As our editorial Tuesday argued, the Bush team’s recent flurry of pragmatic regional diplomacy on Iraq — including President Bush’s meeting today in Jordan with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — is a welcome change of course, even if it is a couple of years late.
But the Bush team needs to talk to all of the players, including troublemaker regimes Syria and Iran. As former Secretary of State James Baker said last week, “it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”
Talking with Iran and Syria is complicated and might not lead to any breakthroughs, but with Iraq rapidly sliding toward chaos, it’s worth trying. At this point, are there better options?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
31 Comments
There is the old adage, “Know thy friend, know thy enemy better.” It is indeed about time this President got off his ego and realized that he is much too limited to be in control of world events. My good friend, Thomas Friedman, suggested this approach years ago. Too bad nobody at the White House listens to those that may actually know something. They rely on Business majors to make international policy. MB
Bush never gave a damn about WMD’s, he never gave a damn about the Iraqi people.
Hell, he doesn’t care about AMERICAN people unless they’re rich, why should he care about Iraqis.
What he cared about was controlling the oil so it couldn’t come on the market and drive the price down.
Big Oil makes record profits while Mr. Bush cuts their taxes.
Mission Accomplished.
So, the recent upsurge in violence in Iraq is the result of…al Qaeda?!?
***
“The president and Mr. Maliki appear to be at odds on the reason for the recent bombings. Mr. Maliki has called them “the reflection of political backgrounds” and said that “the crisis is political.” But instead of placing blame on Shiite and Sunni militias on Tuesday, Mr. Bush blamed on Al Qaeda.
“There’s a lot of sectarian violence taking place,” Mr. Bush said, “fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by Al Qaeda causing people to seek reprisal.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/middleeast/28cnd-prexy.html?em&ex=1164862800&en=602d97b9553b2246&ei=5087
***
Sounds like ‘ol Caligula is getting ready to marry his horse.
Un-civil terms:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
CF,Of course it was the Al Qaida attacks! Without them, and without WMD’s, Bush would have no business at all in Iraq! He might have to leave that party.
The link below is to a discussion by BBC editors on why they have chosen to not use the term “civil war” to describe the Iraq situation, noting that indeed, there are three different types of armed conflict occurring within the country:
Try, try again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
Unfortunately for Bush he doesn’t always layout what he really means or is thinking.
In this particular case, we have been fighting Al Qaida in Iraq for well over a year. Zarqawi, anyone? Anyone?
Do I think Al Qaida is behind the attacks? To a certain degree, yes. They are most certainly helping the would-be hooligans organize and keeping them well supplied.
Why Bush would refer to Al Qaida as being behind these most recent (and obvious) sectarian attacks is beyond me.
I believe the definite drop in attacks on US personnel and the subsequent increase in sectarian violence is a clear-cut indicator of how Al Qaida is getting pushed aside in favor of a more War of Religious Factions.
~Dubya
Regionalize Iraq, partition Iraq, give Iraq to anybody who’ll take it, give it back to Saddam, let there be civil war … if our young men and women stop getting killed over there and are home, where they belong…what the hell do we care? The pols on either side of the aisle or the pols on either side of the world can pontifcate among themselves until hell freezes over … and the pundits can hypothicate from whatever bent they choose regarding what the pols are saying, the question is, “Has it saved one American life?” The tragic answer is, “No.” Didn’t we learn anything from ‘Nam? If not, it just compounds the tragedy.
Marines: U.S. Military Can’t Win In Western Iraq
The Marine Corps has concluded the U.S. military is no longer able to defeat the insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda’s rising popularity there. The Washington Post reports the findings appear in a classified intelligence study. The report describes Iraq’s Sunni minority as “embroiled in a daily fight for survival,” fearful of “pogroms” by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance in Baghdad. The memo says that “from the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized.”
Kofi Annan: Iraq on Brink of Civil WarAt the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan warned that Iraq is almost in a state of civil war.
Kofi Annan: “Well, I think given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact we are almost there.”
NBC News Declares Iraq is Now in Civil WarNBC News announced on Monday that it would begin describing the violence in Iraq as a civil war. NBC became the first television network to make such a decision despite objections from the Bush administration. On Monday National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said “We’re clearly in a new phase.” The Los Angeles Times reports that at least 524 people have died in Iraq since Thursday.
Britain and S. Korea To Withdraw Some Troops from IraqIn Britain, Defense Secretary Des Browne has announced that Britain will begin withdrawing some of its 7,000 troops from Iraq next year.
Des Browne: “By the end of next year, I expect numbers of forces in Iraq to be significantly lower by a matter of thousands. The planning for this has been going on for some months and I have been pressing our planners to be looking at all the options to make sure that we do not ask a single soldier to remain in Iraq longer than is necessary.”
The South Korean government also approved today a plan to remove half of its troops from Iraq.
Kirkuk: Governor Survives Assassination AttemptIn other Iraq news, a suicide bomber attempted to assassinate the governor of Kirkuk earlier today. The governor survived but the blast killed one person and wounded 18.
But when George W. Bush stated that Iran was a part of the axis of evil – it is going to be difficult for the US to even propose talks with the Iran.
We have a president who speaks from the hip without any thought or long-term plan. We need leadership – not some ex-cheerleader – that will make a difference in the execution of this war.
what blows my mind are the Bush supporters who STILL think their guy is a genius.
I’m a Bush-supporter. I think he’s in over his head and he’s let his cowboy attitude get the better of him in this situation.
I’d like to see the report from the Marine Corps on their assessment of the “unwinnable” situation and the growing Al Qaida popularity. I find it very difficult (but not impossible) to believe.
“NBC declares…”, who the heck cares? All of the sudden NBC is qualified to make definable judgements on geo-political endeavors?
Kofi Annan, a respectable man and powerful leader to be sure; who is most likely watching reports from CNN just like everyone else.
I certainly respect anyone’s educated opinion on the matter; there are certain aspects that people have to just (and pardon the old addage) “agree to disagree”.
However, rhetoric that is unsubstantiated, biased and completely without depth should really be reviewed before being posted….
Article Review:http://wichita.instantspot.com/blog/index.cfm/2006/11/29/Wichita-Eagle–Media-Bias-at-its-Finest
Suz — No not a genius. Not by a long shot. Just the lesser of two evils. The only way this could be more fucked up would have been under the leadership of Algore and Scarykerry. I have to give this to Bush, though. He went ahead with a plan, right or wrong, that he had to know would, at some point, jump up and politically bite him in the ass. There was never going to be any great political victory. Historically, think back of the true “statesmen”, Adlai Stephenson comes to mind immediately, that never achieved great political status but served their world beyond comparison.
Suza, I completely agree with you…and I wasn’t the biggest fan of the whole Axis of Evil gambit.
What Iran and the US basically amount to are two government entities throwing insults at one another with large groups of people in both countries wondering what the heck the real problem is….
Aside from their nuclear ambitions (and maybe even INCLUDING that), Iran is more like the US in that region than anyone else certain is…(their current leadership not withstanding…)
~Dubya
Dubya, the full report is classified; the blog posting below explores the some of the portions thereof leaked to the WaPo and provides some critique:
http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/11/anbar_the_washington.php#more
I have a client who supplies me with things like this, and I, from time to time, pass them on for review by those interested. No warranty, express or implied.
That report points finger, fist and arm at Al-Qaida being the problem child…”CF” and “Jed” would be well served by a little light reading.
Thank you very much for that post. It’s good intel and our Administration would do well to listen to Military Intel for a change.
Note the informed critisism; not flaming, malicious donkey-poo….
~Dubya
~Dubya
Dubya, you would agree with me that the report deals with Anbar province and particularly Ramadi with reference to Al Qaeda, and not the remainder of Iraq?
I would say it does and it doesn’t. It says in several instances “Anbar and Iraq”; meaning (to me), primarily Anbar and, to some degree, the rest of Iraq.
According to the report, the primary focus is definitely in Anbar; but spilling out into the rest of Iraq.
Other sources also point out that Al Anbar wasn’t really EVER under the control of Saddam in the first place and have been financially independent for years…similar, in scope, to the North where the Kurds “ruled” for years, effectively independent of Saddam’s tyranny.
~Dubya
Russia was sent home and is a fromidable military power. What makes anyone think there can possibly be a winner when we had no reason to invade another country. Bush dropped the ball on 9/11/01 and Iraq had nothing to with it and most certainly had no major weapons system. Does anyone truly believe the Iraq patriots are going tonot defend their families,their country and THEIR natural resources?
What good will more troops do if no one knows which Iraq patriot is out to defend?
WASHINGTON (AFP) – US forces can neither crush the insurgency in western Iraq nor counter the rising popularity of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in the area, media reported, citing a secret Marine Corps intelligence report.
The five-page report, written in August, focuses on the largely Sunni Iraqi province of Al-Anbar, according to the Washington Post.
As of mid-November the problems remained the same, a senior US intelligence official told the Post. “The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality” remain the same, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
According to the report, “the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point” that US and Iraqi troops “are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar,” the Post reported.
The secret report was written by Marine Colonel Peter Devlin, a senior military intelligence officer with the Marine Expeditionary Force in the region. According to the Post, it did not appear to have been shared with Iraq’s military.
Iraq’s Sunni population is “embroiled in a daily fight for survival,” fears “pogroms” by the Shiite majority, and is increasingly dependent on Al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance in Baghdad, the report reads.
“From the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized,” says the report, according to the Post.
Barring an additional 15,000 to 20,000 US troops deployed to the region in addition to billions of dollars in aid, “there is nothing” US troops “can do to influence” the insurgency, the report reads.
The report describes Al-Qaeda in Iraq as the “dominate organization of influence” in the province, more important than local authorities, the Iraqi government and US troops “in its ability to control the day-to-day life of the average Sunni.”
Another very interesting story:http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/29/1438234
First of all, most of what you posted has already been posted. Second of all, calling those terrorist “Patriots” is rather belittling to true heroes.
You’ll argue that the difference between a terrorist and a patriot depends on who’s in control. To the ruling power, he is a terrorist; to the terrorist who wins control, they are all patriots.
However, there is a very distinct difference in this case: PATRIOTS don’t walk around blowing up women in children shopping for food to feed their families!
You fail, as many people seem to do, to realize there are several conflicts going on in Iraq at the moment. Typical attacks on US targets now are from Al-Qaeda; not necessarily from the insurgents (one CAN argue they are mutually exclusive, at least in their targets).
The actual majority of VIOLENCE is being carried out by sectarians in a tit-for-tat engagement of which Hammurabi would be proud.
When you read about 250 civilians killed in a market square, it’s not Al-Qaeda trying to take out American targets; and it’s CERTAINLY not *&^!*@ “patriots” defending their homeland against Western occupiers.
The province you refer to, once again, is more than likely Anbar (which you don’t reference in your post); which was never really under the control of even Saddam during his rule.
That post seems to be nothing more than a string of posts put together in some vain attempt at making an arguement. It’s not black and white. It’s not them vs. US. It’s him vs. her vs. them vs. us vs. Al-Qaida vs. Iran Mujahdeen vs. whoever-the-hell-else-wants-to-pick-up-a-rifle.
~Dubya
Richard, everything else aside, that is a pretty interesting article; thanks for sharing.
~Dubya
Dubya,
Are you saying that native country men, women and children cannot be patriots becausebecause Bush,Cheney,Rummy and Rice invaded and occupied?
Our military kill Iraq patriots,innocent men women and children many times out of fear. How is that any different? We did after all invade Iraq anyway you look at it against military advice because we were suppose to be chasing terrorists.
The Taliban was heavily supported by the Reagan/Bush administration as was Iran Contra. USA weapons were flowing into Iraq and Iran simultaneously. Why do some administrations supply weapons to “bad guys”? Some administrationssupport terrorist regimes or native patriots.
As a veteran I say do the troops a favor and bring them home to their loved ones.
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
An interesting take on resolution of the Iraq issues, compliments of a blogger; again, forwarded by a client. No warranties, express or implied.
http://scyllacharybdis.blogspot.com/2006/11/iraq-rx-what-would-bummer-do.html
Neocon James Baker III stated that Iraq would not be a beacon of democracy. Certainly the 4th largest nuclear power in the world aka Israel is not necessarily a democracy. Don’t know of a democracy in central america.
R Heckler: Then just what is Isreal, if “not necessarily” a democracy? And the way things change in Central America, I’m not sure. I haven’t looked today.
Colin Powell has now said it is a civil war. Also, today Iraq and Iran signed an alliance agreement. The predicted new alignment with Syria-Iraq-Iran all allied is taking shape – AGAINST THE US. Meanwhile Iran’s influence in Afghanistan is increasing with a new paved road from the border to Herat and the building of schools etc in western Afghanistan by Iran. That is the only area of Afghanistan not wracked with violence.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
In all discussions about the Middle East by the U.S. mainstream media, there is an incessant bragging that Israel is the only “democracy” in the Middle East. In fulfilling its propaganda function, it is not surprising that this media will praise a country as “democratic” even though it has been occupying by force for several decades a whole country (Palestine) thereby denying millions of people their right of self-determination. It also does not matter to this media that the country so praised as “democratic” practices the worst form of apartheid that exists in the world today.
The assertion that Israel is unique in the Middle East as a “democracy” is actually an understatement. Israel is unique in the world as a “democracy”. It is the only country in the world that practices as “democracy” which would otherwise, objectively speaking, be termed fascist totalitarianism. Consider some of these observations regarding Israel.
I’m not saying they aren’t “patriots” because we’re fighting them on their own soil; I’m saying they are TERRORISTS because they are blowing themselves up in marketplaces where unarmed men, women and children lie unsupecting…
The Boston Tea Party didn’t dump the tea into Boston Harbor….and then start blowing up the spectators with dynamite or cannonshot!
We supported the lesser of two evils; in Afghanistan, we did not want another nation to fall under Communist control; hence supporting the Mujahdeen who then eventually birthed the Taliban.
The government we supported and who was friendly to the US in Iran was toppled by a regime of Muslim extremists; don’t sit there and tell us these Muslim extremists are “patriots” when, if they continued to have their way, women would never be allowed to gain an education, have their genitals scarred and removed, rule by the order of the Koran (a book that is more than 2000 years old….) with no trial, no due process.
Human rights are human rights no matter where you go. Human rights were being violated (not as described above, but in different equally grievous ways) in Iraq and something had to change. Just because the plan didn’t work the way it was supposed to, doesn’t mean the initial intent wasn’t the just thing to do.
Saddam’s own people sentenced him to death; not the U.S. Go back to the late 80s and early 90’s before Gulf War I. The people of Iraq were pleading with the CIA and other US agencies to help them topple Saddam.
Don’t let what’s going on now, the mistakes that have been made, cloud the fact that Saddam and the Iraqi regime was nothing more than a group of thugs reigning over a terrorized country.
Is it better yet? Hell no…are they better off without Saddam in charge? In my opinion, yes.
~Dubya
With regards to Iran influencing Afghanistan and Iraq (specifically Baghdad)….who cares? Let them; if they can bring some semblance of peace to the region, by all means.
Take a look at some of the coverage on Iran recently; the only reason they are part of Bush’s “Axis of Evil” is because of their nuclear ambitions.
In my OPINION, the theocratic government in Iran won’t last another decade at most; Views change on religion rapidly (in a historic sense of the word “rapid”, of course), and there are new ideas and concepts RACING through the young people of Iran.
It’s a good thing; honestly. Iran is positioned to be one of the first countries in the Middle East to pull themselves out of the Middle Ages and into the modern world (eventually).
…and again, I’m not some sort of Iranian sympathizer; I just believe the “war of words” is primarily between the White House and Tehran; not the actual sentiment of the two populations.
~Dubya
Offered for perusal, contemplation, and whatever else fits. Again, no warranties, express or implied.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/averting_the_perfect_storm_in.html
I’m definitely in favor of this article. Regional Conference. Form a Middle Eastern Union, of sorts, that allows various administrative bodies in the region to help influence troubled areas.
Good post. Bookmarking that site.
~Dubya