Post-Iraq Strategy – David Ignatius, Washington Post
The Bush administration, beyond the daily temperature readings about the progress of the U.S. troop surge in Baghdad, is making a subtle but important shift in its strategy for the Middle East -- establishing containment of Iranian power in the region as a top American priority. A simple shorthand for this approach might be "back to the future," for it is strikingly reminiscent of American strategy during the 1980s after the Iranian revolution. The cornerstone is a political-military alliance with the dominant Sunni Arab powers -- especially Saudi Arabia. The hardware will be new arms sales to Israel, Egypt and the Saudis. The software will be a refurbished Israeli-Palestinian peace process. "The message to Iran is, 'We're still powerful, we protect our friends, we're not going away,' " explains a senior State Department official. While the Iraq part of the story still has to play itself out, the new approach isn't premised on success there but the possibility of failure. Iraq will continue to straddle the Sunni-Shiite fault line. Rather than a bulwark against Iranian expansion, as it was under Saddam Hussein, the new Shiite-led Iraq will be a battleground. To the extent that it comes under radical Iranian influence, it, too, will have to be contained. Though the Iranians appear strong in this new alignment, the reality is that they have missed a golden opportunity to consolidate their power. Where they once stood to gain tacit American acquiescence to their regional hegemony, they now confront growing American resistance. It's an Iranian mistake that's likely to have lasting consequences, reminiscent of the Islamic Republic's failure to consolidate its gains in the initial years of the Iran-Iraq war.
What is the Plan in Iraq after the Surge? – Miami Herald editorial
The basic conclusions of last week's long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the news and understands the basic dynamics of war. The surge has achieved modest success for the obvious reason that the more troops one side puts on the battlefield, the better the chances of achieving tactical success, at least in the short run. What the NIE could not say, however, is how many more troops it will take to turn the tide and how long those troops would have to stay. Those are critical questions. Crucially, the NIE also found that the incremental progress on the military side won't matter much as long as the Iraqi government fails to make political progress. That fundamental reality is something that has stymied the Bush administration's policy in Iraq and has been clear to anyone who has been paying attention to what the nation's military leaders have been saying all along. On July 31, in a confirmation hearing in the Senate, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, President Bush's nominee to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that unless the Iraqi government takes advantage of the ''breathing space'' that U.S. soldiers are providing, ``no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much difference.'' Last week, in a speech to the VFW, President Bush once again succumbed to the unfortunate temptation to inject U.S. soldiers into the political debate by insisting that they support the mission in Iraq. The clear implication is that anyone who doesn't support his policy does not support the troops. However, what the president himself doesn't say, or do, is to articulate a clear strategy, other than staying the course, for achieving success in Iraq.
Don’t Dump Maliki – Los Angeles Times editorial
What does sovereignty mean? In the case of Iraq, Washington can't seem to decide. On June 28, 2004, the United States ceremoniously ended its occupation of Iraq by transferring sovereignty to its hand-picked interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi. Three elections and two governments later, it has grown understandably disenchanted with the biased and incompetent rule of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. Last week, President Bush and four key senators tied themselves in knots trying to figure out how to dump a failing ally while displaying respect for the Iraqi right to self-determination. Maliki fired back that he "can find friends elsewhere" if Washington doesn't like how the elected Iraqi leader runs his country. How can the U.S. wield the influence it believes it has earned by shedding the blood of at least 3,725 American troops and spending perhaps $10 billion a month without appearing to be dictating terms to an independent nation or discrediting any Iraqi leader it favors with a politically radioactive embrace? Like most of the problems the U.S. faces in Iraq, there is no solution to this one. Of course, the United States could engineer Maliki's ouster, even without resorting to a crude coup. It need only withhold aid until the teetering government in Baghdad collapses. Perhaps merely the calls by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for Maliki to resign or be replaced by the Iraqi parliament, combined with President Bush's tepid support, are sufficient to doom Maliki. But beware what you ask for: Maliki's successor could well be worse. Many U.S. analysts believe the man most likely to come to power if Maliki falls is Muqtada Sadr, the radical anti-American Shiite cleric and militia leader with deep ties to Iran.
Sift-Boated by bin Laden – Thomas Friedman, New York Times (subscription required)
One thing that has always baffled me about the Bush team’s war effort in Iraq and against Al Qaeda is this: How could an administration that was so good at Swift-boating its political opponents at home be so inept at Swift-boating its geopolitical opponents abroad? How could the Bush team Swift-boat John Kerry and Max Cleland — authentic Vietnam war heroes, whom the White House turned into surrendering pacifists in the war on terror — but never manage to Swift-boat Osama bin Laden, a genocidal monster, who today is still regarded in many quarters as the vanguard of anti-American “resistance.” Dive into a conversation about America in the Arab world today, or even in Europe and Africa, and it won’t take 30 seconds before the words “Abu Ghraib” and “Guantánamo Bay” are thrown at you. Yes, both are shameful, but Abu Ghraib was a day at the beach compared to what Al Qaeda and its Sunni jihadist supporters have been doing in Iraq, yet none of their acts have become one-punch global insults like Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. Consider what happened on Aug. 14. Four jihadist suicide-bombers blew themselves up in two Iraqi villages, killing more than 500 Kurdish civilians — men, women and babies — who belonged to a tiny pre-Islamic sect known as the Yazidis. And what was the Bush team’s response to this outrage? Virtual silence. After much Googling, the best I could find was: “ ‘We’re looking at Al Qaeda as the prime suspect,’ said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a U.S. military spokesman.” Wow.
Indian Country – Ralph Peters, New York Post
The Iraqi Police station in Karmah doesn't look like anything run by the NYPD. Behind the concertina wire and high walls, sandbagged fighting positions crown the compound's rooftops. This isn't about busting shoplifters. War-scarred and long hostile to the American presence, Karmah lost its appetite for the murderous version of Islam enforced by al Qaeda. Guided by the sheik of the local Jumaila tribe, volunteers helped us push out the terrorists. But the threat's still there, if much reduced. The Karmah police compound - a fort, really - is manned jointly by Iraqis and U.S. Marines, and a U.S. Army training team lives on site. Cooperation is good, but wariness remains: After incidents of betrayal elsewhere in Iraq, our troops keep their guard up. It's a tough place to serve. Yesterday's creature-comfort highlight was the delivery of lukewarm chow to break the monotony of MREs, the military's brown-bag field rations (Marine field cooks are among the secret heroes of this war). Yet, spirits are remarkably high - the men of Weapons Platoon, Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines are doing what they signed up to do.
Misinterpreting the Mideast - Moshe Ya'alon, Los Angeles Times
After a few years of benign neglect, Israel is back on the itineraries of well-meaning foreign emissaries. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited the country last month in his new role as special envoy of the "quartet" of Middle East peacemakers. Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived. Each visit was concluded with a news conference at which promises of progress were made. But before any lasting on-the-ground movement toward peace can be achieved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, foreign emissaries, as well as some Israelis, will have to shake off some long-disproved tenets of the conventional wisdom about the dispute. There are four main misconceptions that diplomats bring with them to Israel. Primary among them is the idea that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a prerequisite for stability in the Mideast. The truth is that the region is riven by clashes that have nothing to do with Israel. For instance, the Jewish state plays no role in the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, between Persians and Arabs or between Arab nationalists and Arab Islamists.
A Quiet Battle for Rights in Iran - Fotini Christia, Washington Post
It was during a recent visit to a middle-class beauty salon here, amid the women getting their upper lips threaded and their legs waxed, that I saw what the One Million Signature Campaign is up against. A female volunteer approached another customer and encouraged her to sign a petition, which organizers hope to submit to Iran's parliament along with a request for legal reforms on gender equality. The woman said she supported the demands for equality but shied away from what she considered overt political activity against the regime. Activists gave themselves two years to collect a million signatures, but tomorrow, the campaign's one-year anniversary, they will not have more than 100,000 to report. But unlike other human rights movements battling repressive regimes, which have traditionally looked to the West for a lifeline, Iran's activists are adamant that for all the gratitude they may feel for their Western supporters, they would prefer that we keep our distance. Their efforts offer a fascinating window on how one aspect of the Iranian democracy movement is struggling to survive in a period of growing government repression and paranoia. The campaign for the million signatures was born after the arrest of 70 women who staged a demonstration against gender discrimination last year in Tehran's Haft-e-Tir Square. Nine of those women were convicted on charges of "endangering national security" and face lengthy prison sentences, beatings with whips and, in some cases, both. (They are free pending appeal.) The crackdown prompted Iranian women's rights activists to embark on a new strategy based on quiet campaigning, face-to-face organizing -- and disavowing any Western help.
Audacity Absent on Cuba – Steve Chapman, Washington Times
"Experience keeps a dear school," said Benjamin Franklin, "but fools will learn in no other." But if someone who will learn only from painful experience is a fool, what do you call someone who won't learn from painful experience? Answer: a supporter of our Cuba policy. For nearly a half-century, the United States has maintained an economic embargo in an effort to dislodge Fidel Castro from power. The 81-year-old dictator has easily outlasted a succession of American presidents bent on his political demise. Even today, with the dictator incapacitated by poor health, his regime looks more durable than the British monarchy. A plausible conclusion is that if our boycott didn't achieve its purpose in the 20th century, it will not do so in the 21st. Yet it remains firm, unchallenged by Republicans or Democrats. Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, recently reopened the Cuba policy discussion with an op-ed column in the Miami Herald that accused President Bush of "blundering," stressed the need to "help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime and promised to "grant Cuban-Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island." This may sound like a bold and refreshing attempt to overhaul our Cuba policy. In fact, it's a cheerful embrace of a strategy that has proved futile year after year. The crucial message of his article is not how much Mr. Obama would change Mr. Bush's approach, but how little.
We Mustn’t Allow Haiti to Slip Back Into Chaos – Mark Schneider, Miami Herald
When I visited Cite Soleil a year ago, I traveled in a U.N. peacekeeping personnel carrier and wore a blue bullet-proof vest and helmet. The metallic pings off the side of the armored vehicle apparently were bullets from the gangs who controlled the shantytown. Last week, I walked through the impoverished slum of 250,000 wearing a T-shirt and khakis, with no security, and chatted with local elected leaders and workers building roads, drains and basketball courts. Haiti has begun to build peace. Barely into the second year of his second term as president, Rene Preval, supported by the United Nations, committed his administration to police and justice reform, and political reconciliation. The early results can be seen on Cite Soleil's streets and in the national penitentiary where some 700 gang members have been locked up during the past six months. Now the challenge is to take advantage of this moment of peace by finding ways to offer the slum dwellers some of the permanent jobs that the Haitian private sector is reportedly creating. The United States, Canada and the United Nations are funding nongovernmental organizations to arrange public works programs to employ locals, but the jobs for each worker last only a week or two to allow as many families as possible to earn a little cash. More needs to be done.
The Spy Chief Speaks – New York Times editorial
After more than a year and a half of administration stonewalling on President Bush’s illegal domestic wiretapping, it was nice to see Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, finally unburden himself in a newspaper interview. It would have been nicer if Mr. McConnell had really wanted to enlighten the public. Take, for example, his disclosure that the government has eavesdropped without warrants on thousands of telephone calls in which one party was outside the United States. He said the government got warrants to continue spying on the person in the United States only “100 or less” times. This was supposed to make us feel better. It did not. After Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush ordered the National Security Agency to intercept communications between people in the United States and people abroad without a warrant. That is a violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. Now we know the law was broken thousands of times. In 100 or so cases, the unlawfully intercepted calls led agents to believe that the person in the United States was a bad actor (Mr. McConnell implied, sort of, that they were terrorists), and the government’s lawyers obtained a warrant. We are still looking for that loophole in the Fourth Amendment.
-----
