The Question They Didn't Ask and Bush's New Plan C
You don’t need me to tell you things are not going well in Iraq. The NYT surveys the state of affairs this morning, and the news is not good.
The number of roadside bombs planted in Iraqrose in July to the highest monthly total of the war, offering moreevidence that the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthendespite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Alongwith a sharp increase in sectarian attacks, the number of daily strikesagainst American and Iraqi security forces has doubled since January.The deadliest means of attack, roadside bombs, made up much of thatincrease. In July, of 2,625 explosive devices, 1,666 exploded and 959were discovered before they went off. In January, 1,454 bombs explodedor were found. [my emphasis]
The article then goes goes onto discuss two studies–an August 3 DIA study entitled "Iraq Update" and the upcoming NIE–that tell more of that same story.
But what struck me about this article is the way they seem to be measuring whether Zarqawi’s death has led to a decrease in attacks. In spite of the many reports that told us the bulk of Sunni violence came from Baathist "Dead-Enders" rather than Al Qaeda, they seem to have taken seriously the proposition that Zarqawi’s death would lead to a decrease in attacks.
So, well. No WMD, no Saddam-Osama connection. Now, no democracy either. (Admittedly a nonstarter anyway, since it was always clear that any vote would be along sectarian/communal lines.)
The logical fallback would be plain old â€realist†national interest, as in â€He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.†Alas, what Iraqi strongman would be â€our†son of a bitch?
It just keeps getting more and more preposterous. If it weren’t so horrible it would be really funny.
The WaPo seems to say much more violence in the South, both between rival Shi’ite militias and between Shi’ite militias and US/Iraqi forces. Also lots of tension between US and Iraqis. Probably a bit of everything as the situation goes from bad to worse to totally FUBAR.
I hate to say it, but there are no prospects for the U.S. imposing peace in Iraq.
I think you might be giving a little to much credit to the Bush administration with your description of Plan C. Look at those last three paragraphs: the Times has practically managed to write in the middle voice in English. There is no question of the U.S. imposing a dictator, Plan C is about figuring out how to spin an unwanted but increasingly possible collapse of the government and de-democratization of Iraq as an act of wisdom (as, even, just as act) on the U.S.’ part. Plan C might be called: â€Adapting to losing.â€
An absolute minimum condition for any hope of the U.S. salvaging anything decent for Iraq would be a huge infusion of troops and money; neither are going to be forthcoming. And even then, we face a series of catch 22s that are almost guaranteed to make things worse. Iraq is going to hell. And thanks to the madness in Lebanon, things have never looked bleaker in the world to me in my entire conscious lifetime.
Meanwhile, what are the odds that Cheney has learned the right lessons from Israel’s difficulties in the Lebanon war as he contemplates an attack on Iran?
Speaking of which, what do you think are the odds that we’re going to see a rollout of the new marketing campaign for such an attack come September?
Jeff,
You are much too optimistic (and, no, I’m not being sarcastic, I’m deadly serious). The inevitable consequence of our invasion of Iraq was the creation of Iran as a regional hegemon. I find this so blindingly obvious that I struggle with why many otherwise intelligent people can’t see it. We could have accomplished it with less bloodshed and less regional destabilization, perhaps, but make no mistake, it will happen. The only useful discussion to have now is to talk about how we will adjust to that reality and try to prevent a total conflagration in the region. So far, the administration seems determined to ignite that conflagration.
Too depressing for words. Both Jeff and William make good points (and represent a discourse sadly missing from blogs – intelligent commentary).
About the only small comfort I offer myself is that this is all still marginally better than when the Soviets and the West were a hair-trigger away from total nuclear conflagaration that would have destroyed the planet. At least now, the worst case scenario is â€only†downtown Tel Aviv or London or NY or Moscow being obliterated in a tactical nuclear strike. Well, that’s comforting.
Too depressing for words. Both Jeff and William make good points (and represent a discourse sadly missing from blogs – intelligent commentary).
About the only small comfort I offer myself is that this is all still marginally better than when the Soviets and the West were a hair-trigger away from total nuclear conflagaration that would have destroyed the planet. At least now, the worst case scenario is â€only†downtown Tel Aviv or London or NY or Moscow being obliterated in a tactical nuclear strike. Well, that’s comforting.
William
That’s part of the reason I disagree with Jeff, at least as to BushCo’s intent. One of the reasons they refuse to embrace a three-state solution, I think, is because it basically gives the Shiites the southern oil fields. They would have less control over that oil than they did under Saddam, a lot less, and it makes Iran strong. But doing nothing will just result in an Iranian rump state, with dire consequences for the Sunnis and Kurds (the Kurds, it seems to me, are losers in all these scenarios). I really do wonder if they’re considering throwing their lot in with some Sunni strongman. There’s not a Shiite, after all, who is trustworthy enough (everyone, like Maliki, will take the side of Hezbollah, for example). So I honestly think they might adopt the strongman solution, if only to try to deprive Iran of the influence.
But then, I guess I’m not disagreeing with Jeff. Because like him, I don’t think it’ll work.
Mimikatz,
Thanks, that was my sense. Zarqawi is the past threat. If they’re not measuring the rise in violence among Shiites, they’re not adequately surveilling our supply lines, which could have dire consequences.
There is always the variation on plan C (as long as they don’t wait too long) where the old strongman (a much chastened and more responsible fellow, to be sure) is put back in charge. Perhaps Rummy’s team is drafting a deal as we speak. The narrative almost writes itself…restoration of a secular society in the Middle East, counterpoint to growing Iranian aggression, a couple of years in the slammer plus two dead kids to show the old man who the real bosses are (so no more Stalinesque terror being tossed around by the New Baathists), and on and on… All things are possible when you create your own reality.
William
I’m not such a believer in such inevitabilities, but regardless, what you say doesn’t really make what I’m saying overly optimistic – Iranian regional hegemony is presumably consistent with a still-decent outcome for Iraq. Doesn’t mean I think it’s going to happen. But I will also point out that what you and
emptywheel
say feeds right into a justification for attacking Iran. (Also, emptywheel, I’m also not fully disagreeing with you in the sense that the U.S. might well look for a strongman of our choice; my point is only that that will be in response to circumstances – collapse of the current government and thus of any democracy project in Iraq – beyond the U.S.’ control. I am more skeptical of the idea that the U.S. would adopt a strongman in the absence of a collapse of the government.)
Sometimes I wish I were a conspiracy theorist. Then all I’d have to figure out is why US policy since 9/11 has been so consistantly devoted to building up Iran.
[tinfoil hat]
But come to think of it, there’s even a screwily plausible explanation. Assume for a moment that the core threat is Sunni fundamentalist extremism, as embodied by Osama et al. Those guys also hate the Shia as heretics – thus even worse than mere infidels, if 16th c. Europe and contemporary Iraq are anything to go by. So what more logical reposte than to build up Shia Iran as a counterforce?
[/tinfoil hat]
The biggest hitch in the above is that while it is demented, it is demented in a sophisticated way – you need to know some history to come up with this kind of crackpottery. Which pretty well rules it out as a basis for Bush policy …
If the â€strongman†scenario is at work, the planners must be talking to key members of Iraq’s military right now. If not, they’re waaay behind the curve IMO.
I see our troops over there in ever-growing danger. It may come to hair-raising evacuations by air. Wouldn’t that make a pretty picture?
Everything that Bushco may do is just plain too late. He should declare victory (you know, like Israel in the 33-day debacle?) and get them out now, with dignity.
I say we get out and let the chips fall where they may. I don’t think that any solution engineered by our ’leadership’ can be expected to yield any better outcome. Bush, Cheney, Cabal, and Co. need to be lined up and given a short drop and a quick stop.
I say we get out and let the chips fall where they may. I don’t think that any solution engineered by our ’leadership’ can be expected to yield any better outcome. Bush, Cheney, Cabal, and Co. need to be lined up and given a short drop and a quick stop.
You really have to start to believe that in addition to being evil, these guys are in fact, really stupid, as stupid as their boss. Domestically, I don’t think the Rethugs are all that dumb, except in the measure that they mistakenly thought they could get away with everything prior to dismantling the Department of Justice and the Court system. But the gang handling foreign affairs seems to be about as competent as Homeland Security. It boggles the mind. I think they really do believe the crap they were spinning about Iraq.
In a way it makes sense. The idea that the US could simply mount an armed takeover of the Middle East oil fields was ridiculous on the face of it. Anyone who could buy into that bit of idiocy would no doubt buy into just about anything.
On the strongman solution. I don’t see how it could work in the present context. There is no Shi’a strongman who can survive without Sistani’s assent, and he is not going to give it unless the strongman pretty much adopts the Sistani line. Much the same can be said of El-Sadr, who has divisions to back him up. The plausible candidates on the Shi’a side are all anti-American. If we go to the Sunni’s, the problem then becomese how to deal with the Shi’a who control America’s supply line to Kuwait.
I don’t see how it can work as an American project. I think it is just barely conceivable that it might work as an Iranian project, complete with a reasonable deal for the Sunni’s in return for continued help in getting and keeping the Americans out. It’s hard to see that happening, though, given the blood that’s been spilled.
Shorter version: an American attempt to install a strongman is to dream in technicolor. We tried it Vietnam, to draw an historical analogy.
Sometimes I wish I were a conspiracy theorist. Then all I’d have to figure out is why US policy since 9/11 has been so consistantly devoted to building up Iran.
[tinfoil hat]
But come to think of it, there’s even a screwily plausible explanation. Assume for a moment that the core threat is Sunni fundamentalist extremism, as embodied by Osama et al. Those guys also hate the Shia as heretics – thus even worse than mere infidels, if 16th c. Europe and contemporary Iraq are anything to go by. So what more logical reposte than to build up Shia Iran as a counterforce?
[/tinfoil hat]
The biggest hitch in the above is that while it is demented, it is demented in a sophisticated way – you need to know some history to come up with this kind of crackpottery. Which pretty well rules it out as a basis for Bush policy …
knut
I agree with your assessment on the feasibility of a strongman. But I can also imagine them picking a Sunni, as a last desperate attempt to keep Iraq from Iran.
And I keep thinking about the Kurds. Sure, the Sunnis dominated Saddam’s army. But the Kurdish and Shiite militias both now have strengths the Baath army probably can’t resuscitate.
And if we go strong arm, it virtually guarantees that we sell out the Kurds, who have a working (kinda) democracy and thrust them back into oppression.
Bush should have just sent Rumsfelf over to give Saddam more satellite photos and chemical weapons technology again. It would have saved everyone from so much trouble.
I wonder how easy it will be to “sell out the Kurds’’ at this point, other than to permit the Turkish army to cross the border into northern iraq and fight the peshmurga? And even then, would the Turks have much better luck that the IDF fighting Hezbollah?
Here’s GWB’s view of it–it’s just that certain parts of the planet are breeders of â€suiciders†and are just, well, depressed:
â€You know, when you have resentment and anger, that breeds hatred; that breeds recruiting grounds for people to become a suicider. Imagine the mentality of somebody willing to kill for an ideology that just doesn’t — is not hopeful, and yet I believe a lot of it has to do with the fact that parts of the world breed resentment.â€
Consider the utter disconnect from any causes for this resentment and anger. It’s just parts of the world rather than policies, such as the â€bliss consumerism†you so brilliantly described a few posts back.
â€Plan Câ€
So. What was once considered just a bad joke about Iraq may will come to pass: The US will apologize, and just hand Iraq back over to Saddam (or someone who is just like him).
And the US Right-wing will fall all over themselves calling this a â€victoryâ€.
Emptywheel, would you consider doing a reminder post on al qaqaa? Talking about all these roadside bombs and yet no one is talking about where the insurgents or terrorists got the explosives. Bush put those explosives out there when he wouldn’t allow the UN or enough coalition troops in to secure them.
There are simply too many blunders and too much corruption by this administration and their enablers to remember them all, this amnesia works to republicans’ advantage. We have to remember!
We should bring Saddam back and apologise to the man.
After all, he had no WMD’s, he killed no Americans, he had no ties to AL-Quaida, he was stoping Iran from becoming a nuclear power and dominating the region, he was our favorite bad guy,he did not ask us for a penny, and he kept CNN news ratings up.
Now with him gone what do we have?
Bush sounding like a broken record…. keep the course, keep the course, we will not cut and run, we will not cut and run…. You are getting sleepier, and sleepier. This is terrible for News ratings!!
Rummy with a perenial hart burn and upset
stomach reflected in a face with an engraved now trade mark â€I need to go bad†look in his face. Some one please retire this senile Dinosaur before he starts confusing Bush with Laura.
Cheney shooting at lawyers, and going of the deep end with constant wild remarks about how the terrorists are in their last breath, and how we are stoping terrorism while hiding in an undisclosed location. Can any one check this guy’s Oxygen level PLEASE. I bet half his brain is turn to gelly.
Rush and the right Wingers rabing mad at Democrats for spoiling their little war. Just stop complaining and put the money people!!Can’t you see we are trying to win a war here. That this war was suposed to last only a few months, and be paid by Iraq’s oil? We were a little bit off OK. What’s 8 to 10 years, a few trillion dollars, thousand of people killed, and the world’s old supply at risk? DO YOU WANT TO CUT AND RUN ? WELL DO YOU PUNK?.
We started this mess and by god we will finish it wherever the hell that means. No Democrat pussy will stop from accomplishing victory, destroying terrorism, killing every fag, starting wars with Iran, Syria, Korea, China, and Burundia.
The Mad Mullas in Iraq and Iran having a field day and dancing Samba in the grave yards of American soldiers.
Osama sending Bush the Man of the Year in Terror award and a personal thank you note for helping him reach his terrorist recruting goals in half the time.
Frankly the only one that I see improving in this mess is Condi Rice. She is looking hot these days. Her designer dresses, trim figure, and $800.00 hair cut makes her look like she is auditioning for a part at a modeling job in Paris. Now if she would only start acting like a Secretary of State. I see this look in her eyes now and then that screams â€Look MA !! LOOK WHERE I AM, CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!!! I HAVE MY OWN PLANE AND ALL WHOAAA!! LOOK NO HANDS!!
Please bring back Saddam and call it a day. Oh, and next time people please, PLEASE do not elect, and yes you did it!! RE-ELECT a man that calls the Greeks the â€Greaseians†and tell people that god talks to him….. You will be better off electing one of the Blues Brothers.