Wow.  Interesting citation / situation. 

Is PNAC now looking to TPMCafe for guidance?

As a nemesis of this site my ask, "Ivo, What say you?"

__________________________________________________________________ 

“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Wow! That's a great strategy, Ivo. We should never consider the issue of how to succeed. Frolicking through the many flavors of failure is a much wonkier endeavor for high minded elites like us.

Sheesh!

You choose to legitimize ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and then years later found you wringing your hands that the Balkans was still a basket case. Now, Here in Iraq, you supported regime change in the 90s, you supported the invasion, and here you argue that we should legitimize ethnic cleansing in Iraq and partition so that you and Joe Biden can deny Bush any political points if a success creeps up on the Democrats.

Your idea of using diplomacy on them is great too. That should work great when you walk in and tell them your negotiating strength is backed up by a threat of force that we will initiate and then decapitate. How will they be able to contain their laughter at us?

Right, Success is an issue that we definitely want to shove to the bottom of the pile. Success would be a real disaster...for someone, I wonder who?

I am squinting my eyes and turning sideways reading what you are saying and thinking, what can he possibly be thinking?

The statement on the war by Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid was welcome. It will be spun negatively by those who disagree, but it was strong, succinct, and well-supported by public sentiment. Perhaps the next step is for Democratic leadership to publicly outline a positive diplomatic strategy for working our way through the regional difficulties the Bush invasion has caused.

It will require talking to foes as well as friends in the region, and a return to a pragmatic approach to foreign affairs. I understand that Congress cannot impose reason in foreign policy, and that Bush may be incapable of delivering it, but Democrats can (a) exert a short-term and long-term positive influence on public opinion in this area and (b) begin to build a constituency for improving our approach to the rest of the world.

I didn't say we should "leave and then come back."

Biden probably has the situation sized up pretty well with respect to Bush, Cheney et al. Leaving aside, for now, whether Bush should have invaded Iraq, it is clear that he is not now and never has been willing to level with the country and ask for support to do what is necessary to win.

We are not getting out of Iraq easy. It will be a punishing experience. Our best hope is to help forge regional security arrangements that are in the interests of Iraq's neighbors, including those we do not like, so that the civil war in Iraq does not result in a regional conflagration. If we don't get that right, we are probably looking at some unavoidable and serious national sacrifice, like higher taxes and reinstating the draft, to field a military force capable of helping to put out the fire.

That's my point.

I haven't come across that argument, but I think it would take some explaining.

... the sooner we are gone...

I'm afraid some of your points elude me. When planners first consider a military action, they need to consider the consequences both of various alternatives of success and failure. In his book Every War Must End, Fred Ikle, an academic with excellent Republican credentials, reviews the disasters that affected nations that started wars without clear end goals, or let mission creep slip in during operations. For that matter, I am reminded of that notable pacifist, Robert E. Lee, commenting "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we become of it." Lee, however, knew both sides of the Terrible Swift Sword.

Diplomacy is one component of national-level grand strategy, which certainly contains military options but is not limited to them. Economic operations, for example, can prevent a nation from being able to fight without acutally beginning warfare.

What modern analysts call deterrence theory -- diplomacy and psychological operations backed by the potential of military force -- easily goes back to Sun Tzu. The "fleet in being" was a key concept in the strategic insights of Alfred Thayer Mahan.

So how do I squint to figure out what you are thinking, which seems to suggest that military victory is the only way to settle conflict?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Old Arab proverb: "Examine what is said, not him who speaks."

Arthur, can we talk about an end game, then? Given the current situation, and setting aside for another discussion how we got here, what goals should we set for ourselves? If we do our best, what can we realistically hope Iraq will look like when the fighting and dying of Americans is over?

• An orderly, democratic society in Iraq within 5-10 years, America's security and economic partner in the region, host to military bases that allow us to project American power throughout the Middle East.
• An authoritarian but benign regime in Iraq, partnering with America as above but not democratic. Maybe in the same time frame.
• A Shiite-dominated state trending toward theocracy but willing to accept America as a security and business partner, with or without hosting significant American military bases.
• A hostile Shiite theocracy.
• A partitioned Iraq, with only the Kurds willing to partner with America and host bases.


The list is intended to be suggestive, not exhaustive. At the very least I've left out the most dire alternatives.

What end state is both possible and desirable?

No, you're not examining what is said. You've hung him by making a connection that may or may not exist (Muravchik, et al.). His words are rendered impotent through your association, and thus are irrelevant within your argument. So it's impossible - indeed, a waste of your time - for you to have examined what is said.

Red, You are one of the first I have seen here, to lay out some of the possible outcomes of current decision making. Add to your list of "5 year plans" the "total chaos"/Beirut possibility.

Excellent post, Arthur. Let me add one observation, and, if I may, refer to a story that has served me well, and of which your analysis reminds me. I'm downloading the reference; thank you for it.

I will throw out an observation that I hope can be checked by people with greater knowledge in the relevant parts of cultural anthropology. Some societies, such as tribes of the US Northwest coast, historically have some form of potlatch: status accrues to the one who gives the most. Certainly, there is some of this in Arab tribal situations; I'm thinking especially of the House of Saud and the Bedu, but not at all exclusively.

There are various restrictions on middle eastern countries, imposed by the US, that may have more symbolic meaning in US domestic politics than to the supposedly restricted country. Recognizing Iran is not Arab but that the Persian customs do have a flavor of potlatch, I wonder what the effect might be of an American president saying "for reasons of the past, the United States has blocked some of your funds/access to technology/etc. In the perspective of history, these are small issues that should not interfere with the talking of great nations.

"Unquestionably, there will be individual issues on which our countries totally disagree. Let us, however, get as much symbolism as possible out of the way, treat one another respect, and find even small things where we can cooperate. Great nations cannot reform one another with a single blow, but every journey must begin with a single step."

Putting someone on an "Axis of Evil" accomplishes nothing except pandering to a political base, nor does communication containing nothing but "Death to America". Or, as Mr. Spock quoted an ancient Vulcan proverb, "It takes a Nixon to go to China."

Have you read the story "Space Jockey", by Robert A. Heinlein? While its technology is dated, it is remains an excellent exploration of many aspects of the human mind.

In one part of the story, a totally unqualified individual fires the main rockets. The pilot is knocked unconscious, and time elapses before the rockets can be shut down. What is then obvious is that the spacecraft is in a very bad ballistic path without fuel to get to its destination. Eventually, the pilot calls the expert astrogators.

The astrogators agree he does not have the fuel, in his current trajectory, to blast back to where the accident occurred and start over. They point out that he has a chance, if a slim one, to start over as a new navigational problem: decide where he is and how fast he is going in what direction, and select a new course that will get him from his current position to the destination. That latter alternative will need perfect piloting, correct measurement of remaining fuel, and a great deal of luck.

Is there a Space Jockey parallel here, I wonder?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

My expectation of the outcome is not a state but an ongoing process which includes a modernizing and democratizing Iraq as part of a wider transformation of the whole region in the same direction.

It is a vision I think most Americans would support if they thought it was realistic and could be achieved at a reasonable cost. The gap between expectation and where we find ourselves is what we are all trying to deal with here.

If the outcome is a process, today our military is bogged down in a process that appears to be leading us away from the goal, sustaining mounting casualties and not seeming to be able to quiet a growing civil war.

The costs of the war are direct and indirect. Among the direct costs, treasure is pouring into Iraq and blood is pouring out.

The opportunity costs are enormous. Here at home attention and funding are diverted from global warming, energy conservation and development, education, health care and other issues vital to us. Globally, Afghanistan suffers, the pursuit of Al Qaeda is abandoned, we lose credibility and influence with friends and foes alike, oil supplies are threatened and the rising cost of oil pours hundreds of billions into the very states that oppose us.

The thing is unraveling before our eyes. The cost of a military solution would likely be order-of-magnitude increases in blood and treasure.

It is fair, necessary even, to ask whether the benefits that can reasonably be expected to flow from our military efforts are worth the costs, and to contemplate alternatives. If we have lost this round, and it looks like we have, that does not mean our engagement with the Middle East is over. It does mean we must radically reassess our approach.

In this case, I think it means we have to rebuild the credibility of our diplomatic efforts, at the UN, in Europe and in the region. No, I don't think that will be easy, just more productive than trying to win the thing with rockets and guns.

(P.S. -- I could have saved myself the writing of this and just seconded Howard's reference to "Space Jockey." But since it is written I will post it.)

Heinlein was a fine ethical guide for many situations. I've just read Variable Star, the semi-posthumous novel that Spider Robinson was chartered to write from newly discovered notes by Robert Heinlein. Heinlein and Robinson were friends, and indeed Robinson considered Heinlein his mentor.

While Spider is an outstanding writer on his own, I was a little disappointed -- the authorial voice is much more Spider than Robert. The book is still worth reading; there are images and ethical choices that I can hear in Heinlein's voice.

To digress even farther, for those who have read Stardance by Spider and his dancer/choreographer wife Jeanne, there are some new developments where fiction meets reality. Jeanne has authorized the making of a Stardance movie, believing that computer graphics are now up to her vision. I contributed to the Stardance Foundation, and corresponded a bit.

I had not known that Jeanne Robinson was short-listed, not far after Christa McAuliffe, for the "citizen in space" program with the Space Shuttle, shut down after the disaster. Would Jeanne have actually tried the Stardance, or at least done the research for it? We will never know.

For those who have not read Stardance (the first book of a worthwhile trilogy), get it.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

With Robinson, while the books stand well on their own, he does have several series that make sense to read in order. There's Stardance-Starseeder-Starmind. Lady Slings the Booze is a later, almost backstory, in the series that starts with Callaghan's Crosstime Saloon.

Another series, which occasionally overlaps with the Callaghans, either starts with a fantastic short-story-to-novella, "God is an Iron". That story expands into a chapter of the book Mindkiller, and Time Pressure is another in the same universe. Baen Books confused things a bit by publishing Mindkiller and Time Pressure in a book called Deathkiller, but then went on to create a trilogy volume called Lifehouse.

Mindkiller manages to convey both the most utopian and most dystopian of futures, depending on how some brain function research is realized. He sometimes fuzzes the neurophysiology, but it's accurate enough that I can suspend disbelief.

I hope I've now read everything by Heinlein, including the pseudonymous works, thanks to the USENET alt.fan.heinlein newsgroup. Spider Robinson does drop into alt.fan.callahans, although the callahans newsgroup has more of a learning curve about its customs -- they just won't make sense unless you've read several of the books. AFH is usually more relaxed. As soon as my other computer gets here, probably next week, I'll get back to a few newsgroups.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

If my understanding of Bush's actual plan is correct (see Gerecht links above) there isn't the slightest chance laying it out would have resulted in Congressional authorization in 2002.

Although support for the official war aims has collapsed (eg nobody believes its about WMDs, or a pro-American regime) and therefore total support for the war is now a minority, that minority now includes far larger numbers who support what I believe are the actual war aims than existed four years ago. Right now the US actually is allied with a freely elected government based on islamist parties in Iraq. Practically nobody supported that before the invasion although it was the inevitable result of any success in holding free elections (as was pointed out by "realist" opponents).

PS On the Heinlein digression, you and Howard might be interested in Red Star which would have been "Red Planet" since it is set on Mars but was written by Bolshevik author Bogdanov in 1908. See also critique by Ilyenkov.

Despite being written in 1908 it has nuclear weapons, anti-matter, and other remarkably modern elements.

You make some reasonable points about reconciliation with Iran, although I wonder if a counter-letter to the "noble Iranian people" might have any useful effect on bazaaris, students, etc. Nothing major, I agree, other than perhaps neutralizing or minimizing a perceived propaganda advantage.

Let me turn to another country, about which I find several very confusing things: Syria. While the official line is that while Syria is not part of the "Axis of Evil", it remains a bad guy vis-a-vis Lebanon and perhaps Iraq. At the same time, there are continuing reports that Syria is one of the destinations for US rendition. If both of these are true, the intricacies might stun Machiavelli, although I suspect that the mind of the Sudanese, Hassan al-Turabi, might have enough twisty little passages in all directions to cope.

What should the US policy be toward Syria? Are there any short-term opportunities? I have no idea.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

PS Forgot to mention that Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars was partly inspired by "Red Star" and one of the characters pays tribute to this by being a descendent of Bogdanov

Cross posting.  I am so impressed by an editorial in a Scottish newspaper I am linking to a comment I included in the Clemon's thread on the surge.

Here's a proposal - start holding these talking heads, pundits, publicity hounds and "expert" with their PhDs for sale accountable. You know, the same people who work at various "think tanks" that by and large are just spin-machines, fronts and PR companies whose function is to dress up various agendas with academic respectability - and who all failed us in the lead up to the Iraq war because they were either complicit in selling on the Big Lie, or were too incompetent/busy kissing up to challenge the Big Lie - and yet somehow never seem to slink away when proven wrong. Oh no, they're back spouting more of their "opinions" and we're all supposed to take them serious because they're the "experts" dontcha-know...

If they had REAL jobs, they would have been fired after screwing up so badly, but apparently not if you're an "international affairs expert" - you get to keep opining.

How's that for a start?

The Wash Post and NY Times at least sort of begrudingly admitted that they screwed up when they helped sell us on the "WMD in Iraq" lie and yet I have still not seen a single one of these "think tanks" nor "experts" engage in any self-analysis or reflection on how badly they screwed up, and steps to be taken to avoid becoming Bush administration mouthpieces again. Nope, why do that when you can just merrily go on spouting your "expert" views some more, and hte little mice will follow whilst entracned with your "expertise"?

A stockbroker is held accountable when his stock picks tank - why not the same for these people?

Let me first of all state that I have very much sympathy for your frustration with having been let down by virtually all of the national elites.

But let us also face reality.

America is going to have a government after year 2008. Not unlikely, people from Ivo's circles, if not Ivo personally, will be recruited to influential positions in that government.

Would there exist any real living person who has not been working for a think thank but still is sufficiently qualified and sufficiently connected to come in question for such jobs?

My personal favorite for top advisory positions on matters of foreign policy would be people like Ivan Eland and Julia Sweig, but they wouldn't pass your test either.

It may be of much greater value to ponder the system processes that lead to this result, than to take out your frustration on people who actually, at least to a limited degree, pursue a dialogue with us.

Further: Holding these people accountable, in the meaning asking all of them to find new and less fancy jobs (as if their wages were paid by us and we really had that power), would not really help us out from the fog of war that we have ended up in, would it?

And, regarding how people with Real Jobs are treated, I do not really share your experience. Once people's expertice, or status, has reached a certain undefined level, you do not get fired, you get replaced to a position where you are expected to contribute more (and damage less). This is, according to my experience, true already for quite ordinary people like physicians and engineers and journalists.

By questioning authority this way, authority will question why it has to stand that kind of unpleasant encounters.
What have you achieved then?

and with what will you replace it?
...and HOW shall you accomplish that?

There are plenty in this text that is questionable, and plenty that in my view indicates at least a fair ammount of thinking.

Your view on Iraq as a democratic country, for instance, isn't shared by me or anyone I know personally. You hinting at Muslim and/or Arab countries having equal chance to get "pro-American" governments as Western Europe is to me an indication either of insanity or a totally outlandish definition of "pro-American". If you feel my words to be harsh and insulting, I am sorry, it's not my intention to get personal, just to indicate my alienation from some of your lines of thought.

On the other hand, you state that it is neither necessary nor possible to have pro-American governments in order to end the threat to US interests posed by breeding jihadis in the stagnant swamps of the autocracies. This is for sure true, although one may get the impression that you underestimate the importance of other factors contributing to jihad and to the United States being targeted.

Ahmadnijad's letters are quite sophisticated and appeal to memes that are popular here. They certainly ought to be replied to but I don't think the Bush administration can do it unfortunately.

Renditions and other collaboration not only with Syria but also with "moderate Arab allies" undermines the thrust of democratic revolution.

My impression is Israel is pushing for a deal with Syria to help isolate Hamas and Hezbollah but this is being rejected partly because the US isn't really all that interested in undermining Hamas and Hezbollah and partly because it would encourage Syrian interference in Lebanon while the US now supports Lebanese independence and democracy.

I expect the current Lebanese crisis will be resolved by Hezbollah gaining representation much closer to its actual strength in the Lebanese Government and agreeing to the UN Hariri trial that is undermining the Syrian regime.

The Syrian regime appears to be really on its last legs - already confronted with a united front ranging from the Muslim Brotherhood to ex-Baathists and Communist Party. It should not be thrown a lifeline.

Unlike Iran the US might actually have better channels to Syria than the Iraqi government but I don't see that their role in Iraq is of any great importance. They are likely to be cooperative already in not wanting ethnic cleansing that would drive more Sunnis from Iraq to Syria rather than stirring things up. They are already stuck with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi emigres.

Arthur, this is a response to several of your comments.

I hope you will forgive my bringing up military bases and pro-American regimes earlier. To be clear, I was not promoting the ideas, just trying to include end-game scenarios that have been proposed elsewhere, and it is widely reported that we are building such bases and attempting to create such regimes. Projecting power in the region seems to me to be exactly what we are doing in Iraq, with 150,000 troops and escalation on the way, so, whether you or I approve it, it is on the table for discussion.

From your comments, I have drawn the following:

• Positive change in the Middle East will be accomplished, in significant part, through the use of American military might.
• Iraq is now a democracy, admittedly fragile, which will serve to catalyze regime change throughout the region, leading to increasing liberalization and democratization of governments.
• These new governments will be distrustful of the U.S., and maybe even hostile, but that's okay. Liberalization will be sufficiently in our interest as it will improve living conditions and damp the impulse to Jihad.
• It is not necessary or desirable for the U.S. to keep military bases in the Middle East.
• Diplomatic initiatives aimed at finding common ground with Iran and Syria would not be helpful, even in the unlikely event they were successful.
• Our government will not be able to gain popular or even Congressional support for what must be done in the Middle East, but it we must, nevertheless, do it.


Is that a fair summary of at least some of the key points you've made here?

I have been familiar with Gerecht's work for quite long, thank you, and taking apart a book by someone who misrepresents himself is not an "ad hominem"

I also don't need your permission to discuss things further, nor have I bothered to debunk most of the nonsense in your long and winding post which, like I said, contains oh so many errors, among them the suggestion that the US is actually secretly fighting authoritarian gov'ts to be replaced by democracies, that repressive "islamists" in the mideast will be replaced by "pro-American" governments. In fact, it is not - quite the contrary, the more repressive and islamist the country, the more likely it is currently to be a US ally and will be for the forseeable future, and this idea that we should give the Bush administratin a pass because heck they're secretly doing good but just lying to us ("dissemble"=pretty word for "lie") for noble reasons is nonsense.

And there's no indication of any change on that front. Hell the US was even flirting with the Taliban while Iran was fighting them and ironically it is Iran that has shown itself to have the most democratic credentials among our allies in the Mideast - and we're talking of nuking them.

Does that mean you hope to abolish your government without replacement?

I am seriously asking what you aim at, and "questioning" is not the first word I come to think of to lable your treatment of Daalder. If you wanted a dialogue you would have done quite differently.
- And I do feel rather real, to be honest.
Good day!

I think you should also consider the issue of how democracy functions in situations of radical ethnic or sectarian cleavage. African democracies tend to last one or two terms before being ripped apart by tribal resentment over the perks and patronage claimed by the most recent ethnic group to win control of a government. The demands of kinship and tribal networks make it almost impossible for elected leaders to resist pressure to hand out favors to their associates. Meanwhile, the intense competition for such government-apportioned resources makes any vote for a party other than one's own dedicated ethnic party tantamount to treason against one's own group. "Democracy" devolves into tribal head-count and institutionalized corruption, frequently collapsing into military dictatorship. In some ways democracy actually exacerbates and reinforces the process of tribal cleavage: there are no rewards for impartiality, and solid rewards for swearing fealty to one ethnic subgroup with strong representation and hence patronage to be awarded. Nigeria is a very good analogy to Iraq in this regard.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

Good points. One of the troubles of this sort of analysis, I suspect, is that when people are saying "democracy", they may or may not be referring to the process of selecting the government. They might be referring to the services associated with "social democracy", which can, in turn, get merrily mixed up with capitalism, socialism, and monarchy.

A state may have a relative lack of freedom in selecting the government, but have high individual liberties and social services. While we tend not to have monarchies in industrialized societies, they certainly can exist in more tribal ones.

Even "freedom" can be a lesser goal than in a Western society, if the society in question is of Confucianist or other structured culture.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Red Planet, I've spent more than a few nights moored in Bahia Mar and offered more than a few silent toasts to the Busted Flush in slip F-18. For a different kind of South Florida read, try Carl Hiassen, too.

He [Bush] has perfected the alchemical process of turning milestones into headstones and millstones. Ges's Blog 12/31/06

The invasion seems to have been pretty inevitable for something like a year in advance. That year of charades may have accomplish nothing that saved any lifes or minimized any sufferings, but plenty of damage with respect to domestic and international actors and their legitimacy.

Admittedly, a little escalation, in the range 20-25%, is a much smaller issue than the initial invasion, but it's tempting to believe that the matter will work out the same way this time again.

In the end, maybe the American Constitution is the real loss?

The illegal war was inevitable only because of the cowards in Congress.  The last election was all about giving Congress spine.  I fear it hasn't been enough. 

That was me, too.

My main question to you, regarding these interesting exchanges, Arthur is with the Assad regime on it's last legs in Syria would what replaces it necessarily be better in terms of US regional interests?  Is it better to stay with the devil you know than the one you don't?  Not that an Assad regime is a good thing but would it really be a political step forward for the region if the Muslim Brotherhood or ex-Baathists take control in Damascus? 

No, Bush's surge strategy will not work for the simple reason it does not address the underlying social issues that are the cause of the violence. American soldiers may not be beloved in Iraq, but they are not the reason there is violence (but America did open up this Pandora's Box by starting a war that the White House never fully thought out). If the US pulls out tomorrow the violence in Iraq will worsen, not get better. Sending more troops is not the answer, but neither is pulling immediately out.

While I have never been a supporter of President Bush and have always found this war very ill-conceived, I think I take more issue nowadays with Democrats than Republicans (FYI: am a registered Democrat). Democratic Senators and House members allowed the President to invade Iraq. They have since abdicated all responsibility for their role in this debacle. John Edwards is the worst of them all. It is irresponsible to authorize a poorly planned and justified invasion, rip a country to shreds and then say, 'I'm sorry and I made a mistake' and 'well heck, this is such a mess, our boys are dying, we need to come home now." I find the Democrats behavior almost reprehensible. It is easy to complain and advocate immediate pull out, it is much more difficult to accept responsibility for you actions and try and fix the problem. 20,000 new troops are not the answer, but neither is pulling out - the Democrats should show some actual leadership on the issue.