Benny Morris and the Inevitable in Iran

The famed Israeli revisionist historian Benny Morris has penned a piece in the New York Times today basically stating that war with Iran is inevitable. Either Israel or America (more likely Israel) will bomb them, he predicts, in the Bush lame duck period between November 2, 2008 and January 20, 2009.

Israel, believing that Iran is building a bomb, is under intense pressure to launch an attack before Bush leaves office. This is a shame. The channels of diplomacy have not been given a chance to work. This timeframe is too short. Israel must hold off until real and serious negotiations can take place, likely after an Obama administration takes office. Provoking a broader war in the region that will certainly draw in the U.S. while America is still under the thumb of an despised and unpopular lame duck (who will support the attacks) may seriously backfire with the American people.

Will Israel be able to count on U.S support? Probably. But just how much is the question. In case you haven’t noticed, we’ve got plenty of troubles of our own, and Americans have no appetite for expanding our war in the Middle East. Bombing Iran will mean, truly, the beginning of full blown regional war.

Let’s not go there just because Bush is leaving office. If, as Morris states, the Iranian’s are really one to four years away from the point of no return, then we still have time to talk. On this front, it’s time for Bush and Olmert to get on the ball.

The Iran Policy Two-Step

Could there be any greater acknowledgment that Barack Obama is right about talking to our enemies than the news that the Bush administration will send a high level diplomat (#3 at State, William J. Burns) to Geneva to meet with the Iranians?

Could there be any greater indication of the enormous opportunity cost of the previously childlike (and perfectly in character) Bush administration negotiating policy vis-a-vis Iran?

Could there be any more “welcome” a flip-flop by the Bush administration? My only fear is they will use this meeting as an excuse to say they tried negotiations and they failed, so we have to bomb.

Could there be a greater a second act revival than Condi Rice? No excuses for Condi’s terrible failures as National Security Adviser, but she is actually doing a pretty good job as Secretary of State. This must have been a difficult one to pull off and it will be interesting to hear how she did it.

Could there be a more uncomfortable position for John McCain (and the whole anti-appeasement crowd) to be in? He is now forced to defend a policy that every reasonable person knows is stupid and belligerent against the current administration and the next one.

Could there be any greater joy than is seeing John Bolton, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney and the rest of the neocons being made to look like jackasses by their former chief enabler?

Just asking.

In Praise of David Petraeus

Gen. David Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate last week to take over CENTCOM, the U.S. Central Command that puts him in charge of the military in the entire Middle East. Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno will take over the direct command of operations in Iraq. The senate approved the promotion by a vote of 95-2. And rightfully so.

David Petraeus deserves all the praise we can give him. He has taken an Iraq situation that was near chaos and turned it into the groundwork for a functioning state. By almost every measure, Petraeus has had enormous success. He deserves the Medal of Freedom that Bush gave to Tommy Franks. In fact, he deserves the three medals Bush farcically gave out that day. Franks, Tenet, and Bremer should all hand their medals in, especially Tenet and Bremer.

It is possible, as I have, to make the argument that Iraq is ultimately an intractable quagmire that offers America no good options. We’ll be lucky if we get another Saddam Hussein out of the deal. But the reasons for this are almost all political. And the fact that that can be said can be directly attributed to Petraeus’s strategy for the country. McCain likes to talk about the surge, as though sheer numbers solved everything. But throwing troops at the wrong general wouldn’t necessarily yield results. There is no question that our troops have made the surge a success. Their brave fighting and, yes, diplomacy, has worked. But all of their hard work and sacrifice might have been wasted if it weren’t for the facile brilliance and flexibility of their commander. Petraeus’s multi-pronged strategy in dealing with Sunni, Shia, and Kurd was masterful.

Wherever you are on the political spectrum, this fact is indisputable. We are on the cusp of salvaging a near stable state from what was an impossible situation and, as a result, there is now serious talk on the Iraqi side of an American withdrawal by as early as 2010 (no matter when we leave there will be a civil war). I don’t know if Petraeus is our best general, but he is certainly one of the best. Personally, I would like to see him run for president. He is a brilliant man, and my sense is, a decent man. I’m not sure of his politics, but I would be predisposed to vote for him if he threw his hat into the ring.

Seymour Hersh and the War in Iran

Reading Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker is like reading a spy novel crossed with the blind items on Gawker; lots of dangerous intrigue by politicians, soldiers, and spies, some anonymous gossip, and more than a hint of something still unknown. He’s really in a class by himself with this kind of reporting.

In his latest piece, Hersh travels in the murky areas of the intelligence community to reveal America’s covert operations in Iran and the push, largely by Cheney, to enhance those operations and, it seems, provoke a war. It’s a fascinating article, as all of his writing for the New Yorker has been, and worth reading.

The situation in Iran is a difficult one. For all the obvious reasons, America does not need a war with Iran. With that said, Iran is clearly dangerous and they cannot be allowed to make a nuclear weapon. The Bush/Cheney approach of using Special Ops and indigenous surrogates to carry out attacks and assassinations, according to the article, has met with some resistance from the military and intelligence communities. What has worked in other parts of the Middle East and Pakistan, may not work so well in Iran. So what to do?

Elect Obama President. The reason? He will try to negotiate a legitimate settlement of this issue. If someone actually goes to the Iranians without a belligerent stance (Bush demands that they halt enrichment work before negotiations can start), it might - might - settle the issue. And if it doesn’t? Well, then we know for sure, and the military option becomes legitimate.

After all, just consider all the time Bush has wasted in these years while Iran has continued to enrich uranium. Economists talks about opportunity costs. The entire Bush administration has been an astronomical opportunity cost, not least in our dealings with Iran.

Here’s Michael Schwirtz and Alan Cowell in the New York Times on the recent saber rattling.

The Iraqi Timetable for Withdrawal

As the negotiations continue over the agreement for the continuing presence of American troops in Iraq, the Iraqis continue to make trouble for the Bush administration. According to Sally Buzbee of the AP, Iraq’s national security adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said today,

“We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn’t have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq.”

Hmmm.

Best case: three years until Iraq assumes control over all 18 provinces (they currently control 9), and another three years to make sure the peace holds. That means, 2014, at the earliest. And, the best case, as anyone who has paid the least attention to Iraq knows, is unlikely to come to pass.

So what is the story here? That the Iraqi government wants America out eventually? That someone on the Iraqi side used the previously verboten word “timetable?” How about that al-Rubaie spoke to reporters

“after briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government’s security efforts and the talks.”

The big question is who is pulling the strings on this deal with the U.S. and why, after all the blood and billions, are we having such a hard time getting our way? Aren’t we supposed to be winning in Iraq?

America’s Nightmare Scenario

Iran’s Nightmare Scenario is the headline of a story by Eli Lake in the New York Sun this morning. It outlines some possible plans for Iranian attacks in response to an Israeli move against Iran. Included among them are actions against Saudi oil infrastructure (driving up the price of oil) and terrorist attacks in Israel and the U.S. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is quoted as saying that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities would turn the Middle East into a “ball of fire.”

This analysis comes as speculation continues that Israel will attack Iran before Bush leaves office.

This is a thorny situation. There is an obvious and very real danger in letting Iran develop a nuclear weapon. The bottom line is that it can’t be allowed to happen. On the other hand, if Israel attacks Iran, Iraq, and all of the progress we’ve made there, will be destroyed. Iran has substantial influence in the country and the capability to bring about chaos, if they so choose.

I hope the Bushies are truly thinking about both America’s best short- and long-term interests as they deal with Israel on this. We are already at war. Are we ready to start all over again in Iraq? Are we ready for a massive conflagration that may spread far beyond the Middle East? Is it really time to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?

Trying to squeeze this neocon wet dream in before Bush leaves office leads me to believe that the decision along these lines is being made by political considerations and not strategic necessity.

Gates and the Future of the Military

Iraq, it has been noted, has been a strategic disaster for America. We have, in five short years, handed Iran pocket aces, depleted our military deployment capability, destroyed our popular and diplomatic reputation around the world, and cost ourselves the chance to catch Bin Laden. And that’s just the beginning.

The many lessons to be learned from Iraq will be studied by historians and scholars for decades. It is my strong belief that the neocon armchair warriors who cooked up the Iraq plan will be excoriated in perpetuity (and, I hope, charged with war crimes). But that is for another post. This post is about planning for the post-Iraq War world.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, an old school realist in the mold of Brent Scowcroft and George H.W. Bush, took over for the inept Donald Rumsfeld on December 18, 2006. He has recently given a couple of speeches reflecting his perception of the issues that will face the military in the future (the recent shake-up of the Air Force command was, in part, a response to his sense that procurement priorities are often out-of-whack).

Gates outlines a role for the military that is two-pronged. The first prong involves, of course, continuing to be prepared to fight wars against the rising conventional powers around the globe. The second prong, however, and this was the point of emphasis in these two speeches, was to prepare for asymmetrical warfare against terrorists and rogue nations.

From his speech to young Air Force officers at the Air War College (Maxwell, AL) on April 21, 2008:

“In an era when we are most likely to be challenged in asymmetric ways, I would ask you to think through how we can build the kinds of air capabilities most likely to be needed while continuing to offer a strategic hedge against rising powers.”

“Protecting the 21st Century’s “global commons” – in particular, space and cyberspace – has been identified and adopted as a key task.”

“These new realities and missions should be reflected in our training and doctrine. The Air Force will be increasingly called on to conduct civil-military or humanitarian operations with interagency and non-governmental partners, and deal directly with local populations. This will put a premium on foreign language and cultural expertise.”

“Furthermore, the counterinsurgency manual issued by the Army and Marines is over 200-pages long – and yet only 4 pages are dedicated to air, space, and cyberspace. Not long ago, the Air Force published a doctrine document on irregular warfare. But, as future leaders of air power, you should consider whether there is more the service might do to articulate and codify the unique role of airpower in stability operations.”

He goes on to question (and this in my mind is key) the bureaucracy and procurement policies at the Pentagon.

“Other questions I would ask you to consider go to the heart of how the service is organized, manned, and equipped. What new priorities should drive procurement and what new criteria should drive promotions?”

He quotes John Boyd, “a brilliant, eccentric, and stubborn” former Air Force colonel who “had to overcome a large measure of bureaucratic resistance and institutional hostility. He had some advice that he used to pass on to his colleagues and subordinates that is worth sharing with you. Boyd would say, and I quote: ‘one day you will take a fork in the road, and you’re going to have to make a decision about which direction you want to go. If you go [one] way, you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and get good assignments. Or you can go [the other] way and you can do something – something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself … If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won’t have to compromise yourself … To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That’s when you have to make a decision. To be or to do?’”

Gates suggests Boyd as a role model for these young officers.

In the other speech, given on May 13, 2008, to the Heritage Foundation, Gates again addresses the procurement issue:

“First, I believe that any major weapons program, in order to remain viable, will have to show some utility and relevance to the kind of irregular campaigns that, as I mentioned, are most likely to engage America’s military in the coming decades.”

“Second, I would stress that the perennial procurement cycle – going back many decades – of adding layer upon layer of cost and complexity onto fewer and fewer platforms that take longer and longer to build must come to an end.”

He also addressed the stress on our ground forces:

“It is true that we would be hard-pressed to launch a major conventional ground operation elsewhere in the world at this time – but where would we sensibly do that? The United States has ample and untapped combat power in our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any – repeat, any – adversary who committed an act of aggression – whether in the Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula, or in the Straits of Taiwan. There is a risk – but a prudent and manageable one.”

The takeaway from these two speeches?

The American military has its work cut out for it. In addition to preparing for the rising threat of China (a future threat, not a present one) and whomever else, America must learn the key lesson of Iraq: that the enemy will choose the type of war we will fight, not Lockheed Martin or Paul Wolfowitz.

From Gates: “As I’ve told Army gatherings, the lessons learned and capabilities built from the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns need to be institutionalized into the service’s core doctrine, funding priorities, and personnel policies. And that is taking place, though we must always guard against falling into past historical patterns where, if bureaucratic nature takes its course, these kinds of irregular capabilities tend to slide to the margins.“

From his mouth to God’s ears.

Iraq, Iran Pledge Closer Ties

Wait. I thought Iran was part of the axis of evil? Furthermore, I thought we were winning in Iraq?

This article in the New York Sun has confused me. It says that despite the fact that Iran hates America and Israel, and despite that fact that our soldiers are dying and we are spending billions of borrowed dollars there, Iraq is actually making efforts to get closer to Iran.

What’s wrong with this picture?

As America is trying to negotiate an already problematic new long-term security pact with Iraq, we hear this:

“Mr. Maliki, after arriving in Tehran, the Iranian capital, Saturday, had said his government ‘will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran,’ according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.”

And, this:

“But despite American reservations, ties between the two nations continue to grow, and Iran has signed an agreement to supply electricity to Iraq and build power plants in several Iraqi cities.”

Could it be that McCain, Bush, Lieberman, and the rest of the dead-ender neocons are wrong on Iraq? Could it be that Iraq really was the biggest strategic mistake in our nation’s history and that no matter what we do there, we are screwed? Maybe I’ve got to get outside the bunker more often…this is scary…

Obama’s Intelligent Foreign Policy

Lost in all the ridiculous talk about appeasement (a political charge lobbed by a few, vocal Bush foreign policy dead-enders including, unfortunately, McCain), is a true understanding of Barack Obama’s foreign policy philosophy. Take it from the man himself:

“Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.”

“Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors – including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.”

“Obama would insulate the Director of National Intelligence from political pressure by giving the DNI a fixed term, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Obama will seek consistency and integrity at the top of our intelligence community – not just a political ally.”

“Obama will reverse President Bush’s policy of secrecy. He will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.”

“Obama will bring foreign policy decisions directly to the people by requiring his national security officials to have periodic national broadband town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy. He will personally deliver occasional fireside chats via webcast.”

Lastly,

“When I am this party’s nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don’t like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture — because it is never ok… I will end the war in Iraq… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. [Emphasis added] And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, “You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”

Barack Obama is a foreign policy realist with a strong, confident understanding of the world and America’s role in it. His philosophy is in the mold of T.R. Obama will speak softly and, always, because we are America, carry a big stick. Best of all, he will not continue the hysterical, fear-inspired, foreign policy failures of the Bush-McCain-Lieberman axis.

Under Obama, America will get it’s groove back.

How Goes the Appeasing, Israel?

Ha’aretz, the venerable Israeli newspaper, reports that Israel and Syria have made progress in their talks on the “contentious issues of water, security, borders and normalization of relations.” Having talked with officials from both sides, the story indicates that there is interest from Israel and Syria in advancing to the next stage of direct negotiations.

Do hysterical American neocons know about this? Israel is appeasing. Someone should stop them before peace breaks out…

In a related story, Ehud Olmert, who some have speculated initiated the talks with Syria as a wag-the-dog manuever to deflect attention from an ongoing bribery investigation, will be in the U.S. next week to meet with American politicians and address AIPAC. Many believe his tenure as Prime Minister will be over shortly. The Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, is waiting eagerly in the wings.

McCain Will Never Surrender

John McCain continues to repeat that “he will never surrender” in Iraq. This is a bit of Rovian framing that he hopes will do two things: one, keep the debate focused on his perceived area of strength, foreign policy, and two, position leaving Iraq on anything other than his timetable as “surrender.”

It’s not a bad piece of politicking. And he’ll likely repeat it throughout the remainder of the campaign. That said, it won’t work. Despite the recent gains in Iraq (now if Petraeus was running, that would be a real candidate), Americans understand that it is a giant clusterfuck with, ultimately, no good options for a successful resolution. We can support al-Maliki and the SIIC until they’re tucked in bed with the Iranians (our enemy, lest you forget) and pay the Sunnis not to fight with borrowed billions forever, but we’ll still be screwed.

To deny this, is to deny reality. But that’s all McCain has left: denial. Which is why he’ll never surrender. He’ll be fighting this battle (as I suspect he’s still fighting Vietnam) on his death bed.

What McCain really needs is just a pat on the head and a soft voice. “You do that, pops. You do that.”

Israel Appeasing the Syrians?!?

Yesterday’s news that Israel is extending a hand to Syria to discuss the Golan Heights must be infuriating to the anti-appeasement crowd. But, wait, they’re doing it through Turkish intermediaries, so that makes it okay. Plus, it’s Israel doing it. And Israel never does anything wrong.

Especially now that, according to the New York Sun, Hezbollah has just reached an agreement for a 2/3 majority in the Lebanese parliament, this move seems to fly in the face of the sophomoric foreign policy argument that you only talk to your allies. But, maybe, unlike American conservatives, Israelis are simply not afraid. Maybe the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

At any rate, there is another bone-headed editorial by a couple named Thrall and Wilkins (if this is the caliber of thinker Columbia is producing we’re in trouble) about appeasement in the New York Times today. The piece lays the Cuban Missile Crisis at the feet of the Kennedy-Khruschev meeting in June 1961.

Ugh.

Yeah, that was it, the cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis was Kennedy’s weak-kneed appeasement, not the missiles we had in Turkey and Italy or the Bay of Pigs fiasco. It happened because Kennedy appeased!

Will some responsible adult (Kissenger? Scowcroft?) please stand and tell these half-wits to give up on the failed policies of the Bush administration?

Speaking of which, the fearmeister himself, Karl Rove (who else?), joined the party today too.

Holy Joe Lieberman: Despicable

I’m hesitant to give this contemptible wretch an additional platform for his traitorous sanctimony, but, then, I wouldn’t be able to write about him. Holy Joe Lieberman has got an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today attacking the Democrats, and specifically Barack Obama, for their nuanced, intelligent foreign policy positions.

He trots out the same tired policy that Republicans have been disastrously championing since Bush first instituted it after 9/11: isolate our enemies (from ourselves). Quoth Holy Joe: “If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.”

How, Joe? They’d get their picture in the newspaper with Obama? Our allies would suddenly crumble in the face of a tough, undoubtedly tense, meeting? Was Arafat strengthened by meeting and failing to reach an agreement with Ehud Barak and Clinton? No, he was arguably weaker. Was Communism made lastingly popular, and our allies undermined, when Nixon went to Moscow? Of course not.

The point is that this is a specious argument made solely because it can’t be easily refuted and makes the accused sound weak. But weakness is what motivates the actions of Joe Lieberman.
Why else would he fear bringing America to a negotiating table? If America is in a position of strength (which we are, despite the neocon disaster in Iraq), then what is he afraid of? A publicity photo?

Joe Lieberman has sided with the losing team here. He should be bounced from the Democratic caucus and left the twist in the wind with his neocon allies. He is a scoundrel.

Progress in Basra?

A story by Stephen Pharell and Ammar Karim in the New York Times this morning reports that there is a lot of good news coming out of Basra. It seems the Iraqi Army (with U.S. and British support) has calmed the city, largely ridding it of the harsh fundamentalist influence and violence of Moktadr al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. This is good news, of a sort.

It is also bad news for several reasons.

1) Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is closely aligned with the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (formerly known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq - Hmmm, I wonder why they changed the name?). Arguably the most powerful political party in Iraq, their power base is in the oil-rich southern part of the country, particularly Basra. Why is this bad? Because SIIC is a proxy for Iran, as, one suspects, is al-Maliki. By aiding this effort to stabilize Basra (and rid the town of al-Sadr), we hand full control to the SIIC and move their government and this oil-rich region closer to Iran.

2) The gains are temporary. They occurred largely after a cease fire was declared, and without continued resistance from al-Sadr. The article is deliberate in emphasizing the tenuousness of the peace, a fact well recognized by the city’s citizens. It is premature to see this as a significant victory.

3) Basra was supposed to be the easy city, remember? Back when the British had control of the town, there was very little violence and Basra was often referenced as an example of how well our efforts in Iraq were working. What happened? Well, parliamentary elections are coming up. The move to eliminate the Mahdi Army is likely an effort consolidate political power for SIIC and al-Maliki. See #1 for why this is bad.

The big question is, who is the greater danger to the U.S. in the long run? al-Sadr or the SIIC?

To me, it isn’t at all clear that we are helping ourselves by helping SIIC. And this is the fundamental, intractable problem in Iraq. Helping al-Sadr isn’t an alternative either. In Iraq, we are damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

Lebanese Civil War?

Shiite militia forces loyal to Hezbollah have apparently taken control of several neighborhoods in Beirut and briefly seized “the television station and newspaper and political offices of the Sunni parliamentary majority leader, Saad Hariri” before handing them back to the Lebanese Army.

This is all in response to the government’s threat to shut down the private telephone network that links Hezbollah’s military infrastructure.

Lebanon has been a flash point for hostilities in the region for seemingly forever, including the 15 year-long civil war (1975-1990) that started it all. The place is a crazy quilt of competing sectarian interests often acting on (or reacting to) the state interests of Syria, Iran, and Israel.

It looks like things are calming a little, but if this gets out of hand, watch out.