A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
September 08, 2007Bremer On Dissolving Old Iraqi ArmyTrue, but only part of the story. He should also have been thinking about what kinds of problems this would cause and done it more thoughtfully. The Army should've been dismissed piecemeal, and other jobs made available to each dismissed piece in turn. Also, he should've had our Army get out off its Green Zone duff to handle security until the Iraqi security forces were ready and had proven themselves. I mean, I always thought that was occupations were about.... Part of the problem seems to be that Bremer and other American military leaders appear to me to have accepted sheiks' and other leaders' assurances that they would keep order. That, of course, neglaected the questions of (1) whether individuals on their turf would see it as order (ethnic cleansing and protection rackets are orderly to the shieks, certainly, but unacceptable for our purposes), (2) how many bullets would go whizzing in turf wars, and (3) that extremists could come to occupy alot of turf without control, enough to make political progress hard because now they own Parliamentary seats. All that should especially have occurred to him after seeing Baghdad a daily mess of firefights. I agree with his article as far as it goes because Hitler used the old, pro-authoritarian German Army and Staff as a major tool to come to power. Plus, authoritarian armies often get in the habit of going around and collecting mordida. Posted by Jon Kay at September 8, 2007 01:37 AMComments
I don't buy it. Fiasco recounts several options to bring back low level military and vet former officers. There was much 50,000 unemployed former soldiers could do. The DOD objected to the extreme be-Bathification as discussed in Rick's book as well as Trainor's. This was stupid and other options regarding the police force were rejected before and during Bremer's tenure. Sure, Rummie and others share the blame, but Bremer is passing the buck. Iraq is still struggling with the decisions he made. I want him to go point by point with Ricks and explain his thought precess, if one could call it that. Authoritarian armies just don't reform. We needed a process to vet the officers and install checks and balances. Authoritarian armies can also cause alot of damage when driven into an underground. Bremer should have seen the mess and acted instead of sitting on his ass over-seeing a miserable administration of Iraqi institutions. Posted by: Maxtrue at September 8, 2007 12:40 PMAnother consideration that Bremer neglected comes from Crane and Terrill's report Reconstructing Iraq. Their observation was that Baath ideology held that tribes were a backward concept, but that Saddam had reversed the process of detribalization when he took power in order to divide the people so as to make it harder for them to unite against him. The one exception to this was in the security services where Saddam sought to foster an identity as Saddam's protectors. Based on this, dissolving the Iraqi Army dissolved the one institution in Iraq that wasn't meant to divide Iraqi sects against each other. Posted by: Scott Smith at September 9, 2007 02:49 AMYes, good point. The Bremer spin covers over an almost Brownie-type approach to Iraq. There is much revision going on and excuse me for adding something regarding the revision concerning Bill Clinton and the reluctant supporters of the war. Many on the Left do not want to give up the mythology. Fiasco's last pages were published as many began calling Iraq a Lost War. They went beyond the incompetence and branded the entire notion of invasion a tragic mistake by the GOP and moderate Democrats. A bit of the record follows: [The reluctant supporters of removing Saddam Hussein in 2002 included many from both Parties. Such a Democratic attitude goes back to the early nineties when Democrats blasted Bush 1 for not removing Saddam when we had the chance. Even some conservatives were angered by the abandonment of the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings. Bill Clinton was swayed by the urgency of a group of conservatives made in 1998 warning of the consequences of a more belligerent Saddam aided by the ineffective (and corrupt) trends at the UN. He was also moved by the DOD and members within his own Party. Several months later. Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act Following the Act, Bill Bombed Iraq and broke the back of Saddam’s forces as mentioned in FIASCO by Thomas Ricks. Republicans weren’t on board with any of these Clinton actions including the sneaking off to Pakistan to further warn the now re-exiled former president of Pakistan that he was risking nuclear war and reneging on his deal by a continued failure to strike Bin Laden. Here at home, most conservative pundits were decrying American arrogance and Unilateralism (Wag the Dog too). This was the climate framing the proposed Barak Deal with Arafat. The President had to conduct negotiations with a fairly rabid Republican wing immune to cries of being unpatriotic. There have been numerous interviews and statements from President Clinton about Iraq and the GWOT including these 2005 remarks, but there is this as Commander in Chief laying out the seriousness of the emerging threats. There is also this from 2004 and this in as well. There was ample support on both sides of the aisle emerging after 9/11 and even before that event for Saddam to consent to weapon restrictions, inspections and industrial monitoring as well as to refrain from Shiite and Kurdish attacks. Either he does this ASAP, or force will be applied in the absence of strong sanctions. There was also two other points moderates could agree on; 1. Sanctions were likely to end soon with many Liberals claiming sanctions were inhumane and 2. Left unchecked it would impossible to determine the extent of Saddam’s WMD capacity, affiliations with terrorists, intelligence sharing with enemies and negative effects on Middle East security. Several moderates had reason to believe that with sanctions lifting by 2004 Saddam would have a good chance to produce a bomb and some other WMD capacity by late 2007. Biden was quoted as saying this was the case this summer on CNN. The logic to remove Saddam seems apparent in H.J Res. 114. To most observers, the multiplicity of justifications outlined the broader realization: Saddam could not be left free from constraint. Those reluctant supporters of forcing either a quick Gaddafy-like change in course by Saddam or his removal, considered the comprehensiveness, practicality, timing and preparation for such a move to be essential. There was little however, to think Iraq would go smoothly into Democracy. The risks were obvious as well as the apparent hast and manipulation that preceded invasion, by an Administration intent on moving towards a March 2003 dead-line. Sea-sick soldiers and billion dollar attempted bribes topped headlines before the invasion. The reasoning behind the use of force was not that Saddam was mounting nukes on his missiles, nor was it to bring Liberal Democracy to Iraq in a few years. Tough reality on the ground meeting what Ricks calls our FIASCO is what created the mess in Iraq today. The timing of our force as well as a strategic and tactical plan based in realism with depth and contingency planning was critical given the likely appearance of insurgent and sectarian opposition. There was a reasonable anxiety about the pragmatic and adaptive application of the new conservative foreign policy and the dangers of falling into a trap of our own making. Yet under Clinton, a new strategy was already taking shape. It was a more active policy using force when necessary in an escalating path towards despots. Terrorists and even threats against regimes that support them. This is the ground after 9/11 that brought moderates and the GOP together and approved the Administration’s use of force on Saddam if he refused to bend to the terms imposed on him a decade earlier.] Hope these work..... Posted by: Maxtrue at September 11, 2007 07:28 PMLOL....that is, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 for the (see full text) link above. Posted by: Maxtrue at September 11, 2007 07:34 PM |
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Three Quotes
The Choice, Based on Iraq Policy Even More Of A Surprise Castro Bows Out Kosovo Declares Independence Will Obama Take McCain's Funding Dare? Global Poverty Act Preservation Friday Band Taking on Obama Electoral Results Came Out As Expected?!?
|
