McCain’s Self-Contradictory Imperialism on Iraq

As Eric Martin (along with others) has pointed out the McCain campaign has officially come out in favor of the neocon/neo-paleocon position of outright colonialism in Iraq.

From Michael Goldfarb, McCain’s blogger/spokesman:

The deputy director of communications for the McCain 2008 campaign, Michael Goldfarb, yesterday said, “John McCain has said he will only support a withdrawal based on conditions on the ground. It is our belief that the Iraqi leaders share that view. The disposition of a sovereign, democratically elected government is one of the conditions that will be taken into account.” [emphasis added]

The term for this setup is satrapy.  It is exactly the same thing that the British tried in Iraq–to smashing success.

But I haven’t seen any bloggers point to an even deeper inconsistency/out-right contradiction in this statement by McCain.  Namely McCain is on record (via the Fred Kagans of the world) as defining victory in Iraq as a “democratically elected trans-ethnic stable strong central government in Iraq that is an American ally/Iranian foe in the war on terror and a beacon of hope to the Middle East.”

Forget for the moment that such a dream is in fact a utopia (i.e. exists nowhere), notice how McCain’s own downgrading of the importance of the Iraqi government can’t work with his goal of a strong Iraqi government. In other words, McCain’s own campaign/policy undercuts his own goal in the region.

At the very least, the definition of the right on victory should be redefined as everything above plus “and agrees with the right-wing US policy stance.”  Even more utopian in nature, but reality won’t stop McCain & Co., because they have a strategy of “victory”.

Yet again the neocon right can not come to grips with the fact that the US can not simply make people do what it wants–especially by writing more op-eds and going on Cable News–that others have their own interests (not always aligned with ours), and will act in a rational manner relative to their own interests.  They will act in ways that they think best help achieve their goals (which are not our goals).  Which yes (horror of horrors) may involve using others (like say the US) and telling them what they want to hear but not actually having the same set of objectives.

The ISCI/Dawa relationship to the US has always been to get training, arm them, have them kill some Sunnis, help with their takeover of Baghdad, force them to install a pro-Shia government (Sistani’s call for elections), so that they can then go about their dominance of the place.  And they want to both stay allied to Iran and yet not become a pure Iranian puppet–and have at times played the US to decrease Iranian influence and Iran to decrease/diminish US influence.  In other words, they have played a fairly smart game.   See how little of their goals line up with Bush/McCain’s goals for Iraq.  And you see why at some point, the house of cards was going to get called by the Shia and that time has come.

Which is why Max Boot’s inanity in today’s Washington Post (as further evidence of the new neocon meme of imperialism) doesn’t get off the ground.

Rather than seeing a pattern of “ambiguous statements” by Maliki and foolish public posturing, you see a guy who has continually wanted the US out and is closer to Iran than the US, always has been, always will. And given that Maliki has always seen himself as the protector of the Shia (not the Prime Minister of Iraq) this would suggest that this has consistently been the view of the majority of Iraqi Shia (i.e. US out).

Today’s Scare the Bleep Out of You Opinion on Bombing Iran

A twofer today one from Marty Peretz in The New Republic who links to this op-ed in the NyTimes by Benny Morris.

Both articles assert that Israel is heading towards an attack with Iran. That the consensus across the Israeli political spectrum is bombs away. [There are other reports which state that the Israelis are hampered by needing US air-space which the US may not grant.]

There a number of assumptions, each and every one of which you must think correct go down the bombs away road of Peterz/Morris.

1)Iran isn’t doing what they say they are doing (which is build peaceful nuclear energy not a bomb).

MP:

No one is especially eager for a military assault on Iran’s maturing nuclear capacity. But almost no one doubts that Iran wants that capacity to be military, and so everyone rational is forced into thinking about how to curb–better yet, destroy–that appetite.

Starting off a sentence with “no one is especially eager for a military assault” inevitably leads to “but I will lay out the case for doing so nonetheless.” True to form is Peretez. Now the “almost no one” who doubts Iran’s nuclear ambition would be The UN Atomic Energy Agency and the US National Intelligence Estimate, but never mind that.

2)So assuming one is true (FSOA) the next assumption is economic sanctions won’t work (which I actually think is correct). Because there is no carrot involved. The sticks are either sanctions are we bomb you. Not exactly a great bargaining offer.

3)Taking regime change off the table, i.e. Grand Diplomatic Bargain could never work. They don’t even raise the possibility that this could even be countenanced, much less the need to criticize this approach, assuming as all like-minded “rational” people pushing civilian deaths as a way to stop er civilian deaths

4)A bombing could work:

MP:

Bombing the atomic facilities, dispersed and underground, would not be easy. But my information tells me that it is eminently doable.

Ah yes that great font of (secret) knowledge: my information.  But two can play at the this game for “my information” (which I got from The Google) tells me differently.

Moreover:

The consensus of which I write has emerged due to the failure of international diplomacy and coercion to do the job. The Israeli consensus is also exactly what a consensus is supposed to be: more or less, across the board.

In true hawk fashion the “international diplomacy” in question consisted of essentially all sticks (no carrots) and never bargaining in good faith. Never dealing with the issues the countries actually have to deal with–in other words, there was no diplomacy. It was never tried with any effort or intention. Other than do what we say and then we won’t sanction and/or bomb you to smithereens.

Morris has a decidedly even more deranged/pessimistic view of the matter.

The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian nuclear project.

But he still says they should give it the green light. (No matter!!!). The results of which are (I s–t you not) the double bank shot theory that this failed first bombing run will bring forth a massive Iranian counter attack which will then give Israel the grounds to (wait for it) DROP NUKES ON IRAN. [Remembering this is the "liberal" NyTimes that printed this horror].

The other option after the failed bombing would be like every other country in the post-nuclear age to live with MAD (mutually assured destruction). Nukes=ending great power war.

But that leads to Assumption #5, the Iranian regime consists of crazy irrational Muslims so this won’t work (they are too mad for MAD as it were):

Benny Morris (my italics):

Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.

Yeah those rational men like Khruschev who smacked a shoe on the desk and yelled “We will bury you.” If only we some rational dudes like that in Iran things would be peachy. WTF? Double and Triple WTF?

I mean, gee whiz if only….

Alternatively, if the views of Benny Morris do in fact in any way shape or form mirror those of the supposed Israeli gov’t/military consensus, then buy your stock in oil now (it’s gonna jump big time) and get Rapture Ready for the apocalypse will be at hand.

–

Update I: For the reader wanting more, I recommend Joe Klein’s takedown of Morris.

Discussion of The Dark Side

Deep food for thought (and tragic reflection) in this video.  Particularly the first 30 minutes or so.  Jane Mayer author of the new scorcher author of The Dark Side interviewed at New America by Steve Clemons. Mayer chronicles the legal minds (particularly the odious David Addington) behind the Bush Presidency’s legitimation of torture.  As she states they think of themselves as not breaking the law but rather “have their own interpretation of it.”  One that points to a unitary executive branch, dismisses all considerations of treaties/international opinion/law and even went so far as to contemplate (thankfully never enacted) trying to override the Supreme Court.  And at the very least (which is to say far too much) sees any perceived diminution of executive power/privilege by the Congress as simply to be ignored.  Otherwise known as breaking the law.  The myopia and weird re-fighting of the Ford administration battles (fears of Congressional overreach) in the post 9/11 is scary that these humans could be so ignorant and have such power.

Cheney of course resides at the heart of the dark side.  The phrase is his own.  Mayer talks about how the VP’s Office (Addington was the VP’s lawyer now Chief of Staff since Scotter Libby got in legal trouble) ran the show.  Bush she says keeps falling out of frame.  And the information he got was vetted/edited by the VP’s office.

Of the top priorities of an Obama administration, of which there are too many too count after the adolescents who’ve been mismanaging the state for the last eight years, one of which has to be to ferret out this cancer–torture, secrecy, signing statements.  Some disinfectant is needed.  We’ll see.  It’s awfully tempting once one has the reins of power to convince oneself that one will use them for good.  [That is of course the entire story of The Dark Side[.

Rory Stewart on Afghanistan

Rory Stewart, author of two brilliant texts, The Place in Between and The Prince of the Marshes. Stewart (bio here) a British Foreign Officer spent years in Afghanistan in reconstruction and then deputy Gov. of a Southern Iraq Province.

Stewart has a must-read op-ed in Time. It raises again the specter of Afghanistan becoming Obama’s Iraq (or Vietnam). Here’s hoping someone in their camp reads this.

Stewart (speaking from on the ground experience/knowledge) states that NATO/US should not send more troops to Afghanistan. The Soviet experience, the British experience (19th-20th c.) even all the way back to Alexander the Great. Afghans are fiercely anti-occupation and the NATO force sadly in the last years has gone (like in Iraq) from being seen as a liberator to an occupier.

The country in other words has to come to its own political future and choices. Stewart points towards what can be done by the West.

RS:

A smarter strategy would focus on two elements: more effective aid and a more limited military objective.

On the former:

We should focus on meeting the Afghan government’s request for more investment in agricultural irrigation, energy and roads. And we should increase our support to the most effective departments, such as education, health and rural development; they are good for the reputation of the Afghan state and the West. Creating more educated, healthier women and men and better transport, communications and electrical infrastructure may be only part of the story, but they are essential for Afghanistan’s economic future.

On the latter:

Our military strategy, meanwhile, should focus on counterterrorism — not counterinsurgency. Our presence has so far prevented al-Qaeda from establishing training camps in Afghanistan. We must continue to prevent it from doing so. But our troops should not try to hold territory or chase the Taliban around rural areas. We should also use our presence to steer Afghanistan away from civil war and provide some opportunity for the Afghans themselves to create a more humane, well-governed and prosperous country. This policy would require far fewer troops over the next 20 years, and they would probably be predominantly special forces and intelligence operatives.

This would fit with Obama’s overall focus on destroying al-Qaeda and his publicly expressed realism and understanding of having to work with bad/less than ideal actors in less than ideal circumstances. He has also talked (following his mentor on these issues Joe Biden) about increasing aid to Pakistan for civil society predicated on certain other political measures. A similar move could be done in Afghanistan rather than Obama’s (to date) seemingly more open-ended blank check promises to the Afghan government. Though it should be noted that Obmaa criticized President Karzai in his latest speech.

This Stewartian vision pushes directly against Petraeus–assuming Petraeus as Cent Com Commander will push for some modified version of his COIN doctrine in Afghanistan. [That assumption may be prove to be false. Either A)Petraeus only continues to focus on Iraq as his baby or B)He realizes somehow that what worked in Iraq won't work in Afghanistan].

Update I:  Per this story of Obama’s trip to Kabul and the security deterioration there, there may be a way to split the difference if (and this is undoubtedly a Big If) the increase in troops to Afghanistan is based on a very short term horizon then transiting to the kind of vision Stewart lays out.  Alternatively of course it could just entangle them in further and lead to a longer, bloodier stalemate.

Looking Whose Coming to the Foreign Policy Dinner

Story here from the NyTimes. Bush now is negotiating a “time horizon” for withdrawal from Iraq. But it’s not a timetable, I promise (fingers crossed behind the back).

The Pentagon is looking to send more troops to Afghanistan. And rumors (which is all they are at this point) of opening a diplomatic “presence” in Iran (don’t call it a consulate).

In other words, without really wanting to, Bush is heading to Obama’s foreign policy.  Reality it appears intruded on his fantasies for the region.  A little late and kicking and screaming but the momentum and direction is clear (minus an Israeli attack on Iran).

A Reverse Sidney Poitier.

This leaves McCain even more isolated and radical in his thinking. His only homey at this point is John Bolton. And craptastic Romney on his VP-whoring circuit. It will be fascinating to see what Johnny does with this–come out and blast the President? Say that we need to keep those troops in there so we can win faster so we can withdrawal faster? Or just say this was the view he had all along (i.e. the old bald faced lie).

McCain can bluster on the trail all he wants, but the first day in office were he elected (Dear Krishna No) the Pentagon would sit down and have an adult talk with the Commander and let him know that his campaign promises and strategies in both Iraq and Afghanistan are unfeasible. They can not be undertaken with the current state of rotations, numbers of troops, etc.

And for all this talk for so long about how Obama was this naif more and more folk keep jumping on the wagon.

Obama Larry King

Two reasons I’m posting this.

1)Obama mentions that the New Yorker cartoon (and more importantly the emails/whisper campaigns it was meant to satirize) offend Muslim Americans. And that he, Obama and his campaign, have not always done the best in speaking out on this subject–focused usually as they have been (properly) on saying that he is not a Muslim. But sometimes it comes across as if that were intrinsically a bad thing or something if he were (which he’s not). So hat tip for that one.

[For what's worth on the magazine, he says it's satire, doesn't think it worked as satire (I agree--it wasn't funny whether or not it was offensive), but it's a cartoon for God's sakes and there are more important things in the world.]

2)BO is clearly getting down the language of saying that McCain is only focused on tactics and not strategy. Strategically the war was a mistake and the surge (and continuing it a la McCain) is only further embedding the strained military in an un-winnable conflict. The strategy has failed whatever tactical victories are gained. [i.e. The victories are non-sustainable as they have no political framework within which to stick. McCain is absolutely silent on this issue.]

On McCain’s Iraqian Afghan Strategy

This is what happens when your entire lens is Iraq. Joe Biden, whose always good for a one-liner or two, today said McCain was running for Commander in Chief of Iraq not the US.

From Eric Martin at American Footprints on the recent announcement of the McCain campaign that they plan to use Iraqi-based counter-insurgency in Afghanistan because as McCain says “he knows how to win wars.”:

Great plan. All we have to do is: get the Afghans to divide the population through massive ethnic/sectarian cleansing, wall off the various factions, get Moqtada al-Sadr to tell his Afghan buddies to stand down (they’re all Islamofascists taking orders from A-Jad bin Laden after all), strike a deal with those tribal elements that were fighting us but would be willing to enlist our support to help them vis-a-vis the Karzai government and then…balanced budget from the victory dividend!

Surge-tastic!!!

Darfur Update

Excellent reporting from David Axe in The American Prospect.

As has been reported elsewhere and is given further proof from Axe’s reporting, the militia-ization of Sudan/Chad continues apace. It is fragmenting along ethnic, tribal lines. There are criminal gang militias, government sponsored militias (the janjaweed), rebel militias with human atrocities/violations committed on all sides—rebel groups are taking child soldiers to fight the genocide-sponsoring Khartoum government for example.

Axe:

The U.N. says that the war shows no signs of ending anytime soon and that more aid will be needed. But based on conversations with sources at Iridimi and elsewhere in eastern Chad, it’s possible that the largely Western-funded humanitarian effort to “save Darfur” is actually prolonging the conflict by providing a safe haven in Chad for the rebel groups fighting Khartoum and its janjaweed militia proxies. The rebels have become so empowered that they declined to attend Libyan-sponsored, U.S.-supported peace talks last year.

With both US prez candidates talking about intervening in Darfur, some sober reflection is required. Obama’s plan for Darfur can be found here (scroll down the page). It involves a no fly zone, tougher sanctions on the Khartoum government, and more support for the African Union.

But that plan it would seem fails to take into account the rebel movement and its own human rights violations. [One of the key platforms of Obama's FP influenced by Samantha Power is ending Genocide. Her classic text on the subject, here]. It also in other words fits a basic template of Clintonian-Blairian-Powell Doctrine liberal humanitarianism. Sanctions, no fly zones, etc a la Iraq policy during the 90s or African policy in the 90s (Liberia, SIerra Leone).

I checked John McCain’s website and (not surprisingly) there is nothing about Darfur/African policy. [Sidenote: Unbelievably (and to my horror) there is nothing under the Issues Frame about Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's all Iraq. But there is talk of missile defense!!! See here.]

I did find this Washington Post op-ed McCain co-authored with Bob Dole in 2006 on Darfur. It’s basically the same plan as Obama’s: keep the AU troops in, financial sanctions on Khartoum, no fly zone, and intelligence sharing].

Interesting this regard that McCain compares the situation to the Balkans given the recent declaration of independence by Kosovo. On this trend line, it would seem Sudan could headed for breakup. That could be the first (along with Somalia and Congo) in a trajectory of deconstruction/recreation of African states.

On the priority list of Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Darfur it obviously comes in a distant fourth. But given the post Obama presidency (assuming he has an 8 year run let’s say) will be increasingly focused on African policy and our relationship with China (given China essentially is building Africa brick by brick). This is one to keep on the horizon. As Thomas Barnett I think correctly predicted years ago, Africa, particularly middle zone Africa, will be the next major staging ground of al-Qaeda like jihadism. It is unclear if the stationing of foreign troops in Sudan/Chad will later (a la Bin Laden’s anger over US stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I) be used as rallying cry for such movements.

McCain to Jump on Obama Afghan Bandwagon

But without a lot rational thought/planning involved it would appear.

Per Abu Muquawama, Eli Lake reports that McCain will call for a surge in Afghanistan, story here.

Charlie (an expert in COIN) from AM comments:

Ok, this is six kinds of interesting. Charlie would love to know which specific “strategy” has been nominated for export….and whether it was based on any assessment of, you know, Afghanistan. There are some basic COIN best practices that might improve the situation in Afg (one word: sanctuary), but the broader population centric approach would require significant changes to be successfully applied there. And if McCain’s crew think they can blindly transfer “lessons” from the Anbar Awakening to the assorted tribes in Afg (and NWFP?) then we’re gonna have some real fireworks.

Also, and Charlie hates to be pedantic, but there’s the minor matter of where exactly these troops would come from. Obama says Iraq, but McCain has largely campaigned on maintaining current troop levels there. Of course with the current admin back-peddling a bit on this same issue now, perhaps McCain has some wiggle room. But this is not the place to send (more) ill-equipped and poorly trained National Guard troops when you’ve run out of active duty units.

There are two Talibans (at least), Northern and Southern.  But seems unlikely they could be totally split off from one another.  Afghanistan is far more rural than Iraq (more urban terrain).  And as with the flipping of the Sunni Tribes in Anbar there doesn’t seem to be a parallel–perhaps some tribal chiefs in the border regions who have been terrorized/killed by the Taliban/AQ elements could be persuaded.

In true McCain form, no details offered, just promises of victory.  Just like balancing budgets, winning wars, and the rest, he has a “comprehensive strategy”–just no details to go along with it.  Comprehensively detail deficient.

Obama’s FP Speech

This is one of the major league one’s he given.  The transcript of his speech is here.

He isn’t saying anything new in this speech that he hasn’t already but it puts it all together and lays out the whole vision in one speech.  Built around five pillars:  getting out of Iraq; going harder in Afghanistan, particularly to destroy AQ; work to lock down loose nukes; wean off oil; and re-build alliances for the 21st century.

The first and second (and last I suppose) of which are built around a premise of not relying solely on military efforts nor on simplistic notions of elections as the panacea to all ills (what Richard Haas calls ballotocracy).

He hits McBush exactly where he should:  they have lacked strategic vision.  They have isolated the US relied solely on the military for what are non-military issues (diplomacy, nation-building, etc.) and have bunkered a mobile fighting force into one country unrelated to the attacks of September 11th and continue to let fester the actual enemy.

Now, as I theorized a few days ago, I thought Obama might start to get questioning of his Afghanistan policy for his left.  A kind of Baker-Hamilton call for Afghanistan, with Obama calling for a surge in Afghanistan.  Right on cue, Juan Cole makes that point here.  Cole makes some salient points (a la Michael Scheuer).  The Taliban or Taliban-like elements have not it would seem (at least yet) overshot the mark and turned their own against them a la al-Qaeda in Iraq.

I’m not sure what leverage Obama would have against AQ if he doesn’t in some way get into Afghanistan.  Cole has a critique of Obama’s residual force in Iraq along these lines:  how would they be effective?  I guess have the same question in Afghanistan minus US involvement.  No one is going to be paid off it seems to take on the Taliban and al-Qaeda.  That is how the US got in this problem in the first place, relying on the Northern Alliance instead of their own.