Divide (Iraq) and Conquer? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I have been muttering darkly for a while that the American public and at least some of the Establishment wants to be "done" with Iraq, that there is no realistic likelihood of more money for reconstruction, and every likelihhod of fewer troops for security, whatever the Administration says.  I have been frustrated with efforts like the Brookings/Ken Pollack plan that pre-suppose significant new commitments of money and continuing commitment of troops.  I saw Ken present his plan with sobering eloquence to a roomful of progressive candidates last month -- and I watched most of them reject it immediately. 

I have been heard to mutter that I'd like to see a roomful of Iraq experts told they have two years to work with, max, and invited to produce a plan based on that timeframe.

Well, my mother always told me to be careful what you wish for.  In a New York Times op-ed, Senator Joe Biden and former Council on Foreign Relations President Les Gelb do just that.  And what they come up with is a rehash of Gelb's confederation idea, cloaked in a lot of Bosnia rhetoric.

I wish I thought this would work.  And I respect Biden for trying.

Trouble is, they acknowledge that, as in Bosnia, we'd need troop protection in mixed areas.  In Bosnia, three years after the Dayton Accords, NATO had 36,000 troops for a population of 4.5 million; the equivalent number in Iraq, whose population is six times Bosnia's, would be 216,000. Just to remind you, we are currently at 132,000 and, if you believe the US military, going on down.

If I'm not mistaken, Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk pose a significantly larger challenge than Sarajevo. Biden and Gelb propose to have all but a "small but effective residual force" out by 2008.

And he and Gelb want more money for reconstruction.  If Biden could tell me how he proposes to get that through Congress, I'd feel better about it.

t

Comments

[J Thomas]

We might get more money for reconstruction if we impeach Bush and Cheney first. The theory is that with somebody marginally honest at the top some of the reconstruction money might actually go to reconstruction.

[Jeff Younger]

Heather, at least liberals are finally attempting to formulate policy alternatives, which alternatives are far more helpful than hysterical calls for impeachment.

Biden and other liberals confront the difficult reality of policy: the status quo may be bad, but still the best. That is, the current policy may have tough consequences, but all others have worse consequences. This has been my point in almost every post at Democracy Arsenal: liberals cannot and will not be take seriously so long as they fail to propose better policies. Merely pointing to problems in the status quo has no force without an alternative to compare it against.

One thing becomes obvious after only modest reflection about Iraq: the current policy is on-balance the best one.

Presenting comparable alternatives to the status-quo is far more difficult than calling policy-makers dishonest. Hence, most liberals don’t even attempt it.

So Heather, while agree with your criticism, I still appreciate Biden’s effort.

[David Billington]

Jeff Younger,

The problem we have in Iraq is captured by Bartle Bull on Tuesday's New York Times op-ed page about Babil province, which according to the article is one of the few success stories in the central part of the country. But the Iraqis in charge of security in that province may soon be sidelined by militia-friendly appointees from Baghdad. The surrounding provinces are now scenes of Sunni-Shia reprisal killings on a growing scale, and U.S. policy can hardly be sustained if a place where success has occurred is allowed to fail. I hope this province is covered by news media over the next month or two.

[J Thomas]

Jeff Younger, you have completely and utterly missed the point.

First, the Bush administration has one set of people who do things, and a second set of people who publicise things. For the most part any relationship between what they do and what they say is accidental. It isn't that they're lying, it's that the people who talk about things neither know nor care what the truth might be, they only care about saying stuff that sounds good.

So in the short run, discussion about foreign policy boils down to two and only two choices. Do we let Bush do whatever-the-hell he wants to, in secret? Or do we try to somehow restrain him?

You can pretend that the current policy in iraq is the best that's available to us now, given the massive failures of the past. But you don't know what the current policy is. All you know is what the publicists say, and they chose to say that because it was what sounded best of all the things they tested.

Various military bloggers have revealed the current operational plan in iraq, the stuff the generals decide. Always -- always -- the context is, "Six months ago we were doing stuff that didn't work but now we know what we're doing and it's all improving fast." This tells me our military has roughly a 6 month OODA loop and it takes that long to find out the current plan doesn't work and switch to a new one. But the administration doesn't have much to do with operational plans beyond telling them to do whatever it takes and that strenuous interrogation is OK and such. They just tell us whatever sounds good.

Anybody who suggests alternatives will be handled in one of a few ways. If their alternative sounds particularly good then the Administration will incorporate it into their publicity. They'll say they're already doing that. And if the alternative suggestion doesn't sound that good, the administration and supporters will make a big deal of it and of how awful the opposition is and how there's no good alternative.

Those are the choices. Talking about alternatives in iraq is entirely a publicity exercise to support Bush.

So here's my alternative. First, get rid of Bush/Cheney. Second, find out what's going on. Since the current beliefs about iraq have little connection to reality, we have to find out before we can figure out what to do. So order each officer serving in iraq down to the majors to report what they're doing, what they're trying to do, how effective they think it is, what if anything they think they ought to be ordered to do instead, and what most needs to be done by somebody else. If the new White House has enough competent staff to do it, take that down to the captains. Have the reports get sent in unread by military superiors and the officers will be kept anonymous.

Meanwhile ask for information and opinions from the iraqi Assembly members, and religious leaders, newspaper editors, anybody who might know something or be influential. And look for ways to verify the most important things that people say.

The staffers would look over the various reports and count the ones that say the same things, and put aside the more unusual ones for further study.

Present the results to the President who'd look at a scattering of reports himself. Then come up with the best plan that looks plausibly workable. Present the broad outlines to the public and try to get approval, present it to Congress and try to get it funded. Revise as needed.

We won't be able to tell *either* what the current plan is *or* what alternatives might be workable until we can get the information. GIGO. And we can't get that information while Bush is in office.

If we're going to accept that Bush will be in office until 2009, then it's far too early to think about what to do about iraq then. The situation is too volatile, any plans we make now will be overtaken by events in 6 months.

[Jeff Younger]

Those are the choices. Talking about alternatives in iraq is entirely a publicity exercise to support Bush.

Heh. Well at least you are honest. Of course, you thereby forfeit all right to be taken seriously n policy matters.

So in the short run, discussion about foreign policy boils down to two and only two choices. Do we let Bush do whatever-the-hell he wants to, in secret? Or do we try to somehow restrain him?

You can pretend that the current policy in iraq is the best that's available to us now, given the massive failures of the past. But you don't know what the current policy is. All you know is what the publicists say, and they chose to say that because it was what sounded best of all the things they tested.

I sometimes wonder if liberals just make things up, or if they simply cannot do basic research. The policy on Iraq has been publicly available at the White House website. It has been continuously updated. Moreover, numerous and detailed reports have been sent to Congress. All of them are publicly available. The claim that there is no policy cannot be rationally sustained.

Are there secret aspects to US foreign policy and warmaking? Is secrecy necessary to diplomacy and warmaking? Yes, of course. The need for secrecy was foreseen by the Founders of America in their deliberations over the Constitution. Federalist N0. 64 is particularly clear on the matter of secrecy and the Executive.

It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature, but that perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH are sometimes requisite. These are cases where the most useful intelligence may be obtained, if the persons possessing it can be relieved from apprehensions of discovery. Those apprehensions will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives; and there doubtless are many of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the President, but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and still less in that of a large popular Assembly. The convention have done well, therefore, in so disposing of the power of making treaties, that although the President must, in forming them, act by the advice and consent of the Senate, yet he will be able to manage the business of intelligence in such a manner as prudence may suggest.

Indeed the whole concept of the Executive is to provide for action with “despatch.” Congress declared war, if they want to do as you suggest and attempt to “restrain” the President, then there are only three ways allowed by the Constitution: impeach the President, unauthorize the war or eliminate funding. All produce worse consequences that the current policy.

The underlying problem is this: Congress wants to run wars, but the Constitution does not allow them to. The hubbub about secrecy arises from fundamental misunderstandings about the Constitution. The hubbub about a lack of policy is an inexcusable ignorance.

Various military bloggers have revealed the current operational plan in iraq, the stuff the generals decide.

Ah, I see now. I don’t know the policy, but you are privy to the secret truth. Whatever.

Always -- always -- the context is, "Six months ago we were doing stuff that didn't work but now we know what we're doing and it's all improving fast." This tells me our military has roughly a 6 month OODA loop and it takes that long to find out the current plan doesn't work and switch to a new one. But the administration doesn't have much to do with operational plans beyond telling them to do whatever it takes and that strenuous interrogation is OK and such. They just tell us whatever sounds good.

That’s because always – always – the context is “Six months ago the enemy was operating a certain way, now they are operating a different way. We adapted and are destroying them.” You are notorious for dropping context, and here you have done it again. We adapt much more quickly than the enemy.

Anybody who suggests alternatives will be handled in one of a few ways. If their alternative sounds particularly good then the Administration will incorporate it into their publicity. They'll say they're already doing that. And if the alternative suggestion doesn't sound that good, the administration and supporters will make a big deal of it and of how awful the opposition is and how there's no good alternative.

If by “sounds good” you mean “sound like it would work,” then this is exactly what we want the President to do: take good advice and incorporate it into his policy. We also want him to reject recommendations that “don’t sound good,” since we disfavor unsound policies. This is so basic and so obvious. Embarassing.

So here's my alternative. First, get rid of Bush/Cheney. Second, find out what's going on. Since the current beliefs about iraq have little connection to reality, we have to find out before we can figure out what to do. So order each officer serving in iraq down to the majors to report what they're doing, what they're trying to do, how effective they think it is, what if anything they think they ought to be ordered to do instead, and what most needs to be done by somebody else. If the new White House has enough competent staff to do it, take that down to the captains. Have the reports get sent in unread by military superiors and the officers will be kept anonymous.

Well, I’m glad to see you offering alternatives. The first won’t happen, so right from the start your policy recommendation fails the test of feasibility. I could legitimately reject it now. Your second plank amounts to undermining of the military chain of command. The most preposterous phrase is this one: “if anything they think they ought to be ordered to do instead.” This amounts to putting the military in charge of policy, something strictly forbidden by the Constitution which makes the military subservient to the civilian government. Hence, your second plank, while feasible runs counter to established constitutional, customary and practical exigencies. It is also very easy to reject.

There is a process in the military that accomplishes the goal of your second plank (having not been in the military, you can be excused for not knowing about it), but it doesn’t undermine the chain of command. It’s called the Battle Focus process. Missions are handed down from level to level, and feedback goes up telling commanders what is needed to accomplish the mission. Since a better process already exists, your second plank must be rejected.

If we're going to accept that Bush will be in office until 2009, then it's far too early to think about what to do about iraq then. The situation is too volatile, any plans we make now will be overtaken by events in 6 months.

But this is stipulated, because it will hold for anyone in the Presidency.

Your hatred of Bush is simply not a policy, despite your efforts to dress it up in fine language.

[J Thomas]

The policy on Iraq has been publicly available at the White House website. It has been continuously updated. Moreover, numerous and detailed reports have been sent to Congress. All of them are publicly available. The claim that there is no policy cannot be rationally sustained.

Jeff, it's understandable that you'd make this blunder given your general inability to do critical thinking. There is *publicity* available on the White House website. And various *public relations* reports have been sent to Congress. But whatever the actual policy is, is secret. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that these documents are informed by policy. They are designed to influence public opinion, not to reveal policy. But it's quite understandable that you'd mistake them for policy documents.

This tells me our military has roughly a 6 month OODA loop and it takes that long to find out the current plan doesn't work and switch to a new one.

That’s because always – always – the context is “Six months ago the enemy was operating a certain way, now they are operating a different way. We adapted and are destroying them.” You are notorious for dropping context, and here you have done it again. We adapt much more quickly than the enemy.

If what we're doing is adapting to their changes then we can't possibly be adapting faster than they are. They have to make the changes before we can react to them. Another example of your reasoning at work. As for the rest, who is the enemy? Are their numbers dropping? The last I heard there were still somewhere around 5 million sunnis in iraq. But the longer we stay in iraq the less it seems like the sunnis are our only enemies there.

If their alternative sounds particularly good then the Administration will incorporate it into their publicity. They'll say they're already doing that.

If by “sounds good” you mean “sound like it would work,” then this is exactly what we want the President to do: take good advice and incorporate it into his policy.

That would be fine if it was a matter of *trying* alternatives. They could go into the OODA loop and get tried out for 6 months. But we aren't in the realm of policies and implementations here. We're in the realm of public relations. Anything that sounds good, the apologists will *say* that it's *already* being done but the guy who suggested it was just too ignorant to know that. And that's the end of it. No followup. Unless somebody who's actually doing things has some spare time and chooses to look at the public relations stuff for some unknown reason, and sees ideas that look useful and tries them.

Your second plank amounts to undermining of the military chain of command. The most preposterous phrase is this one: “if anything they think they ought to be ordered to do instead.” This amounts to putting the military in charge of policy

Not at all. Ask them what's going on and what they think should be going on. No promise at all to follow their suggestions. But we need to find out what they think. If they're following a policy they don't think works well, that's useful information.

Missions are handed down from level to level, and feedback goes up telling commanders what is needed to accomplish the mission. Since a better process already exists, your second plank must be rejected.

You're talking about a different tool for a different purpose. Understandable that you wouldn't see the difference.

If we're going to accept that Bush will be in office until 2009, then it's far too early to think about what to do about iraq then. The situation is too volatile, any plans we make now will be overtaken by events in 6 months.

But this is stipulated, because it will hold for anyone in the Presidency.

Ah, but with somebody else in the presidency discussing policy might affect policy. When there is no way to affect policy until 2009, why come up with alternatives now? The only way an alternative iraq policy might get tried out comes if Bush is removed within 6 months.

Otherwise it's just part of the Bush public relations program.

So -- unless we're thinking 3 years ahead -- the alternative must be first, remove Bush/Cheney. Second, do a recce, find out what we're up against, something we can't do while Bush is controlling the lines of communication. Third, choose what to do.

Any other talk of alternatives is completely futile.

[Jeff Younger]

J Thomas, I'll let the readers of this blog decide who's making reasonable, logical, and realistic points. lol

[Gordon Fowlkes]

The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles.

upskirtdreams -
voyeurwatching -
waterbondage -
waterbondages -
whippedass -
whippedasses -
wiredpussies -
wiredpussy -
pantyhosedelight -
1sttimeamateur -
1sttimeamateurs -
24inchesofpain -
24inchesofpains -
24inchofpain -
adultvideonetwork -
adultvideonetworks -
adultvideosnetwork -
backseatbangers -
beijingbeaver -
beijingbeavers -
bigmouthful -
bigmouthfuls -
bigtimefacial -
bigtimefacials -
blackcockswhitesluts -
blinddatebanger -
blinddatebangers -
cocks -
cumbarn -
cumbarns - <