Wow.  Interesting citation / situation. 

Is PNAC now looking to TPMCafe for guidance?

As a nemesis of this site my ask, "Ivo, What say you?"

__________________________________________________________________ 

“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Wow! That's a great strategy, Ivo. We should never consider the issue of how to succeed. Frolicking through the many flavors of failure is a much wonkier endeavor for high minded elites like us.

Sheesh!

You choose to legitimize ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and then years later found you wringing your hands that the Balkans was still a basket case. Now, Here in Iraq, you supported regime change in the 90s, you supported the invasion, and here you argue that we should legitimize ethnic cleansing in Iraq and partition so that you and Joe Biden can deny Bush any political points if a success creeps up on the Democrats.

Your idea of using diplomacy on them is great too. That should work great when you walk in and tell them your negotiating strength is backed up by a threat of force that we will initiate and then decapitate. How will they be able to contain their laughter at us?

Right, Success is an issue that we definitely want to shove to the bottom of the pile. Success would be a real disaster...for someone, I wonder who?

I am squinting my eyes and turning sideways reading what you are saying and thinking, what can he possibly be thinking?

The statement on the war by Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid was welcome. It will be spun negatively by those who disagree, but it was strong, succinct, and well-supported by public sentiment. Perhaps the next step is for Democratic leadership to publicly outline a positive diplomatic strategy for working our way through the regional difficulties the Bush invasion has caused.

It will require talking to foes as well as friends in the region, and a return to a pragmatic approach to foreign affairs. I understand that Congress cannot impose reason in foreign policy, and that Bush may be incapable of delivering it, but Democrats can (a) exert a short-term and long-term positive influence on public opinion in this area and (b) begin to build a constituency for improving our approach to the rest of the world.

I didn't say we should "leave and then come back."

Biden probably has the situation sized up pretty well with respect to Bush, Cheney et al. Leaving aside, for now, whether Bush should have invaded Iraq, it is clear that he is not now and never has been willing to level with the country and ask for support to do what is necessary to win.

We are not getting out of Iraq easy. It will be a punishing experience. Our best hope is to help forge regional security arrangements that are in the interests of Iraq's neighbors, including those we do not like, so that the civil war in Iraq does not result in a regional conflagration. If we don't get that right, we are probably looking at some unavoidable and serious national sacrifice, like higher taxes and reinstating the draft, to field a military force capable of helping to put out the fire.

That's my point.

I haven't come across that argument, but I think it would take some explaining.

... the sooner we are gone...

I'm afraid some of your points elude me. When planners first consider a military action, they need to consider the consequences both of various alternatives of success and failure. In his book Every War Must End, Fred Ikle, an academic with excellent Republican credentials, reviews the disasters that affected nations that started wars without clear end goals, or let mission creep slip in during operations. For that matter, I am reminded of that notable pacifist, Robert E. Lee, commenting "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we become of it." Lee, however, knew both sides of the Terrible Swift Sword.

Diplomacy is one component of national-level grand strategy, which certainly contains military options but is not limited to them. Economic operations, for example, can prevent a nation from being able to fight without acutally beginning warfare.

What modern analysts call deterrence theory -- diplomacy and psychological operations backed by the potential of military force -- easily goes back to Sun Tzu. The "fleet in being" was a key concept in the strategic insights of Alfred Thayer Mahan.

So how do I squint to figure out what you are thinking, which seems to suggest that military victory is the only way to settle conflict?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Old Arab proverb: "Examine what is said, not him who speaks."

Arthur, can we talk about an end game, then? Given the current situation, and setting aside for another discussion how we got here, what goals should we set for ourselves? If we do our best, what can we realistically hope Iraq will look like when the fighting and dying of Americans is over?

• An orderly, democratic society in Iraq within 5-10 years, America's security and economic partner in the region, host to military bases that allow us to project American power throughout the Middle East.
• An authoritarian but benign regime in Iraq, partnering with America as above but not democratic. Maybe in the same time frame.
• A Shiite-dominated state trending toward theocracy but willing to accept America as a security and business partner, with or without hosting significant American military bases.
• A hostile Shiite theocracy.
• A partitioned Iraq, with only the Kurds willing to partner with America and host bases.


The list is intended to be suggestive, not exhaustive. At the very least I've left out the most dire alternatives.

What end state is both possible and desirable?

No, you're not examining what is said. You've hung him by making a connection that may or may not exist (Muravchik, et al.). His words are rendered impotent through your association, and thus are irrelevant within your argument. So it's impossible - indeed, a waste of your time - for you to have examined what is said.

Red, You are one of the first I have seen here, to lay out some of the possible outcomes of current decision making. Add to your list of "5 year plans" the "total chaos"/Beirut possibility.

Excellent post, Arthur. Let me add one observation, and, if I may, refer to a story that has served me well, and of which your analysis reminds me. I'm downloading the reference; thank you for it.

I will throw out an observation that I hope can be checked by people with greater knowledge in the relevant parts of cultural anthropology. Some societies, such as tribes of the US Northwest coast, historically have some form of potlatch: status accrues to the one who gives the most. Certainly, there is some of this in Arab tribal situations; I'm thinking especially of the House of Saud and the Bedu, but not at all exclusively.

There are various restrictions on middle eastern countries, imposed by the US, that may have more symbolic meaning in US domestic politics than to the supposedly restricted country. Recognizing Iran is not Arab but that the Persian customs do have a flavor of potlatch, I wonder what the effect might be of an American president saying "for reasons of the past, the United States has blocked some of your funds/access to technology/etc. In the perspective of history, these are small issues that should not interfere with the talking of great nations.

"Unquestionably, there will be individual issues on which our countries totally disagree. Let us, however, get as much symbolism as possible out of the way, treat one another respect, and find even small things where we can cooperate. Great nations cannot reform one another with a single blow, but every journey must begin with a single step."

Putting someone on an "Axis of Evil" accomplishes nothing except pandering to a political base, nor does communication containing nothing but "Death to America". Or, as Mr. Spock quoted an ancient Vulcan proverb, "It takes a Nixon to go to China."

Have you read the story "Space Jockey", by Robert A. Heinlein? While its technology is dated, it is remains an excellent exploration of many aspects of the human mind.

In one part of the story, a totally unqualified individual fires the main rockets. The pilot is knocked unconscious, and time elapses before the rockets can be shut down. What is then obvious is that the spacecraft is in a very bad ballistic path without fuel to get to its destination. Eventually, the pilot calls the expert astrogators.

The astrogators agree he does not have the fuel, in his current trajectory, to blast back to where the accident occurred and start over. They point out that he has a chance, if a slim one, to start over as a new navigational problem: decide where he is and how fast he is going in what direction, and select a new course that will get him from his current position to the destination. That latter alternative will need perfect piloting, correct measurement of remaining fuel, and a great deal of luck.

Is there a Space Jockey parallel here, I wonder?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

My expectation of the outcome is not a state but an ongoing process which includes a modernizing and democratizing Iraq as part of a wider transformation of the whole region in the same direction.

It is a vision I think most Americans would support if they thought it was realistic and could be achieved at a reasonable cost. The gap between expectation and where we find ourselves is what we are all trying to deal with here.

If the outcome is a process, today our military is bogged down in a process that appears to be leading us away from the goal, sustaining mounting casualties and not seeming to be able to quiet a growing civil war.

The costs of the war are direct and indirect. Among the direct costs, treasure is pouring into Iraq and blood is pouring out.

The opportunity costs are enormous. Here at home attention and funding are diverted from global warming, energy conservation and development, education, health care and other issues vital to us. Globally, Afghanistan suffers, the pursuit of Al Qaeda is abandoned, we lose credibility and influence with friends and foes alike, oil supplies are threatened and the rising cost of oil pours hundreds of billions into the very states that oppose us.

The thing is unraveling before our eyes. The cost of a military solution would likely be order-of-magnitude increases in blood and treasure.

It is fair, necessary even, to ask whether the benefits that can reasonably be expected to flow from our military efforts are worth the costs, and to contemplate alternatives. If we have lost this round, and it looks like we have, that does not mean our engagement with the Middle East is over. It does mean we must radically reassess our approach.

In this case, I think it means we have to rebuild the credibility of our diplomatic efforts, at the UN, in Europe and in the region. No, I don't think that will be easy, just more productive than trying to win the thing with rockets and guns.

(P.S. -- I could have saved myself the writing of this and just seconded Howard's reference to "Space Jockey." But since it is written I will post it.)

Heinlein was a fine ethical guide for many situations. I've just read Variable Star, the semi-posthumous novel that Spider Robinson was chartered to write from newly discovered notes by Robert Heinlein. Heinlein and Robinson were friends, and indeed Robinson considered Heinlein his mentor.

While Spider is an outstanding writer on his own, I was a little disappointed -- the authorial voice is much more Spider than Robert. The book is still worth reading; there are images and ethical choices that I can hear in Heinlein's voice.

To digress even farther, for those who have read Stardance by Spider and his dancer/choreographer wife Jeanne, there are some new developments where fiction meets reality. Jeanne has authorized the making of a Stardance movie, believing that computer graphics are now up to her vision. I contributed to the Stardance Foundation, and corresponded a bit.

I had not known that Jeanne Robinson was short-listed, not far after Christa McAuliffe, for the "citizen in space" program with the Space Shuttle, shut down after the disaster. Would Jeanne have actually tried the Stardance, or at least done the research for it? We will never know.

For those who have not read Stardance (the first book of a worthwhile trilogy), get it.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

With Robinson, while the books stand well on their own, he does have several series that make sense to read in order. There's Stardance-Starseeder-Starmind. Lady Slings the Booze is a later, almost backstory, in the series that starts with Callaghan's Crosstime Saloon.

Another series, which occasionally overlaps with the Callaghans, either starts with a fantastic short-story-to-novella, "God is an Iron". That story expands into a chapter of the book Mindkiller, and Time Pressure is another in the same universe. Baen Books confused things a bit by publishing Mindkiller and Time Pressure in a book called Deathkiller, but then went on to create a trilogy volume called Lifehouse.

Mindkiller manages to convey both the most utopian and most dystopian of futures, depending on how some brain function research is realized. He sometimes fuzzes the neurophysiology, but it's accurate enough that I can suspend disbelief.

I hope I've now read everything by Heinlein, including the pseudonymous works, thanks to the USENET alt.fan.heinlein newsgroup. Spider Robinson does drop into alt.fan.callahans, although the callahans newsgroup has more of a learning curve about its customs -- they just won't make sense unless you've read several of the books. AFH is usually more relaxed. As soon as my other computer gets here, probably next week, I'll get back to a few newsgroups.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

If my understanding of Bush's actual plan is correct (see Gerecht links above) there isn't the slightest chance laying it out would have resulted in Congressional authorization in 2002.

Although support for the official war aims has collapsed (eg nobody believes its about WMDs, or a pro-American regime) and therefore total support for the war is now a minority, that minority now includes far larger numbers who support what I believe are the actual war aims than existed four years ago. Right now the US actually is allied with a freely elected government based on islamist parties in Iraq. Practically nobody supported that before the invasion although it was the inevitable result of any success in holding free elections (as was pointed out by "realist" opponents).

PS On the Heinlein digression, you and Howard might be interested in Red Star which would have been "Red Planet" since it is set on Mars but was written by Bolshevik author Bogdanov in 1908. See also critique by Ilyenkov.

Despite being written in 1908 it has nuclear weapons, anti-matter, and other remarkably modern elements.

You make some reasonable points about reconciliation with Iran, although I wonder if a counter-letter to the "noble Iranian people" might have any useful effect on bazaaris, students, etc. Nothing major, I agree, other than perhaps neutralizing or minimizing a perceived propaganda advantage.

Let me turn to another country, about which I find several very confusing things: Syria. While the official line is that while Syria is not part of the "Axis of Evil", it remains a bad guy vis-a-vis Lebanon and perhaps Iraq. At the same time, there are continuing reports that Syria is one of the destinations for US rendition. If both of these are true, the intricacies might stun Machiavelli, although I suspect that the mind of the Sudanese, Hassan al-Turabi, might have enough twisty little passages in all directions to cope.

What should the US policy be toward Syria? Are there any short-term opportunities? I have no idea.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

PS Forgot to mention that Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars was partly inspired by "Red Star" and one of the characters pays tribute to this by being a descendent of Bogdanov

Cross posting.  I am so impressed by an editorial in a Scottish newspaper I am linking to