Who Stopped the Talks?“, posted at Abu Muqawama (6 May 2008) — Opening:
Dr. iRack took note of some big news today: the Iranians have decided to halt talks with the United States over the security situation in Iraq until American forces stop their assault on Sadr City. According to the New York Times:…
Typically terse and excellent analysis from Abu Muqawama, about an important subject, and well worth reading. This news brings to mind — again – America’s objectives in the Middle East. Bush and his officials appear to believe that we can talk or bully Iran into allowing us to reshape Iraq into a giant forward operating base. Like so many others, I wonder how strongly we would resist Iran’s efforts to do the same with Mexico or Canada. Making the almost impossible a key foreign policy objective guarantees interesting times for America.
Also fascinating on this and similar sites are the frequent recommendations in the comments section to unleash the dogs of war — usually without objection from others. Without mention of costs (money or blood), odds of success, risks, or potential adverse consequences. Not that different from the sabre-rattling of the Bush Administration.
(more…)
Secretary of Defense Gates has received praise from some worthy analysts. It would be deserved, if speeches alone could reform DoD. It would be heroic, if we had any signs that Gates was even trying.
The Zenpundit (25 April 2008):
On a related matter I’m very, very happy with Robert Gates. I think he just gave a ’shape up or ship out’ warning to the senior brass. What he said the other day to the cadets regarding John Boyd was akin to a Soviet General-Secretary giving a speech to the Supreme Soviet on the virtues of Milton Friedman. Or Pope Benedict praising Martin Luther.
Fred Kaplan: “Gates Celebrates Dissent“, Slate (23 April 2008) — Opening:
(more…)
A volley of shots in the battle of the antropologists:
- “A Gun in One Hand, A Pen in the Other“, Newsweek (12 April 2008) — “The Army is spending millions to hire ‘experts’ to analyze Iraqi society. If only they could find some.”
- Dr. Montgomery McFate replies in “HTS and Newsweek”, posted at the Small Wars Journal (17 April 2008). Abu Muqawama calls this a ”smackdown”; Kings of War says she “swatted down” Newseek.
{Note the update at the end of this post} Dr. McFate has some substantial and legitimate objections to Newsweek’s article, but imo her major objections are lost amidst the trivial ones, giving an overall impression of “ankle-biting.” One example:
(#6) Social scientists earn “$300,000″ a year - Overstated. This is true only if hazard pay, overtime, and danger pay are included. The base salary is a low six figures.
This is weak. This is not a significant correction. Also, people earning six figures seldom get overtime pay. This would have been more serious if phrased as ”their salary is low six figures, but of course they get extra pay for as appropriate for dangers and hazards.”
For a full account of this battle about the role of social scientists in war, see Anthropologists go to war AND Revolt of the Anthropologists, with links to the major articles on both sides.
Update: I owe Newsweek an apology
I re-read both articles. Of Dr. McFate’s 13 “factual errors”, I count…
- three corrections of biographical details (#3 - 5, which I presume are correct),
- six corrections on trivial points (e.g., Newsweek said “special forces” instead of “special ops”) — nbrs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13;
- two points which seems disputable (#1, as the HTS has been described in various ways by officials in participants; #12 which depends on period one considers);
- two corrections in which Dr. McFate misunderstands what Newsweek said — nbrs. 2 and 6.
The misunderstandings seem willful for a person of Dr. McFate’s education. In #2, Newsweek was clearly referring to the social scientists on the team. #6 is discussed above.
Please share your comments by posting below (brief and relevant, please) or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).
Here are some recent articles I found of interest about our Middle East wars. Please share in the comments links to anything you found of interest.
“The morning after”, Abu Muqawama (10 April 2008) — Excerpt:
So Petraeus and Crocker both got slapped around a bit by both houses of Congress, and honestly, the whole affair left a bad taste in Abu Muqawama’s mouth: a) it’s not their policy they’re trying to implement in Iraq and b) these two guys with a very limited scope of responsibility were constantly asked about American strategy writ large.
“What about Afghanistan?!”
“I dunno, I’m in charge of Iraq.”
“What about the welfare of the ground forces?!”
“I dunno, I’m in charge of Iraq.”
“What about Osama bin Laden?!”
“Is he in Iraq?”
“Why haven’t we secured our ports?”
“Well, it’s been tough to do from Baghdad, but we’ll get on it.”
“Iraq: Dark Shadows of Things to Come“, Wayne White, Middle East Institute (3 April 2008) — Excerpt:
Sunni & Shia Affairs The Nuri al Maliki government’s failure to defeat Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Basra is yet another indication that beneath the widely acclaimed “success” of the surge is a country largely bereft of the legitimate governance required for genuine stability. Iran’s intermediary role between Maliki and Sadr suggests that what passes for an Iraqi central government is, in fact, little more than another actor on an Iraqi political scene still badly fragmented along factional lines.
(more…)
The Presidential campaign rolls on in the seventh year since 9/11, with the only debate about the Long War being in which nations America should fight. We see this even the speeches of the most “liberal” candidate, Senator Barack Obama.
I recommend reading “The World Beyond Iraq”, his speech about national security given at Fayetteville, NC on 19 March 2008. He describes his plan for withdrawal from Iraq, but only to focus our efforts on Afghanistan … and Pakistan. This is doubling down when losing, known as the “gambler’s ruin.” {revisions to this are in red) This speech is a rhetorical masterpiece, providing strong and specific promises. He gets right to the point…
…while we have a General who has used improved tactics to reduce violence, we still have the wrong strategy. As General Petraeus has himself acknowledged, the Iraqis are not achieving the political progress needed to end their civil war…. When you have no overarching strategy, there is no clear definition of success. Success comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely. Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.
So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.
(more…)
