Bush Punked by the Iraqis

What else would you expect? For the second time in the last week, an important Iraqi official has come out and said that they want the Americans out of the country by 2010. By almost every declared measure, it’s now time to start planning for our troops to come home (and/or to be sent to Afghanistan).

The Iraqi troops have stood up, so now we can stand down.

Bush has repeatedly declared that we are in Iraq at their pleasure.

The Iraqis have a constitution, a government, elections, a standing army, and a popular desire to see America leave.

The bottom line is that the surge has worked and we have won (we are not “winning” as McCain keeps desperately declaring. We have won! BTW, have you noticed that McCain’s campaign is down to a single plank - he was right about the surge, and therefore, he should be president?)

The only remaining issues are the political benchmarks, which are, frankly, Iraqi problems.

You could make the argument that Iraq will descend into chaos if we depart; on that, you’ll get no argument here. But as my mother used to say to me, “you should of thought of that before you did it.”

The bottom line is, our troops are victorious and it’s time to leave. By all means, keep an eye on the situation, but keeping troops in Iraq until the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds all decide not to hate each other will have us there forever. There will never be a “good” time to go.

Bush is without negotiating leverage; he has been embarrassed like the punk he so obviously is. The White House is left to sniff:

“We don’t think that talking about specific negotiating tactics or your negotiating position in the press is the best way to negotiate a deal,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said, suggesting that Dabbagh was responding to domestic pressure.

This is what it has come down to.

McCain Snatches Defeat From the Jaws of Victory

In attempting the frame the question of Iraq during the campaign, John McCain repeatedly states that he will “never surrender” and that by following his plan our troops will leave with “victory and honor.”

He also states that we are “winning” in Iraq. On the military front, he’ll get no argument from most people. Petraeus and the troops are winning in Iraq (I say they have won). The surge really has worked.

But his rhetoric raises an obvious contradiction. If we are winning, why repeat this business about never surrendering? That isn’t the talk of a winner. And why worry about victory and honor when they are so close at hand? The answer, McCain will say, is that we haven’t won yet.

And this is where he snatches defeat from the jaws of victory and turns our winning troops into losers. For craven political purposes, he is attempting to reframe our victory as incomplete. He is, in effect, stripping the military of the praise and reward it rightfully deserves. Our troops have done a brilliant job in securing the country and creating the conditions for political compromise and reconciliation. Why not give them that credit?

Because McCain knows that Iraq is not a fully solved problem. He knows that there are terrible, intractable political problems in Iraq that, ultimately, will undermine all the good work our soldiers have done. So his solution, hold off on the victory parade. Recast our winning troops as losers until the political problems are solved.

This is a kind of extortion, with our troops as the victims. If, as the Iraqis want, the Americans leave in 2010, will John McCain say we’ve lost? The fact is, the Iraqi military is ready to stand up, so it is now time for America to stand down. Not on our knees, as John McCain would have it, but with pride, honor, and yes, John McCain, victory.

What happens after that? Well, that’s a political issue, and that battle was lost from the start by you, George W. Bush, and the rest of your neocon brethren. Don’t hold our troops hostage to your ideological dreams.

You, my friend, are the loser. Not our troops. And whenever they come home, they will do so with victory and honor because unlike the politicians, they have done their job. They have won the war in Iraq. Now it is up to Obama, al-Maliki, and the Iraqis to win the peace.

Bush Aids and Comforts the Enemy

By agreeing to a “time table” for withdrawal Bush has signaled that a day of departure for U.S. troops will happen in the foreseeable future. By his own (and McCain’s) logic, he has helped the terrorists know that if they just hang on, America will leave.

High treason, if you ask me. And yet another good reason to impeach that moron.

Wait, what? They used the word “horizon” instead of “table?” So a “time horizon?”

Oh.

Well, I take it all back then. What brilliant tactical move by our commander-in-chief. Those terrorists are sure to be disheartened now.

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.

China’s Looming Population Problem

No, it’s not the fact that they’ve got 1.3 billion people to feed (although that is a problem). The problem, as outlined nicely in this article by Mara Hvistendahl in the New Republic, is that, in the next ten years or so, there will be far too many men who can’t find wives. From the piece:

In the 2020s, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences researcher Zheng Zhenzhen, estimates in a People’s Daily interview that 10 percent of Chinese men will be unable to find wives…

Obviously, this is a huge potential social problem. But what is genuinely frightening is that the anger of these men - which might normally be directed at the state and it’s one child policy - could likely (do you want to take bets on this?) be turned outward. Taiwan, Japan, and, of course, America being the likely targets. We already know that the Chinese government will be ruthless in maintaining control. But given the sheer numbers here (my rough estimate, at least 100 million men), only a war, organized extermination, or if they’re lucky, famine and disease, could keep all that testosterone in check.

Which outcome do you think is most likely?

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?

Webb of Tears: Who’s Next for Obama’s VP?

I’ve been on vacation and largely out of the loop for the last week or so, but I’ve followed the campaign in the newspaper. McCain in Latin America (huh?), the Wes Clark kerfluffle, etc., most of it routinely irrelevant. But this news hit me like an anvil. Disappointed doesn’t even begin to describe the way I feel.

To be brief, Webb was the perfect VP candidate for Obama. Assuming his decision is absolutely final (and I hope it’s not), I’ll leave the speculation as to why to others (though, just for fun, can I suggest that Obama pissed him off somehow? I swear I thought Webb wanted the job. What went wrong?)

At any rate, now that he has officially said, “Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President,” Obama must move on to his second tier choices. So where’s he going to go? Sure, this makes Hillary look more attractive, but he is definitely not going to pick her. Biden? Okay, but he’s not going to be a strong candidate in 2016. Richardson, no. Sebelius? Huge mistake. Wes Clark? Not anymore.

So who’s left?

Ed Rendell

Chuck Hagel

Mike Bloomberg

Or some unknown general

Right now, I’m pulling for Biden (ugh) or the unknown general. Maybe Petreaus could be coaxed into the job?

What a way to end a vacation…

P.S. Who am I missing that doesn’t suck? Leave a comment and give me a little hope. Just don’t tell me Claire McCaskill.

Bush Signs New GI Bill

The new GI bill became law today when Bush signed the war supplemental spending bill that contained the new education benefit for veterans. This is a big victory for the men and women who serve in our military. Happy 4th of July to all!

For members of the armed services looking for more info about the bill, visit IAVA.org.

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.

32,334: The Hidden Cost of the War on Terror

32,334 is the total number of soldiers that have been wounded in action in fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq through June 20. The numbers break out like this:

Afghanistan: 2,087
Iraq: 30,247

Of those wounded in Afghanistan, 1,280 were seriously wounded enough not to return to action. In Iraq, that number is 13,441.

There have been 4,620 deaths in the War on Terror. These numbers break out this way:

Afghanistan: 517
Iraq: 4,103

I am always surprised when the press reports the number of deaths but leaves out the number of seriously wounded. Those who have died have made the ultimate sacrifice and their service must be noted and honored. But the men and women who have suffered serious injuries must also receive the attention and honor that they are due. Many of these men and women have lost limbs or other significant parts of their body. They have been burned and disfigured. It is important that the relatively small number of deaths in the War on Terror is given perspective by the large number of seriously wounded soldiers. The War on Terror has been a war of physical (never mind, mental) sacrifice for tens of thousands. Let’s remember that, too.

Source: Department of Defense

House Reaches Compromise on War Spending, GI Bill

The House has reached a bipartisan agreement on the war spending legislation that includes the new Jim Webb GI Bill. The negotiations involved Bush Administration officials which seems to indicate that he will sign it. The new deal preserves the GI Bill benefits but eliminates the tax on the wealthy to pay for it (unfortunately, this is exactly how they should pay for it).

The bill also pays for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through the end of Bush’s term, and extends unemployment benefits for an extra 13 weeks. Surprisingly, it forbids permanent American military bases in Iraq (this is a mistake) and calls on the Iraqi government to share equally in the cost of rebuilding the country.

It now goes to the Senate for their take on it, and then to Bush before July 4. It looks like the GI Bill is going to become a reality. It’s just a shame that Congress, once again, didn’t address how they would pay for it. Here’s Carl Hulse’s story in the New York Times.

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.

New GI Bill Update

The bill, which was passed by both the House and the Senate, will soon be on its way to President Bush for signature as part of the emergency supplemental bill he has threatened to veto (it is expected to reach his desk no later than July 4). For the record, Obama voted for the bill, while McCain ducked the vote.

The website for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA.org) has got a lot of information about the bill and a great action center. You can sign a petition to Bush, find out how your representatives voted, and use other tools to express your support.

Don’t let Republican hypocrisy on the military destroy this important piece of legislation.

Update: Bush signed this bill into law on Monday, June 30. It’s a done deal. Viisit IAVA.org for more info.