Centerfield

Same gun is pointed at the "heads" of Saudi Aabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Turkey...

Are they sending troops too? :-)

If they send serious diplomatic pressure to Iran and Syria, it's a start. They could do more good by beating up their internal support for the insurgencies--to date they've mostly welcomed the "export" of their own dissidents to where we could do that dirty work for them.

Yeah, nice to know someone else is getting something out of our effort, eh? Good thing we haven't been holding our breath waiting for these governments to crack down on their own most radical elements.

Honest question here...is it really reasonable to think Iran would pay much heed to the grumbling of Kuwait, Jordan, or SA? What's their leverage, oil production? Something else too? Perhaps a bit of fomenting.

Can these folks get through channels to real power brokers? My sense is that Iran has been operating via the council of mullahs behind the curtain, and that Ahmadinejad is the figurehead/lightning rod du jour. Nice system if you can get it to work. The populace gets fed up with the government, and then you mollify them by "changing" it and putting up a shiny new figurehead that sings the new favorite song. Basically, in this performance of "meet the new boss same as the old boss," it's a puppet show. From time to time, they push up what passes as liberal reformist, and then they crack down and replace, and so on and so on. The only mechanism for replacing the guys behind the curtain is basically dragging corpses through the street, right?

Hizb"Allah, is calling off protests for the moment. If a combined effort of France, the US, and Arab regimes can't dampen Hizb"Allah, then don't expect much in Iraq. I think many do not understand the pervasiveness in Islamist sentiment on most Muslim streets. So far Abbas has survived an Iranian-backed Sunni Hamas. I think many Arab regimes fear their own street if helping Sunnis in Iraq and Lebanon is perceived as helping the US or Israel.

Tully said it. The same gun is at Sunni Heads and all who plan on exporting oil from the Gulf should a shooting war erupt. It is understandable but completely inane for Democrats to threaten action against the administration should they use force against Iran. I wonder where Kerry is now? The West has increased its pressure on Iran and perhaps with some real effort we can possibly turn Syria from Iran.

The Mullahs have staked some capital on their President who must have been given a green light to provoke Israel and the West. Chasing out America was to be the cover for extending Shia control. Russia and China see our trouble as their advantage. And the Mullahs have championed a new resurgence of Russia to counter the US in the Middle East. It helps to cover their behavior.

The Mullahs have shown zero interest in pulling in their attack dog despite overwhelming public opposition to his policies. Does anyone think we could just plop into Iraq and turn the Wild West Show into the beginning of peace and a growing alliance with Pro-Western groups? Until Arabs see Iranian obstructionism in Gaza and Lebanon for what it is, see the dangerous global network Iran is constructing, we will have to wait for decisive action. As long as Muslim moderates hang precariously over an abyss, they are not likely to send troops or significant money. Bush will have to show tonight the connections between Middle East road to peace, Iranian and Syrian support of terror and the duplicitous escalation by Iran and Syria of Sunni on Shia violence. Perhaps Richardson could do that afterwards. Or Clinton or Obama. I know whatever is said in the State of the Union, the Democrats will see it as some line in the sand of a partisan war here, not a strong signal for "over there".

It's interesting A Bad Idea That's Worth a Try is how I think of this, too, but I think the article had two big mistakes.

The biggest is on the politics of dealing with al-Maliki. The extra troops aren't there to hold a gun to his head. No, the sole threat used was getting out, and that's already actually worked because it was delivered to al-Maliki rather than al-Sadr. Al-Maliki's status as head of government depends on having a democratic government, rather than government by who has the most guns; he must understand he would'n't last long if we got out. That said, I suspect he's right about how enthusiastic a partner al'Maliki will be.

The other mistake was in Keane's quote:
"If we have to go into Sadr City" -- a Shiite stronghold in Baghdad -- "what will happen will be rather dramatic. The Badr Corps and the Jaish al-Mahdi [two major Shiite militias], which are not aligned, will align. And they'll also be able to align the vigilante groups,

This sounds more like an alignment of Keane's fears than a real likelihood. WHY will that happen? WHY would Badr Corps care the least bit about Sadr City? WHY would the zillions of little militias around Iraq all be likely to go to Sadr's hangout on Sadr's terms? Evidence, please.

He's thinking in terms of traditional military opponents that are likelier to band together. But it'd be like all the Mafias getting together in New York or Las Vegas to resist the FBI. There are many reasons that doesn't happen much. Even in a more traditional conflict setting, well, both Axis and Allies were unhappy with their records of cooperation at the end of WWII.

In the past, the Iraqi government has blocked American forces from confronting Shiite militants.

This isn't relevant to the overall point, but it annoys me because I keep seeing this. In fact, Coalition forces had been restraining themselves from confronting Shi'ite militias for a long time before the Shiite bloc came to power, indeed well before there was an Iraqi government.

To me the surge is truly he "worst foreign policy blunder" we've made in a long time. I've asked the same question on this forum several times - what mistakes - and the only answers I've ever gotten are the alternate history types. Maybe this would have happened if only we had done that. Maybe, maybe not. To me the Bush administration has made only one error. And it has been a continuous one from the very start. Pandering to political critisizm. They rushed the job, and rushed job is almost invariably a botched job.

The surge/last chance/hail mary is contrary to what I think the only strategy with a good chance of success is. The long haul. Sorry, but if you think you can change the face of a region that western powers have spent the last 100 years fubar'ing in a few years you're an idiot. I see the surge as an admission of defeat. We're toast folks. Once we fail (20K troops? you gotta be kidding!) the next step is the retreat.

I've been the eternal optimist about the move we made into Iraq, but right now I'm very discouraged. Maybe the folks at the top see something I don't. Perhaps we are at a crux. Perhaps there is a tipping point just around the corner where the Iraqi people (people, not the Iraqi Army) will stand on their own. It looks a lot farther away than 6-9mo to me though. So, if/when the surge doesn't turn Iraq into a shining star of Democracy right away what's the likelyhood we're going to be able to stick it out? Somewhere around zero by my calculations. Talk about a tactical blunder.

> To me the surge is truly he "worst foreign policy blunder" we've made in a long time.

Worse than Vietnam? Taking down PM Mossadegh in Iran (which arguably led to the current crisis)(note, brought up by The Profesora during the SOTU)? Please.

> They rushed the job ...

Sounds fair to me.

Sorry, but if you think you can change the face of a region that
western powers have spent the last 100 years fubar'ing in a few
years you're an idiot.

They said President Wilson was an idiot, too, when he went democratizing the Balkans, especially after it got occupied twice by the nastiest powers imaginable. When the Soviets fell, all of a sudden, most of the places Wilson'd democratized redemocratized. The surrounding states didn't until the inevitable pressure came. Hmm. Maybe Wilson wasn't so wrong, after all.

Iraq is small potatoes. It's not even a hotspot, just vaguely close to one. The face of the Balkans has changed in twenty years from thousands of years of hopelessness to freedom and hope. Iraq is nothing compared to that.

Iran and North Korea

Iraq is small potatoes. It's not even a hotspot, just vaguely close to one.

Meh. We made it a hotspot. It wouldn't be one if we hadn't invaded. Now, IMO, its symbolic importance far outstrips any arguments about its tactical sigificance. If we bail and Iraqi is given over to muslim extremists, they'll feel like we Americans did when we beat the Russians in hockey at Lake Placid, or how Red Sox fans felt when we beat the Yankees in Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS. To me, saying Iraq isn't a hot spot is similar to Yankees fans saying, "we're still up 3 games to 1." Sometimes the whistler is the last one to notice he's strolling through the graveyard.

We made it a hotspot. It wouldn't be one if we hadn't invaded.

Wow. Memories are short, aren't they?

"I hope the surge works, ..."

The issue isn't the number of American troops that will be in Baghdad, it's the strategy for how they'll be used. To evaluate the strategy, and any competing strategy, look at the history of what has and hasn't worked in past counterinsurgencies, including within the current one in Iraq.

Wow. Memories are short, aren't they?

Oops. sorry Tully, I forgot that your mind-reading ability waxes and wanes. So no benefit of the doubt for me about a larger point, not today. I thought it was obvious that I was merely speaking comparitively.

I'm not looking for a fight here. Obvious, it's been something of a hotspot for some time, even as it has gone up and down the chart in relation to other global events. All I meant to imply is that for better or worse, we made it into the focal point that it currently is, and ought to treat it as such. In other words, it's not that it wasn't a hotspot, it's that we fueled the fire and made it into arguably one of the very hottest of spots.

Iraq was what it was when Hussein ruled, a wretched place suffering under the yoke of an evil despot. His iron-fisted rule was powerful enough that open operations of competing powerful factions were inadvisable. Islamic fundamentalists looking for glory probably didn't have Iraq at the top of their list of places of opportunity like they do now. Our actions (invading) changed peoples perceptions, and that has created a certain reality.

Is that any better, or are you still determined to disagree? :-)

> Is that any better, or are you still determined to disagree?

I am, but maybe I'm just defining the word "hotspot" differently. I think in terms of places like the region around Jerusalem or N. Ireland, which I don't see here. In ten years, one way or another, I believe Baghdad will be safe to walk in, though it might be by despotism again.

It's definitely true that Iraq is a region of conflict now, more than it was before we invaded. But it isn't the kind of place I expect to breed war and/or suicide bombers for centuries or millenia.

One thing from the Petraeus hearing I'd like to point out. When asked whether a resolution opposing the troop increase would “give the enemy some encouragement,” Petraeus answered affirmatively.

Some would say that that statement steps into Congress's prerogative to advise the president on foreign policy. However, there is a definite kernel of truth to the statement. Under current circumstances, large numbers of Iraqis who would prefer a liberal society are preparing to accommodate themselves to domination by al Qaeda in the Sunni provinces or Sadr in the Shiite provinces. They are making such preparations because they know that Sadr and al Qaeda will remain when everything is settled, but are not so certain that we will stay to protect them if they work with us to try to bring about a liberal society and fail. Passing such a resolution only raises more doubts.

There was only one moment when despite the stupidity Bush handled numerous issues, I could empathize with his frustration. He looked out at all those people and reminded them directly that they did not vote for failure. They voted for victory.

Indeed, the State of Our Union rests on the sacrifice we must make to contain extremism, invent new alternative energy and promote the Liberal Democratic ideals the free world rallied around for more than 100 years. Bush called for an increase of 92,000 for our armed forces. Democrats hold solidarity in the struggle with religious extremists below partisan advantage. They will not support Bush and fear that positive events in Iraq and elsewhere (see Paris conference, African Union troops to Somalia, EU sanctions against Iran, status of new negotiations with NK) as a threat to their "defeatism" as a new way forward.

The sad truth is that Obama and Hagel, Edwards and Kennedy consider Iraq lost. Period. Clinton even rambled afterwards with interviewers that benchmarks can only be met by setting a time-table. Obama went further, explaining that Maliki is an extremist, and political solutions can ONLY BE ACHIEVED by withdrawing. Yes, condemn the Iraq government and ignore other more dangerous governments actually trying to kill US soldiers.

Kerry says today (tearfully) that Iraq threatens "all I have worked for since I came back form Viet Nam". Wow. When asked about the reports of the Iraqi forces going after Shia, the laws being passed about oil sharing and the likely disaster withdrawal will cause, Obama explained last night, Iraq already had four years. Both candidates warned against any action towards Iran and despite being reminded of Iranian and Syrian duplicity and the civil war in Gaza refute the idea that negotiations will produce peace. The Democrats consider Iraq a civil war despite articles like Bryan's posted below on another thread here.

Was I missing something or was Webb chuckling through the end of his Democratic response last night? Personally, I thought his response, like most Democratic retorts, failed to counter either Bush's proposed domestic initiatives or Bush's spin on Iraq.

Today more than 30 Shia militants were killed by Iraqi/US forces. Iran continues to boast Russian weapons and has obviously given the green light for Hizb"Allah to oust the Lebanese government despite a pause due to Lebanese security forces. Iran will continue to test missiles (it is reported today they work with North Korean scientists) and special ops not because they CAN, but because they want Iranians to feel more patriotic and less anxious about US action. I doubt they do. The Mullahs are working hard to project their influence. THe idea issued today by Iran that we conspire to pit Shia and Sunni is amazing. Does the media counter to explain that it is Iran who helps Sunni extremists murder Shia in Iraq?

Strange to see how opposed Democrats are to promoting democracy. I don't buy the argument that the country with the largest population is the wealthiest and hence, most influential. America and ultimately, our hemisphere contains enough educated and productive people joined in Liberal Democracy to lead the world for decades to come. The best way we can support our continued prosperity, security and leadership is by convincing more of the world to join us. We need to build constitutional democracies, human rights and free markets in order to live free in peace. Democrats do not seem to understand Islamists, the strategies of Russia and China, the growth of organized crime (a 6 trillion dollar a year business) and tyranny growing in Caracas and NK (to name a few places). No matter how bloggers spin it, the Democrats are running on isolationism, redistribution of capital and appeasing their base. If I were Republican (which I am not) I would be comfortable with the present position considering the recent election, Bush and Iraq. Let Democrats pass their resolutions. I have a strong suspicion that world events will provide such stances as great sound bits for 2008.

Please tell me what Democrat hopes we succeed in Iraq? What message of victory, resolution and determination is the DNC sending? What are we telling extremists their strategy should be? Right now the DNC pulls money from my credit card every month to add to their campaign. It is called a Democratic "bond". At what point will I pull the plug? Depends on who ends up running and how much more crap I can take, now that Democrats control a small majority in Congress. God the friggin learning curve.

I will give them until the spring.......

Go Bears.......

Obama went further, explaining that Maliki is an extremist, and political solutions can ONLY BE ACHIEVED by withdrawing.

What planet is Obama on? Political solutions can only be achieved in an atmosphere of security. An atmosphere of security can only be achieved with the help of western military presence. Therefore, unless someone can counter one of the two items above, political solutions can NOT be achieved without western military force. Anything else is fantasy.

"Political solutions can only be achieved in an atmosphere of security."

It doesn't take much extrapolation for a reasonable person to see that without US military deployment along the front lines in their sand, we have dangerously less security and negitive leverage. It seems consistent with our understanding of human behavior, yes?

"Unlike any other species, humans cooperate with non-kin in large groups. This behavior is puzzling from an evolutionary perspective because cooperating individuals incur individual costs to confer benefits on unrelated group members. None of the mechanisms commonly used to explain such behavior allows the evolution of altruistic cooperation in large groups" altruistic punishment

And this just in from the UN. I would say this is certainly aother great example of "lack of security" producing conditions for zero political solution. Unfortunately for us, our adversaries believe that if you don't succeed at first, try again, and again, and again.

Kerry says today (tearfully) that Iraq threatens "all I have worked for since I came back form Viet Nam".

When you figure that out, please tell us.

It wasn't a "hotspot" when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Or when he invaded Iran and tried to sieze the Shatt al-Arab and annex Khuzestan, leading to the nine years of the Iraq/Iran War, when something like a million people both military and civilian died in the fighting? And so on, and so forth.

In other words, it's not that it wasn't a hotspot, it's that we fueled the fire and made it into arguably one of the very hottest of spots.

If it is now "the very hottest of spots," what do you call what it was before? What metrics are you employing? Did it only become a "hotspot" with American presence? (Careful with that last--it's loaded.)

Are they sending troops too? :-)

As always, be wary of simplistic views. There is more going on than you hear from the partisans. Either side.

Let's see where all that help gets Lebanon today. I think a bit of that 100 billion ends up in Sunni Jihadist's hands. I do see a broader strategy here and an additional carrier group sends a clear signal from Africa to Afghanistan that extremism will be confronted. This means more to the Saudis than the present situation in Gaza or Iraq.

What pressure is being brought to bear on Syria by their Sunni brothers? Egyptian, Saudi, Jordanian troops entering on the side of Abbas and serving at Sinora's disposal would be a good thing. Unfortunately, the Arab street will not allow this. All those years of scapegoating and despotism has consequence. So Shia butchery might have to escalate a bit before moderate leaders can persuade the street to actually support the West with what our adversaries will portray as their vile anti-Islamist treason.

If I was Saudi Arabia, I would stop sending militants abroad and start building a robust missile defense. In fact, redeploying some assets to Saudi Arabia would also send a message. Then again, US-supported Shia going after Sunnis in Iraq doesn't help.

At what point should the squeeze on EU and Arabs produce some juice? Before or after an Iranian confrontation? Before or after NK/Iran technology sharing produces a nuke warhead? Before Lebanon falls? Before Maliki falls?

Yes,Israel may prove to a more valuble partner to the Arabs than Iran, Syria or even Russia and China. Of course, Iran sees this danger despite being unable to control their self-defeating behavior.

Editorial question Tully. How come that strategy page article doesn't identify the author?

I gotta admit I found the info in this article to be awfully confusing if its supposed to make me think we were wise to get involved. I don't see any especially compelling reason to believe that either uniting sunnis and shias or keeeping them at each others throats would be especially good for us.

How come that strategy page article doesn't identify the author?

How would I know? Ask 'em.

I found the info in this article to be awfully confusing if its supposed to make me think we were wise to get involved

You're complaining of a lack of view-coercing editorialism in the reporting there? :-0

In any case, my point is that what you see from the MSM is the tip of the iceberg. 90%+ of what's going on is beneath the surface.

No?

These are what progressive students do in Lebanon. Here -----not.

"I don't see any especially compelling reason to believe that either uniting sunnis and shias or keeeping them at each others throats would be especially good for us."

A bit simplistic. Uniting nationalist Shias and Sunnis and/or dividing Shia and Sunni Jihadists would be a good thing. Nationalist Shia elements in Lebanon reject Hizb"Allah. Nationalist Fatah rejects Iranian supported Hamas. Sadr and others Shia militants are at odds with each other as well as with Sunnis. Some Sunnis in Anbar are helping the US against AQ. It is a struggle between reformationist and nationalistic Sunnis and Shia v extremists of both persuasions.

And what would be good for us Brian? From Africa to the Far East we need to pit extremists against themselves and unite moderate Islamists and pro-Western forces against the extremists. In this sense Israel is a far better friend to Arab governments than Iran, Syria, Iraq, and perhaps even Russia and China.

Civil Wars are clear conflicts between one side and another. This is hardly the case in either Lebanon or Iraq. Calling Maliki an extremist or telling the Iraqis they have lost is the worst possible signal now EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE (which it is not). Every day shows Bush struggling with reality and poor management and the Democrats struggling with the basic ingredients of foresight.

Calling Maliki an extremist or telling the Iraqis they have lost is the worst possible signal now EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE ).

If you say so, Max. Not gonna argue that one, it's the sort of thing only a true believer would say.

On another note, Democrats might want to consider this situation. Can they just stand there while Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Chavez, AQ and others make outrageous claims about American motives and get caught repeatedly doing something dangerous? I consider supplying weapon grade nuclear material to potential terrorists about as adversarial as a “partner” can get. This under-reporting in the West and the apathetic reaction is another part of American leverage that is missing. Without isolating these "obstructionists" by drawing notice to their behavior and not allowing them to slant the already negative media spin, our job in Iraq and elsewhere is much more difficult.

If there is another 90% we don’t see involving the above, the world is 90% more dangerous than many suspect.

Brian,
Hillary has not called Maliki an extremist. Obama had the chance to call him that to his face when he was here, but elected to do it on prime time. You know I meant that publicly telling Americans that he is an extremist at the very moment Iraqi and US soldiers were rounding up Shia militants is a pathetic message. Telling the Iraqi people that they have lost their struggle for stability while our soldiers are on the ground and AQ proclaims an Islamic Iraqi State is rather dimwitted diplomacy. Obama saw nothing wrong in this. I do, but then again, who am I?

As far as being a True Believer, I try to believe what I see as fact. I think both Bobby and Bryan gave coherent accounts of the complexity of Iraq. One needs only to look at today's events from Afghanistan to Somalia to see the struggle we are in and how complex. And look at all our allies. My true belief (based on sound evolutionary theory -see above link) is that we will not resolve these situations without negotiations backed up by military force and participants willing to make peace and accept far less than a world run by Islamic religious leaders. One needs sufficient security to provide the conditions for reasonable negotion. Little I see so far proves this is an incorrect view. It requires far less faith than believing that somehow the world will be safer once we have retreated.

And if Obama wants to leave Maliki and negotiations with him behind, I doubt Democrat negotiations with Iran, Syria and North Korea will be over before they start. I want to hear Obama call the Mullahs extremists tomorrow or tell Israel Friday that their struggle is lost. Simply poor rhetoric and pandering for political advantage. Do I think Obama is really the Dove he appears? No, but I would respect him more if he was.

I meant "I DON'T doubt that Democrat negotions with Iran...."

Max, my very narrow point there in responding to your statement that suggests we ought not tell them the truth is this:

I'm not in favor of lying to Iraqis if our best and most well-informed people can see the obvious handwriting on the wall. Where I come from, that's called "hanging them out to dry."

If we can give them hope because we have some genuine hope ourselves, then fine. But if not...

Petraeous is unanimously approved despite his own disagreement with Congress over what rational policy in Iraq should be. Doesn't this vote support applying in Iraq the very counterinsurgency strategy this military leader helped write?

While little press has given much analysis to the present pronouncements from Iran and Hizb"Allah, it should be clear by now that both Iran (the news heading is typical media garbage) and Syria have created a situation in the Middle East to maximize tension between not only the West/ Islamist divide, but also between Shias and Sunnis. It should also be obvious to even those who are not TRUE BELIEVERS, that this strategy for chaos is aimed at toppling moderate regimes and replacing them with extremist ones. Numerous blogs identify the likely source of the supplies and monies used to intensify sectarian and terrorist action as well as the duplicity of Syria and Iran in providing all parties with the means for violence.

Patraeous has no problem with targeting Iraians and Syrians in Iraq who are agents of insurgency. Iran is spinning it as a US declaration to kill Iranian tourists (now that is a great vacation) and diplomats. Hoshyar Zebari shows the usual strains of being a Press Secretary, but holds up well against a hostile Western Press.

Operation Imposing Law advocated by Maliki draws little Democrat support. CNN was downright rude. Zebari states simply that this operation is an Iraqi lead mission and no longer will hesitant authorization to use unrestricted force by the Iraq government get in the way because the Force is being lead by Iraq. Not the Stooge Leftists ever predicted we would "install". Straight answers and confirmation so far on the ground. A real TRUE BELIEVER does not need straight answers or factual confirmations. That is the point I have been making about Leftist fantasies for years as well as the silent stubbornness of True Believing administration officials who often avoid discussing our effort in Afghanistan.

What Tully says about the "iceberg rule" holds true for weapons as well. One reason Russia and China have been so bold is that they know that the US is not far from numerous holy grails. These breakthroughs have a primarily defensive application and will seriously impede offesnsive weapon systems from mortar shells to high altitude bombers and the cruise missiles they can drop. The Russians are crying about the US preparing to use nukes on Iran, but a new 30,000lb bomb can penetrate 200ft and Tungsten Spikes dropped high enough can also do the trick. If the US can actually take it to the next technical level, wouldn't we be in a much better place to force negotiations and win much more security in future weapon treaties? At some point agreements are mandatory as frameworks for vital cooperation. Unless we can demonstrate our determination and our capabilities, who thinks we can arrive at treaties that really protect our interests? The claims that we will (or have) started a news arms race is misdirection. First, there IS a continual arms race. Second, numerous allies that together have a stake in countering a growing asymmetrical threat privately acknowledge our former adversaries still point weapons at us and are investing billions in new technology support our arms race while doing little to support UN operations. Missile defense is partly a consequence of the proliferation they are helping. No amount of wishing by TRUE BELIEVERS will change this equation unless it becomes clear that together, the West has the advantage, will not concede it and that we are more than willing to negotiate a solution provided it can be verified and that it contains restraints against the proliferation of WMD, WMC and delivery systems. At the forefront of our present effort are lasers, autonomous systems (jets, drones, subs, and missiles), missile defense, rail and coil technology, energy technology (fuel cells, batteries), stealth, recon and all-electrical systems. While our adversaries are very smart and can build impressive prototypes, the depth of Western research from Australian scramjets to Japanese optics, Canadian robotics, German torpedoes and armor and English aerospace and aviation is the clear leader. There is certainly a struggle going on at all levels of competition in the world and we the people see only the tip. One can make educated extrapolations. Here is just part of the 10% we see. We will need our asymmetrical advantage in technology to counter the growing asymmetrical capabilities of our adversaries.