Mid East Update

It would appear that the President's speech was not that well received. That, of course, could have been easily forecast. Public opinion polls are running 2:1 against the War, the "Surge," and Bush himself. A number of Republican congressmen and women are changing sides and joining the "let's get out" coalition. In fact, if the "Surge" does not substantially improve the situation, look for both Houses of Congress to achieve 2/3rd's anti-war majorities. At that point, the war is pretty much done, although it is difficult to see how a consensus in Congress would emerge for an alternative policy other than simple withdrawal. This is unfortunate for two reasons: 1) The "Surge," in my opinion, will not work and may well lead to a worsening of our overall position and 2) the President seems unable to come up with anything other than "stay the course." IOW, the "Surge," even if successful, seems to be designed to simply return the situation to the status quo of 2005 (before the bombing of the Mosque and the beginning of sectarian violence on a large scale.

I hasten to add, I have no "quick solution." I do think an abrupt withdrawal would not be wise and might well lead to a regional war and an expansion of global terrorism. I am inclined, as stated in the last few posts, to go along with the surge and hope for the best. If the Iraqis do not "stand up" (and I think it likely they will not) then we require a totally different approach. Also, hopefully, the Administration understands their failed policy and is using the surge to buy time, while putting together that alternative...but, given their history, that isn't likely.

Overall, I tend to agree with Pat Buchanan regarding his own fears that we may be preparing to go into Iran. His logic is that Bush and Cheney realize that the next President will not pursue an aggressive foreign policy and back off from both North Korea and Iran (whether true or not, Buchanan believes that is what THEY believe). Consequently, they feel it their mission to eliminate "the Axis of Evil," by hook or crook. Buchanan sees the recent moves of the past week as substantiating his view: the movement of an additional carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf; the deployment of Patriot Missile units to Iraq; the Surge itself; the raid on an Iranian Consulate in northern Iraq.

However, there is another perspective that may be more likely, assuming the Administration has not totally lost whatever "collective mind" they possess. All of these moves may be "defensive" in nature. The situation may actually be worse than that reported and perceived by the public. The reaction to the "surge" could be all out war against our troops in Iraq if, in a curious way, it is interpreted as "interference" in a domestic civil war (involvement in which we have stayed out of the way of to date). I suspect that if the Surge IS successful, it will bring MORE outside interference (from Syria, Iran, et al). IOW, as long as no single side is perceived as "winning," Iraq neighbors have a type of security. If the Shites begin winning, the Kurds and Sunnis external supporters will feel compelled to increase their own interventions.

So, I think regardless of the success or failure of the Surge, we could very quickly be in a "withdrawal" situation. If it's successful, withdrawal because the Iraqis have "stood up"; if not, because a forced withdrawal is necessary. The additional carrier battle group, the Patriot missiles, the raid on the Iranian consulate may all be designed to send the message to Iran that our "withdrawal" will be well protected.

I think we are close to the point wherein all that is desired by us in Iraq is sufficient stability and government progress, even if temporary, to allow for a "withdrawal with face."

Meanwhile, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under Biden, have begun. It would be a great failure of this committee if, after grilling the Administration on Iraq and listening to opinions from all sides on the same, they do not take the broader view and explore the future direction of American foreign policy in general.

I assume (maybe incorrectly) that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by more than "I want to do better than Daddy." While Bush has made substantial changes in many of the neo-conservatives who formulated the Iraq invasion plan, he has still NOT renounced or even modified the "Bush Doctrine." The committee hearings, thus far, in focusing on the immediate problem in Iraq, have been limite to "tactics." It should also debate the strategic policy that engendered such tactics...the Bush Doctrine itself.

It is my own position that at this point the tactical situation cannot be resolved successfully without a reappraisal of the strategy.

More on this in future posts, but I am continuing my "reading program" and am now into a book, I missed when it was originally published in 2002, Woodward's first of the three books on Bush's mid-east wars: "Bush At War." This book covers the period from 9/11 to the beginning of the military planning for the invasion of Iraq. "Plan of Attack" covers Iraq and "State of Denial" the period of Iraqi occupation. I've read the last two. No one in the Administration has seriously challenged any of Woodward's books, all of which have been based on extensive interviews with the major players in the Administration. The first two books were generally "slightly favorable" to the Administration; the last an exploration of a failed policy (and not so favorable).

So, I assume what Woodward relates is reasonably factual.

It is clear to me in reading about what happened immediately following 9/11 was at least "guided" by substantial discussion in line with the "Bush Doctrine" PRIOR to 9/11. There are repeated, but seemingly inconsequential references to Iraq (chiefly by Rumsfeld) in the discussions immediately following 9/11. In fact, Iraq seems to have been the focus of pre-9/11 discussion and 9/11 and Al Qaeda a sort of diversion. To me this explains the "War on Terror." The phrase was deliberately chosen so as NOT to limit our 9/11 response to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. In the post 9/11 planning, Rumsfeld is constantly reminding the planners for the war in Afghanistan to state objectives broadly, so that public opinion does not become focused solely on Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Afghanistan, but leaves the door open for future action elsewhere.

This was extraordinarily deceitful to both the American people and our traditional and new allies, the support of whom was conditioned upon our war in Afghanistan to be for limited objectives related to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in response to 9/11. Had all of these people been told (including the American people) PRIOR to their support in Afghanistan of the "broader agenda" it is highly unlikely we would have had their support in the "first round."

IMO, Congress now has the responsibility to ensure this debate over the broader direction of American foreign policy. I see three major choices. We may continue to pursue the Bush Doctrine, but gear our military forces to ensure its success. We may return to something in between Clinton and Bush, but renounce regime change and preemptive war and rely primarily, but not exclusively, on multi-lateralism (with emphasis on homeland security). Or, we may go into a semi-isolationist mode.

The neo-con hi-jacking of American foreign policy was unexpected and possible only in the wake of 9/11. Prior to 9/11 the debate in American foreign policy was between "internationalists and isolationists." No one expected the radical assumptions of the "Bush Doctrine." Now is the time for our attention.