|
|||||
|
|||||
The Work Behind Our Iraq Views – Michael O’Hanlon, Washington Post
How can one gather and assess information about Iraq -- collected on a trip or from any other source? Information from a war zone is difficult to attain and interpretation is open to many views. Unfortunately, much of the blogosphere and other media outlets have emphasized the wrong question, challenging the integrity of anyone who dares to express politically incorrect views about Iraq. Last week, Jonathan Finer criticized on this page [" Green Zone Blinders," Aug. 18] a New York Times essay that Ken Pollack and I wrote, as well as the comments of several senators, for claiming too much insight based on short trips to Iraq. Finer suggested that we did not leave the Green Zone, although we frequently did, on this and other trips, and he ignored how critical Pollack and I have been of administration policy in the past. Worse, Finer and critics such as Rep. Jack Murtha and Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald have suggested that our analyses are based on a few days of military "dog-and-pony shows." Our assessments are based on our observations as well as on years of study. That experience creates networks of colleagues such as military officers whose off-the-record insights can inform ours and who in the past have often told us when they did not think their strategies were working or could work. While hardly making us infallible, this also led each of us to oppose predictions of a "cakewalk" before the invasion and to join Gen. Eric Shinseki in criticizing invasion plans that had too few troops and too little thought given to the post-invasion mission.
Vietnam’s Real Lessons - Andrew J. Bacevich, Los Angeles Times
Finding in the debacle of the Vietnam War a rationale for sustaining the U.S. military presence in Iraq requires considerable imagination. If nothing else, President Bush's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars earlier this week revealed a hitherto unsuspected capacity for creativity. Yet as an exercise in historical analysis, his remarks proved to be self-serving and selective. For years, the Bush administration has rejected all comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. Now the president cites Vietnam to bolster his insistence on "seeing the Iraqis through as they build their democracy." To do otherwise, he says, will invite a recurrence of the events that followed the fall of Saigon, when "millions of innocent citizens" were murdered, imprisoned or forced to flee. The president views the abandonment of our Southeast Asian allies as a disgrace, deploring the fate suffered by the "boat people" and the victims of the Khmer Rouge. According to Bush, withdrawing from Iraq constitutes a comparable act of abandonment. Beyond that, the president finds little connection between Vietnam and Iraq. This is unfortunate. For that earlier war offers lessons of immediate relevance to the predicament we face today. As the balance of the president's VFW address makes clear, Bush remains oblivious to the history that actually matters.
A New Tact on Iraq – Brian Michael Jenkins, Washington Post
As the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States approaches, al Qaeda appears to be gaining strength. America remains on alert. We are told we must remain vigilant. The global war on terror continues. It's reasonable to wonder whether, how and when this conflict will end. To answer these questions, we must separate reality from rhetoric. Never a war in the traditional sense, the global war on terror remains a banner of many missions. It began as a campaign against al Qaeda and the global enterprise inspired by its ideology. It became a military campaign to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and is now a campaign to prevent them from regaining control. The global war also remains an effort to enlist the support the government of Pakistan in efforts against al Qaeda and its sympathizers there. It is an effort to prevent al Qaeda from finding new sanctuaries in Somalia, in Saharan Africa and in the Southern Philippines. And the global war on terror seeks to blunt Islamic extremism and radicalization, although this vital ideological component of the effort has not been effectively pursued. At the same time, the global war on terror has been a vessel for actions against other terrorist groups that had American blood on their hands, that had global reach and that threatened U.S. allies. The global war is also a new label for decades of diplomatic and law enforcement efforts to combat terrorism as a mode of conflict. The invasion of Iraq was also portrayed as a part of the global war on terror. Bush administration officials pointed to a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Although unsupported by intelligence, some continue to assert this connection, and many Americans still erroneously believe that Saddam Hussein bore responsibility for 9/11.
Iraq and Vietnam – New York Post editorial
President Bush this week turned to the history books to make the case for perseverance in Iraq - arguing that the current war, like its predecessors in the Pacific, Korea and Vietnam, is "an ideological struggle." The comparison was inexact; most historical analogies are. But one comparison - especially to Vietnam - was spot on: the likely consequences if the U.S. withdraws prematurely. "One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam," Bush told the Veterans of Foreign Wars, "is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent victims, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms, like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields.' " Not surprisingly, congressional Democrats like Sens. Harry Reid and John Kerry rejected the president's history lesson, though they themselves have long likened the Iraq conflict to Vietnam. The only comparisons they'll accept are those that back their own calls for America to cut and run. It's a point that Bush addressed head on, noting that al Qaeda leaders from Osama bin Laden on down have cited the domestic opposition to U.S. policy in Vietnam as the reason why the terrorists will wear down Americans and prevail.
The Democrats Council of Despair – National Review editorial
David Bonior has a problem with the surge — it’s had some success. The campaign manager for John Edwards slammed Hillary Clinton for telling the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention that “we’ve begun to change our tactics in Iraq and in some areas, particularly in al Anbar province, it’s working.” Bonior called on Sen. Clinton to “reconsider her ill-advised statement and reaffirm her dedication to using Congress’ constitutional funding power to end this war.” Bonior himself, however, notes “our military’s hard-won progress in al-Anbar province.” Bonior’s position appears to be that admitting that the surge is working should be avoided as much as possible, lest it increase political support for the war. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “It’s difficult to say positive things in this environment and not have some snarky apologist for the White House turn it into clipped phraseology that looks like support for the president’s policies.” Better, then, to ignore all progress? The fact is that the surge is President Bush’s policy, and one that he implemented over the vociferous opposition of Democrats who thought the best strategy against al Qaeda in Iraq was to begin to leave. Now the surge has helped turn Sunni tribes against al Qaeda, advancing the goal that nearly everyone in the U.S. notionally shares of routing the terror group from Iraq. Democrats try to chalk up this progress generically to the courage and the adeptness of our troops. Our troops were just as courageous and adept a year ago but they were burdened, unfortunately, by a flawed strategy of prematurely pulling back to let Iraqi forces take the lead — exactly the strategy Democrats have favored ever since President Bush announced the surge.
The Left Shudders – William Kristol, Weekly Standard
Like a pig in muck, the left loves to wallow in Vietnam. But only in their "Vietnam." Not in the real Vietnam war.. Not in the Vietnam war of 1963-68, the disastrous years where policy was shaped by the best and brightest of American liberalism. Not in the Vietnam war of 1969-73, when Richard Nixon and General Creighton Abrams managed to adjust our strategy, defeat the enemy, and draw down American troops all at once--an achievement affirmed and rewarded by the American electorate in November 1972. Not in the Vietnam of early 1975, when the Democratic Congress insisted on cutting off assistance to our allies in South Vietnam and Cambodia, thereby inviting the armies of the North and the Khmer Rouge to attack. As the left shudders, Bush leads. In his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 27 years after Reagan's, Bush also told the truth about Vietnam. Now he has to be steadfast in supporting General Petraeus and ensuring that the war is fought as intelligently and energetically as possible. Not everyone in his administration is as fully committed to this task as they should be. Bush will have to be an energetic and effective commander in chief, both abroad and on the home front, over his final 17 months. Last week was a good start.
Hands Off My Analogy - Matthew Continetti, Weekly Standard
On August 22, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City, Missouri, President Bush delivered a 43-minute speech in which he compared the war in Iraq, and America's war on Islamic terrorism in general, to the three large 20th-century U.S. military interventions in Asia. The most controversial section of Bush's speech was 15 paragraphs likening those who claimed that America was the problem in Vietnam and that "if we would just withdraw, the killing would end" to those who today are saying similar things about Iraq. Bush's speech received an enthusiastic response from the audience, which frequently burst into applause (some 36 times, according to the White House transcript). Advocates of American withdrawal from Iraq were far less enthusiastic about the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam. Which is curious, as opponents of the war have been comparing that conflict to Vietnam since at least 2002, long before Saddam was deposed.. Anyone familiar with American politics over the last six years knows the important role the Vietnam trope has played in the Iraq debate. A search for New York Times articles in which "Iraq" appears within ten words of "Vietnam" brings up 989 hits between January 1, 2002, and August 24, 2007. Until this speech, the president had rejected comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, so one might think those Iraq critics who have used the Vietnam analogy in the past would welcome Bush's admission of a parallel, however limited, between the two wars. But one would be incorrect, because apparently the only legitimate lessons from Vietnam are those that conform to the antiwar worldview.
Senator Warner’s Bad Withdrawal Symptoms – Ralph Peters, New York Post
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) is one of the great states men of our time, a man of integrity and devotion to our country. He's never been a mere politician - the sort who regard a visit to our troops as a campaign photo op. But this time he's wrong. The senator's appeal to President Bush to announce U.S. troop withdrawals reflects the frustration we all feel with the inept, craven and destructive government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki has been the wrong man in the wrong job at the wrong time, and Bush needs to suck it up and accept that much. But Sen. Warner is only looking at part of the picture - what I'd call the "Green Zone view." He's got target-lock on the Baghdad government's failings, and, a titan of government himself, he can't get beyond the perfidy, greed and sectarian viciousness of Iraq's politicians. But the future of Iraq's government is, frankly, less than half of the equation at this point. Whatever may have been the situation is 2003, today Iraq is the main front in the war against Islamist terror and fanaticism. Our enemies have made it so. Of the two simultaneous missions under way - maturing a responsible government and advancing our own strategic interests - the latter is far more important. In fact, it's vital. And on that track, we're making stunning progress.
Our Boys are not Fighting Clean Wars – Vicki Woods, London Daily Telegraph
'Iraq: This is no time to go wobbly," shouts my Spectator this week, headlining a tight-lipped plea from William Shawcross for the beleaguered rump of British forces to sit tight in the south and stop their ears to what he calls the "siren voices" calling for their return. Shawcross believes that we, or rather they, must continue to fight the worldwide war that al-Qa'eda declared against the West in the 1990s. To cut and run, he believes, would be "a betrayal of our allies in both America and Iraq and a victory for all Islamist extremism". The rump consists of 4,500 troops hunkered down at Basra International Airport, south of the city, and another 500 in Basra Palace (a once-handsome building on the banks of the Tigris, with charming views, that I believe Saddam never actually stayed in). If I could actually ever take at face value anything our (duff and part-time) Defence Secretary says about the mission in Iraq, I would be right in assuming that the 500 troops hunkered down in the palace are to be relieved and withdrawn to the airport. And also that there are plans to draw down 500 troops (not necessarily the same 500) before Christmas. That leaves 4,500 to continue Mr Shawcross's vital work, but from the little I know about military operations, I believe 4,500 is a critical number: ie big enough to defend itself but not to do a lot of war-fighting at the same time.
Outsourcing Not the Answer to Foreign Policy - Georgie Anne Geyer, Chicago Tribune
Just when I think that this wonderful nation is beginning to shed some of the incoherence of the last six years, something new comes up and smacks me right in my ever-hopeful head. This week's stunner came in the form of a headline-snatching proposal from the Defense Intelligence Agency to greatly enlarge the hiring of private contractors for core intelligence tasks. Thus, we would be "outsourcing" larger percentages of America's intelligence to God only knows whom, what or why! The DIA announced calmly that it was preparing to pay $1 billion for men and women -- who would not, remember, be under the direct control of the American government -- to do much of our most sensitive intelligence work. This is work that aids in decisions to go to war or support international bodies or even torture prisoners in the name of democracy. This is work that historically has been considered, despite its specific "dirty" levels, as appropriately done only by American patriots. Of course, there were always problems. Some of the "adventurers" in the CIA and the Congress, for instance, were in large part responsible after the inconclusiveness of the Persian Gulf war of 1991 for building up the pressure to "go into Iraq." These were the ones who pushed for Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi opportunist and sometime patriot, to take over the country. And suddenly, there we were in Iraq, although Chalabi wasn't, because large sectors of our military didn't like him or his CIA cohorts. All right, maybe I should have chosen a better example. So, take Gen. Douglas MacArthur, before he became the temporary "substitute emperor" of Japan, using our intelligence to take the advice of cultural anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict on the mentality of the people he had to reign over and win over. At least through these periods, good and bad, we could know that our intelligence agents were part of an American system that oversaw them, judged them and could fire them. There was even a certain nobility about spying, when it came to one's country's security and future.
Iran’s Terror Corps – James Robbins, National Review
One of the defining characteristics of terrorist groups is that they are non-state actors. There are other characteristics — for instance, the use of violence, targeting innocents, seeking political objectives — but they are always outside the context of sovereignty that governs relationships between states, or the much longer Treasury Department list of Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entities (SDGTs). You’ll find terror groups, guerilla armies, crooked banks, fake charities, corrupt businesses, and very, very bad men — but you won’t find sovereign governments, their armies, their spy agencies, or other instruments of foreign security. So what are we to make of the proposal to add Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), a.k.a. Sepah-e-Pasdaran-e-Enghlab-e-Islami (or Pasdaran) to one or both of the terrorist lists? The Pasdaran is a good candidate; Iran has long been identified as a state sponsor of terrorism, and a number of Iranian-backed groups are currently on both the lists, including Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. (Note that Hamas is itself a government of sorts, but not of a sovereign state.) Iran’s global terrorist training and liaison work is undertaken by the IRGC’s Quds force, and the Office of Liberation Movements. Pasdaran operatives have been active in Iraq for years, giving insurgents and terrorists the training, specialized weapons, and other support to conduct deadly operations against Coalition forces and the Iraqi people. The Pasdaran supports, promotes, and commits acts of terrorism, which brings it under the legal definitions for inclusion on the terror lists. But the fact that it is a government entity has larger implications. The U.S. government would be saying not only that Iran supports terrorism, but that its government is partly comprised of terrorists.
War Heroes in Hollywood – Jonathan Foreman, National Review
Hollywood, in its collective wisdom, has decided that now is a good time to make a handful of movies about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They are antiwar movies, of course. Rest assured that they won’t exclusively depict G.I.s and Marines as bestial rapists, murderers, and torturers oppressing populations that were happy and prosperous under Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. They will also depict good American soldiers, like those refuse to fight in an unjust, imperialist racist war against the Vietnamese — I mean — Iraqi people. Inevitably there will also be tales of veterans driven mad by Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, or tormented by guilt. And, there will be portraits of whistleblowers putting their lives on the line to expose all those atrocities so regularly committed by America’s callous, cruel G.I.s and Marines. Such types exist, and the real-life whistleblowers are worthy of praise. But the ordinary, quiet heroism of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be portrayed at all, let alone celebrated: The antiwar discourse imagines American soldiers only as monsters or victims. So don’t expect to see any movies portraying America’s soldiers building schools, protecting civilians, fighting side-by-side with Iraqi security forces, or giving medical aid.
Challenging the U.N.’s Darker Side - Hillel Neuer, Boston Globe
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, now eight months in office, is proving that his courteous manner should not be mistaken for lack of resolve. The Korean diplomat's administration has spoken out for the victims of Darfur, confronted Sri Lanka over the killings of aid workers, and acted to establish the international tribunal on the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon. Quietly but firmly, Ban is helping to confirm the UN's indispensable role in the world. Yet Ban has made little progress in restraining the UN's own dark side. Getting underway in Europe alone, in the space of a few days next week, will be two UN-backed initiatives that run counter to the secretary general's efforts to improve the world body's effectiveness and credibility.
Eye on the Homeland – Washington Post editorial
Powerful intelligence satellites have been used domestically for years on an ad hoc basis -- for example, to assess damage after a natural disaster, to help with security at major events or for scientific studies. The FBI called in spy satellite help when tracking the Washington area snipers. Now, the Bush administration is forming a unit within the Department of Homeland Security to enable more routine domestic use of satellite imagery -- for purposes such as protecting the borders and helping local law enforcement. The administration's plan makes sense. But it is essential that these capabilities be used carefully, with due regard for Americans' privacy concerns and with careful monitoring, including congressional oversight. There is, we agree with civil libertarians, a creepy, Big Brother feel to the notion of an invisible eye snapping pictures from above. But this kind of technology is less invasive than surveillance cameras in public places, which proved their usefulness after terrorist bombings in London.
Hearing Moderate Muslims - Ken McIntyre, Washington Times
Americans have a pretty good chance after all to see "the film PBS doesn't want you to see." That's how the producers of "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center" describe their powerful documentary about moderate Muslims who refuse to be intimidated and silenced by extremists within their faith. Four months ago, the Public Broadcasting Service squelched the 52-minute film as "unfair" and "alarmist" in telling the stories of four Muslim professionals who stand up to activist imams and their followers in Denmark, Canada, France and the United States. Now, though, viewers can decide for themselves whether the filmmakers were heavy-handed in exploring answers to a haunting question since the September 11, 2001, attacks: Why aren't we hearing more from Muslims who denounce terrorists and their hateful ideology? As of Aug. 14, "Islam vs. Islamists" was scheduled to air on at least 40 public television stations in 18 states in the weeks leading up to the sixth anniversary of the attacks.
Justice for an ‘Enemy Combatant’ – Washington Post editorial
The decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Wednesday to rehear the case of alleged enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri does not bode well for those the Bush administration has detained in the war on terrorism. Mr. Marri, a permanent legal resident, reentered the country on Sept. 10, 2001, on a student visa and was arrested in December of that year as a material witness. By that time, there was reason to believe Mr. Marri was dangerous: The government claims he had trained in a terrorist camp overseas, had met with Osama bin Laden and was a member of an al-Qaeda sleeper cell intent on disrupting this country's financial system. Mr. Marri was indicted in federal court for credit card fraud and for lying to the FBI. But on the eve of trial in 2003, the administration dropped the charges against Mr. Marri, designated him an enemy combatant and transferred him to a military brig in South Carolina, where he has been held without charge since.
-----