve the goals of stability and security. We put the cart before the horse. Pursuing a battle of ideologies is dangerous and unproductive.
American democratic ideology can have influence, in that it can hopefully be an example that works well, and so over time it (or some modified version of it) becomes appealing to other nation-states. But our goal should not be to aggressively promote American ideology, but to promote security, cooperation, parallel economic interests, and civil discourse.
Focusing in a practically messianic manner on spreading democracy is entirely the wrong focus to achieve the goals, and has caused a great deal of the problems we see today.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support.
That was from Clemons' report.
True, they don't want Iran to rule the roost over there. I just fear that this can get ugly. There are reports (see Mahablog--->) that bush is still refusing consider talking to Syria and Iran. March of Fools! I do hope that Poppy's team can pull rank on junior.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
I posted this a few weeks ago...
COEHM
Submitted by ms in la on November 15, 2006 - 1:19am.
First thoughts on reading this--- hmmm, wonder who gets the juicy $12 billion dollar contract for the fence? Confessions of an Economic Hitman revealed the longtime hush hush arrangement between US contractors and $audi $$...
Found this in a Kuwaiti online paper:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Saudi Arabia has begun taking steps to build the longest security fence stretching 900 km along the length of the Iraq border to stop terrorists getting into our territory," he said. "The cost could extend to $12 billion, including $500 million to build the fence itself which should be finished in five or six years," he added.
The double-track barbed fence will be fitted with remote sensors and thermal cameras. The fence will have 135 gates, all monitored with ultraviolet technology to "prevent the infiltration of terrorists ... and also to halt smuggling of arms, drugs and persons into the kingdom," Prince Nayef said.
The minister declined to reveal the name or nationality of the company involved in erecting the fence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So it's a top secret company from a top secret locale.
War profiteering--- the gift that keeps on giving.
_______________________________________________________
Just thinking it might reflect some change in their overall regional thinking? Funny how many uber fences and walls are being constructed since bush took office? Good for wall building firms. Some uniter.
Clemons also appears to be very fond of Wes Clark. Remember that it was he who invited Wes to give "The REAL State of the Union Address" last January.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
hosted the Seminar where Wes delivered The REAL SOTU address earlier this year. It was an excellent event!
fwiw, I was there. You can read my first hand account here: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4183
Just thought I'd chime in that we are going to be doing an International Affairs front page Series blog soon if anyone here is especially interested in participating.... you may apply to Tom Rinaldo, Pamela Nelsons, DONNA Z, Doramphaea or myself. The committment will be less than previous Series as we are lengthening the series run time frames and thereby lessening the product per month. Meaning only about once per month you would need to prepare a piece for publication.
Back to you. : )
I keep promising to do some kind of background on Islam but never getting around to it. I have a job and a half, two hours away from each other, and a family three hours from either of them, so I don't get to post as much as I want.
One piece per month? I could probably handle that, especially from next month until Spring. Or maybe I'll just blog more myself.
We have not yet put together the next 3 month Series schedules -- most of us got busy... But we have made a decision to put much less pressure on the writing teams this time so some will only have to produce one per month or even one every 6 weeks. No pressure!
If you work with a team it's even easier as you can take one month, another teamster can take the next. We had originally talked about the possibility of DonnaZ and you on an International Team... Would love to have you participate.
I hope to patchwork together a working schedule of the original Series for the rest of Dec, Jan, Feb and early March in the next week or so and then we hope to introduce the NEW Series one by one as they are ready to go.
Think about what you might like to cover... Islam would be brilliant! I for one would seriously welcome a well informed discussion on that topic! You have support team for any graphics, images, video/ audio or media you might want to include. Very limited editorial oversight, you're pretty much on your own.
Think about it.
It was an autocomplete leftover on this computer from another comment to someone else.
I'll start an outline of something. It's got to be flexible anyway because, unlike with a book, the Internet (or at least blogging) provides for instant feedback, questions, etc. and you have to be ready to change and improvise. You can get back to me when you want to run a series.
I was feeling calmed reading your subject line! Could use that...
OK then. I'll get back to our Editorial Team in the next week and we'll try to bang out some semblance of a schedule.
Are you emailable through the site? I am if you click on my name and go to Contact.
And Thank You!!! I'm very excited about this idea.
I have kept myself anonymous for various reasons, but may gradually change my mind. It's probably sheer egoism on my part to be so paranoid, but I think it was John Mitchell, one of Richard Nixon's Attorneys General, who pointed out that even paranoids have real enemies.
contributing to, or helping with an International Series blog.
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
: )
Ever been overseas?
Lived outside the US?
Huh??
LOL
I will contact you Phoebe and if we get enough writers on that one it will surely be a low stress demand as each writer can take the time to develop their piece and then take hiatus when the others are up.
I'll email you.
I was out for about 12 hours today (Friday) so I was treated by reading all 49 posts on this subject at once. It was most enlightening, informative, and interesting. Thanks to all of you who contributed.
I've done a lot of thinking about the nature of civil war lately, as have all concerned people. I've been thinking that this is an unusual kind of civil war. As some people wrote in other threads, usually there are two sides battling for key territory, either by keeping it for those currently in power or by taking it by the rebels, isurgents, or whatever you choose to call them.
Also, normally, America has a natural ally on one side or another -- either a government more or less democratic and "of, by, and for the people" against those who would overturn democracy and reduce freedoms, or the freedom-loving rebels/insurgents against a totalitarian regime.
To echo Chris Matthews in that scary interview with Gen. Batiste, whom are we fighting? What are we fighting for?
Bush's broken record is that we won't leave Iraq "until the job is done." What is the job and what does "done" mean?
Victory? Over what or whom?
Maybe all the Sunnis in Iraq should move to Saudia Arabia to solve the problem.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
with no solid answer to the question, "Who is the enemy?" It is so egregiously unfair to put them in that situation. Give them an enemy, and they do their jobs magnificently in defeating that enemy. When the enemy is a constantly changing unclear blob of shifting political sides, they CANNOT do the job they are trained to do. That's not their fault, and it makes me both sad and angry that that's the situation we have created for them.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
there is no line of battle. The enemy could be anywhere, and effectively, is just about everywhere.
That very situation prevented the British government from winning a military victory in Northern Ireland even though they expended vast resources in the effort over 30 years, and had natural allies in the majority there. And considering that the IRA had access to far fewer and substantially inferior weapons, it's really crazy to imagine that our troops can defeat their many enemies in Iraq. They can punish them over and over, but I don't see how they can defeat them.
"Withdrawal without a plan is no better than invasion without a plan." (Dan Juma)
Hi Nick,
The history of the past couple of centuries is that armed occupation of a foreign country is a fool's errand. It's not simply a matter of identifying or even finding the enemy, although both are difficult. It's simply that, from a political perspective, even if you win, you lose. You're either saddled with yet another piece of real estate that you're now obliged to defend, further extending your limited national resources and further complicating your own foreign policy options, or you're forced to leave in what many will paint as a "humiliating defeat."
It's a case of "you can't get there from here."
Crissie
And so long as we are in that saddle (according to international law) we have a duty to protect the occupants of that real estate, and to see that they play fair with their neighbors. Too bad the Cowboy in the Whitehouse didn't think about that before saddling us up. I agree that he took us all on a fool's errand, and if he had known even a little history, he might have recognized that before it was too late.
Thanks for reminding us of W's Folly, Chrissie.
"Withdrawal without a plan is no better than invasion without a plan." (Dan Juma)
It will take months to get our people and stuff out of Iraq as it is. Moving troops out of Anbar is probably a start at redeployment. I'm not sure what they will be able to accomplish in Baghdad, but if that city can't be secured, how can the entire country be secured?