More (Bad) Options for Iraq

By Mimikatz

Laura Rozen has a piece out on the backstory to the Hadley memo and its leaking, and the options evidently under consideration for Iraq.  It seems to some down to (1) try to prop up an improved version of the Maliki "national unity" government with 20,000 more troops and hope for the best, something whose faulty assumptions were discussed in yesterday's post; (2) side with the Shi'a and arm them or (3) Modified Baker-Hamilton:  hunker down on our bases with half the troops we now have, try to ride out the civil war and concentrate on al Qaeda and Iran.  Supposedly option (2) comes from Cheney's shop, which surprises me since it would essentially confirm Iran's victory.  I would have thought he would support another run at installing a Sunni strongman.  At least it explains why the Saudis summoned him to the Kingdom.   She sees the leaking of the Hadley memo as a strike by proponents of option 2 and/or 3. 

All these options seem bad.  "Heckuva job, Nouri" (option 1) seems the most desirable from Washington's standpoint, but that is because it is the least grounded in reality.  Maliki can't disarm the paramilitary arms of his chief parliamentary backers, and why would the Sunnis join with him, given that?  Only in preference to option 2, I suppose.  Option 2 opens the door for Iraq's Sunni neighbors to come in with more money and materiel, if not troops, and hands more influence to Iran. This might be the end result of a conference that gets something from Iran, but makes little sense as a strategy, except to cover our exit.  Option 3 would make infinitely more sense as part of a regional strategy, which is obviously why Baker-Hamiltonn couples the two.  Alone it seems to ignore the vulnerablility of such forces, inviting once again comparisons to Dien Bien Phu, were our antagonists to acquire anti-aircraft capabilities. 

Bush is still going to come around  eventually to withdrawal, whatever he chooses to call it.  But will he accept the need for diplomacy?  Will he put some of his clearly dwindling capital behind a push on the Palestine-Israel conflict?    Will there be any serious attempts at a broader solution?  Cynics say no.  I hope yes, for all our sakes.

Comments

[Mimikatz]

Juan Cole reports on growing cooperation between moderate (mostly Arab) states and Turkey on the impending developments in Iraq, which he also sees as including US withdrawal and a Shi'ite dominated, Iran-friendly state with continued internal violence. He quotes Al Hayat as characterizing it as a new Cold War between the Sunni Arabs and Iran + Syria. Truly, we have created a nightmare through our ignorance and arrogance.

[John Casper]

Mimi thanks for this very valuable update. I picked this up from Dennis Ross, a Clinton ME expert on the News Hour, a terrific distinction between "fixers" and "spoilers."

DENNIS ROSS: "[...] I think it's an illusion to think that the neighbors are going to be able to fix what's going on within Iraq. The problems in Iraq are internal to Iraq.

In the case of Iran and Syria, they're both capable of being spoilers. I don't think they're capable of being fixers. They're not the ones now -- the Iranians are not the ones right now who will determine what the Badr organization will do, what the Mahdi Army will do.

Do they have influence there? Yes. Can they determine what they do? I don't think so. The same with the Syrians. What's going on in Anbar Province, that's not a function of what the Syrians are doing.[...]"

[freepatriot]

what makes you believe that bush will eventually come around on the withdrawl ???

Hitler had to accept that the German Army withdrew from Stalingrad, only because there was no way to maintain his illusions about it

expect the same from george

[Beel]

Why would Bush "come around." He only has two more years, and is deep in his bubble. He can't even deal with a predictable response from Jim Webb to his own question--which clearly opened the door to Webb's response. How could Bush not at least have the wit to say, "Yes, I want your son--all our boys and girls--home soon." That's about all it would have taken, and Bush couldn't open the gate that much. He is frozen in aggressive defense. Who is going to breech that fortress and explain to him that he has utterly failed. Bush sees his situation as akin to the retreat of the Nazi Army from North Africa. He cannot allow that spectacle to play out on "his watch." I predict we sit in Iraq till Jan 20, '09 at the least.

[freepatriot]

I was thinking more along the line of

I AM NOT Leaving The Volga

and so, the German Sixth Army died on the banks of the Volga

and then adolph blamed Paulus for the defeat

the only difference here is that george bush blames US

somebody needs to inform the pundits that the We The People of the United States can NOT "fail" our President

the President can only fail US

[Mimikatz]

Because Bush is not a dictator witn iron control, like Hitler. He can't, as I said yesterday, just stand there and stamp his foot like a child forever, regardless of the facts. People will talk to him, and if necessary power will be taken from him through legitimate means. He isn't stupid, and he sees that. He will resist as long as possible and then find a scapegoat, probably the ungrateful Iraqi people, maybe the Democrats. But we will leave, and calculations are now being made based on that.

[radish]

Re timely withdrawal and people talking to the boy prince, it may not even be a matter of political imperatives. It's alarmingly close to being a military imperative already, and it could turn into one very fast.

[freepatriot]

Because Bush is not a dictator witn iron control, like Hitler. He can't, as I said yesterday, just stand there and stamp his foot like a child forever, regardless of the facts.

nice try mimikatz

you know that

and I know that

but george bush don't know that

I actually believe that george bush is MORE delusional than adolph hitler

anybody still believe that impeachment is "OffThe Table" ???

[Sara]

Freepatriot, I think Impeachment comes on the table only if Congressional Republicans essentially ask for it, and agree to lead it at least in part. They will only do that if it appears Bush is going to take "everything" down with him. From a Democratic point of view it is slightly better to have Bush and Cheney "swingin' in the Wind" than it is to have them put to pasture.

I've nearly finished yet another book in my huge anti-Bush Pile, "The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power." James Moore and Wayne Slater -- also authors of Bush's Brain. EW, I hope you have looked over the several chapters on Plame et al -- in the context of their book, they have done a decent detailed narrative.

Thinking politically, I think it much more important to break up the Rove built coalition than it is to just destroy Bush, because with Iraq he is well on the way to destroying himself.

I suspect the one value of the Iraq Study Group report will be as a point of departure for the long hearings Biden promises for Foreign Relations beginning in January. He can call in Baker and Hamilton and other members, swear them in, and ask questions for a couple of days about their review -- and then invite critics of their recommendations to follow on. The value of this is to (perhaps) destroy the bubble Bush sits in with the claim that only he has appropriate insight. Along with what Levin will be investigating, and what Rockefeller will do with the Intelligence studies -- I really doubt if Bush can survive with much respect in tact, even among his most loyal supporters.

The Logic seems to me to be that the alliance of the past four years between Bush and a silenced Republican Congress has to be broken. As Moore and Slater put it, that was always Rove-Bush's plan -- and they go into much detail about How Rove went about selecting candidates who would follow orders, and then bringing into his hands all the campaign finance necessary to assure such silence, thus eliminating one co-equal branch of Government, something necessary if you want unitary absolute power.

Moore and Slater do not deny Rove's Genius -- they cannot identify one political consultant capable of dealing with so much day to day detail while still brilliantly capable of looking out over the Horizon at the next 20 years. We should appreciate that brilliance while at the same time calculating how to destroy his vision. Thus while Bush is in part the immediate target it is much more than that.

As to Iraq -- I suspect if there is a neighbors or regional conference that most of the states involved will opt for preserving their own power arrangements, and something like the status quo anti for Iraq. Yes, some sort of strong-man acceptable to Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran, putting the flowering of Democracy on hold for a couple of generations. Did you notice that today the French announced a huge arms sale and mutual defense treaty with Kuwait? Can Oil priced in Euro's be far behind? Did Bush & Blair also destroy the historic special relationship between Kuwait and the Brits? There are so many implications of this disaster that need to be dished up on Bush's plate, and all of those who enabled him, that impeachment will not resolve, I think we have to get prepared to make certain all those Bush Voters and Supporters fully understand what they did, and why no one should ever respect them again.

[Jodi]

Well, I don't claim anymore to know what will happen with Bush himself.

I was correct in my earlier statement about what the Pentagon wanted to do. But as I said, I am not so cued in on Baker and company.

My brother who is over there said that he doubted seriously that Saudi Soldiers would ever enter into that quagmire of Iraq proper. But Saudi Arabia could provide a refuge for the Sunnis, and could play hell with the worlds oil supplies. Increasing or decreasing depending on who they wished to punish.

I will say that the Republicans (as a significant group) will never impeach Bush. Not on what we know so far.

[John Casper]

Thanks Jodi, I hope your brother stays safe and please thank him for his service to our country. Right now most Sunni migration that I hear of is to Syria. IMHO, Syria has much better ground troops than Saudi Arabia. Since both are predominantly Sunni, Saudi Arabia might be willing to finance a Syrian incursion. Saudi Arabia has a significant Shia minority that work their oil fields. Subjugating that minority might be the first priority for Saudi forces if this Civil War spreads. Syria on the other hand may be more interested in invading Lebanon as a way to handle the Iraqi (Sunni) refugees streaming in. Watching Gen. Barry McCaffrey and David Gergan on Hardball last night, I think the GOP might finally be "getting it" about how badly Bush screwed up.

[Jodi]

John,

I don't think Syria would do anything in Iraq. Lebanon and Israel are their things.

Rather I see Iran sending "volunteers" over to help their brother Shia if need be if their proxies don't suceed. Then the Sunni are in more trouble.

Remember Iran was at war with Iraq and Saddam. Iraq is an old play and battleground for them.

Right now in Iraq, no one is happy, though everyone is jockeying for power, and for that matter to stay alive.