The Political Chase

The Most Foolish War of the Last 2,016 Years

George W. Bush, the President of the United States, will deliver another speech tonight to promote his campaign to implement Bush Democracy in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. There is one fact Americans must consider — unfortunately few currently do — Mr. Bush’s performance in prosecuting his war in Iraq is relatively moot with respect to the undertaken task. The consequences of spreading Bush Democracy in Iraq were inevitable – disaster would prevail regardless of what strategy Mr. Bush employed on March 20, 2003 or September 14, 2007.

The peoples of any nation have a substantial propensity to only consider the outcome of a war in terms of victory or defeat, and such may be the case for many nations and in many wars – past, present, and future. But that prevailing logic does not apply with respect to the American invasion of Iraq. More than four years ago, there were only two options with respect to the outcome in Iraq, and they remain the same today: bad or worse. Americans must face and dispel the flawed notion of success in Iraq. Success – however defined – is merely a wish or dream, and has never been an option.

Two years ago, Martin van Creveld, one of the world’s foremost military historians, declared President Bush had launched “the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them.” The professor’s writings were indeed prescient. He said: (1) Iran has become a far greater risk and is “the big winner” of Bush’s war; (2) the entire region is less stable due to the war and the situation will worsen as America withdraws from Iraq; and (3) the US may pull out of Iraq, but must maintain a substantial presence in the region to protect other countries from the now out of control, terrorist breeding ground of Iraq and the newly gained power of Iran.

Three weeks ago, President Bush, invoking the unthinkable, said the Vietnam War should serve as a guiding light for American strategy in Iraq; however, Professor van Creveld had already considered two years earlier the potential parallels between spreading Bush Democracy in Iraq and the Vietnam War. The renowned academic concluded there was no real comparison and America has no suitable options.

He wrote that a withdrawal at any time and under any circumstances will “require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties….As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge — if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not.”

Now that General David E. Petraeus has provided Congress and the American People with his Report and Recommendations for the Future, they are of little use or consequence. That is not intended to be a negative statement about the General’s skills or capabilities; it is mere fact – one that Congress must grasp and manage because the President cannot nor will not meet the challenge.

The challenge Martin van Creveld asserted more than two years ago is incredibly indicative of our national discussion, with minor exceptions such as the Unitary Executive Dick Cheney and Mr. Bush.

Maintaining an American security presence in the region, not to mention withdrawing forces from Iraq, will involve many complicated problems, military as well as political. Such an endeavor, one would hope, will be handled by a team different from — and more competent than — the one presently in charge of the White House and Pentagon.

The inescapable fact is that the processes Mr. Bush unleashed on March 20, 2003 (and imagined he had ended with his “mission accomplished” speech six weeks later) will take a decade or more to run their course and there is little that anyone, even the US, can do now to halt them.

In his eagerness for regime change in Iraq, Mr Bush blundered into a trap from which in the short term there is no way out: the Americans will be damned if they stay and damned if they leave.

It is all but impossible to argue against the importance and urgency the 110^th Congress of the United States must place on removing President Bush’s ability to continue implementing Bush Democracy in Iraq or anywhere else in the future. The world cannot wait for the 111^th Congress or the next President of the United States.

These are the undisputable facts. Only 33% of Americans approve of Mr. Bush’s job performance and a mere 23% believe the country is headed in the right direction. Although Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney do not accept the fact that they took an Oath to the Constitution and thereby the People of the Republic, they indeed do work for the People of the Republic, not themselves or the People of Iraq. Congress must force the Bush-Cheney administration to adhere to the Principles of Democracy and carry out the will of the People of the Republic.

Bomb Kills Sunni Sheik Working With U.S.

From the New York Times:

The leader of a group of local Sunni tribes cooperating with American and Iraqi forces in fighting extremist Sunni militants in Anbar Province was killed by a bomb today, Iraqi police officials said, in a blow to an effort President Bush has held up as a model of progress.

The Sunni leader, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, who met and shook hands with Mr. Bush during his visit to a military base in the province last week, led the Anbar Salvation Council, an alliance of clans supporting the Iraqi government and American forces. Initial reports suggested he was killed either by a bomb in his car or by a roadside bomb close to his car near his home in Ramadi in Anbar Province, the sprawling region west of Baghdad.

Sheik Abdul Sattar, 35, as he was known to Iraqis and American commanders, had become the public face of the Sunni tribes in lawless Anbar that turned against the Sunni jihadists of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and began to fight on the side of the Shiite-led Iraqi government and the American military.

The resulting increase in security in Anbar became one of the rare bright spots for the American military in Iraq. In the trip last week, Mr. Bush chose to stop in Anbar rather than Baghdad and forcefully directed attention at the security gains the growing alliance between American and tribal forces had brought. Sheik Abdul Sattar was among the tribal leaders who met with him on Sept. 3 at al-Asad Air Base in Anbar. The White House condemned the killing, saying the sheik’s actions exemplified “the courage and determination of the Iraqi people,” a spokeswoman, Katherine L. Starr, said in a statement.

Tragic for Sheik Sattar and not a good day for George Bush. Iraq government crumbling over oil and Sattar killed in Bush’s model province, Anbar.

TPC Roundup - Iraq Week Continues

HEADLINES

• Democrats Revise Iraq Strategy
• Reid Will Block Olson Nomination
• Bush to Endorse Petraeus Plan for Iraq
• Iraq Oil Sharing Agreement Breaks Down
• U.S. To Hold Summit on Iran Nuclear Program
• Former VA Governor Warner To Run For Retiring Sen. Warner Seat

TPC MOST POPULAR

TPC Roundup - Pig In a Poke
Disagreement between Petraeus and Fallon on Iraq
Summed up in 25 words or less

CONGRESS

• “Democratic leaders in Congress have decided to shift course and pursue modest bipartisan measures to alter U.S. military strategy in Iraq, hoping to use incremental changes instead of aggressive legislation to break the grip Republicans have held over the direction of war policy,” the Washington Post reports. “Standing against them will be President Bush, who intends to use a prime-time address tonight to try to ease concerns that his Iraq strategy will lead to an open-ended military commitment.”
• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday vowed to block any effort by President Bush to nominate former Solicitor General Ted Olson to become the next attorney general, while Democrats promised a protracted and politically bruising fight regardless of the nominee,” Roll Call (sub. req.) reports. “Ted Olson will not be confirmed by the Senate,” Reid said on Wednesday, adding, “I intend to do everything I can to prevent him from being confirmed as the next attorney general.” This may be a wise choice - see TPC related comment.
• “Former Virginia governor Mark R. Warner will announce today that he is running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican John W. Warner, setting the stage for one of the most competitive races in the country next year, according to sources familiar with his decision,” the Washington Post reports. “Warner, 52, a self-described moderate Democrat, will make his announcement in an e-mail to supporters” today “but won’t formally begin his campaign until after the state legislative races in November, according to the sources, who spoke directly with Warner.”
• “Senator Barack Obama” on Wednesday “presented his most extensive plan yet for winding down the war in Iraq, proposing to withdraw all combat brigades by the end of next year while leaving behind an unspecified smaller force to strike at terrorists, train Iraqi soldiers and protect American interests,” the New York Times reports. “Speaking in Iowa, Mr. Obama combined an attack on both parties in Washington for having gotten the United States into the war with the outline of an approach for getting out that immediately drew criticism from the left of his party for being too timid and from Republicans as being irresponsible.”

WASHINGTON

• Today, President Bush “is expected to endorse plans for limited cuts in U.S. troop levels in Iraq but will offer little else to skeptical Americans looking for a change of course in the unpopular war,” Reuters reports. “Trying to rally public support in the face of growing Democratic opposition to his Iraq strategy, Bush will deliver a televised address after two days of congressional testimony by his top military and diplomatic officials in Baghdad.” See related TPC post.
• The Gate has a good analysis of the latest views on Iraq before Bush’s address. Brief excerpt:

“President Bush is expected to confirm tomorrow night that he will follow Gen. David Petraeus’ and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s recommendations for the Iraq war. Get ready for a long, hard slog through this political season.

The dominant feeling on the Hill today is that after an agonizingly long five months of waiting for the Petraeus-Crocker report to arrive, nothing has changed with regard to a way out of Iraq. The “surge” strategy is working, lawmakers were told, but only in part. The missing link is national political reconciliation, and we still don’t know how to get there. In summary: Give us more time.”

• “The Bush administration said Wednesday that retreat in Iraq would cede power in the country to Iran, the U.S.-labeled ‘axis of evil’ nation that has become the boogeyman of the Middle East,” AP reports. “The troubled U.S. relationship with its chief Middle East adversary hung over this week’s watershed recommendations from President Bush’s top military commander in the Iraq war and the assessments of his top diplomat in the country.”

IRAQ

• “A carefully constructed compromise on a draft law governing Iraq’s rich oil fields, agreed to in February after months of arduous talks among Iraqi political groups, appears to have collapsed,” the New York Times reports. “The apparent breakdown comes just as Congress and the White House are struggling to find evidence that there is progress toward reconciliation and a functioning government here.” See TPC related post.
• “The Bush administration has begun mobilizing support for a third U.N. resolution that would impose tougher sanctions against Iran, as the top U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Baghdad said” on Wednesday “that one of the biggest and still unfolding surprises in Iraq has been the depth of Iran’s intervention,” the Washington Post reports. “Iran is increasingly the backdrop in discussions about the future of Iraq, evident in congressional testimony this week by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker and in warnings from senior administration officials.”
• “If as expected President Bush cuts the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq by 25 percent by next summer, that will not necessarily mean less fighting for the troops who remain,” AP reports. “Their numbers may shrink, but their role will not. The Americans are likely to perform the same mission — leading the fight against the insurgency — at least through next year, in part because Iraq’s army is nowhere near being ready to take over that job.”
• “Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called testimony given by the U.S. top commander in Iraq and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq ‘realistic and objective,’” CNN reports. “‘In general, it is a positive report, and reflects a reality and looks forward, like we do, to a brighter future,’ al-Maliki told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in Iraq on Wednesday.”

INTERNATIONAL

• “The US is to host a meeting of major world powers to discuss plans for a new round of sanctions against Iran over its contentious nuclear programme,” BBC News reports. “The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, will meet in Washington on 21 September. Iran denies accusations it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and has recently renewed co-operation with the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.”
• “Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte, arriving Wednesday in Pakistan for two days of talks during a political crackdown and increased violence in the border areas, called for a peaceful democratic transition from military rule but pointedly did not criticize the deportation on Monday of an opposition leader,” the New York Times reports. “Mr. Negroponte was attending discussions with the Foreign Ministry on strategic relations between Pakistan and the United States, covering terrorism and general assistance, but he was here at a tense political moment.”
• “U.S. officials on Wednesday confirmed Israel launched air strikes against Syria last week and said they were to target weapons Israel believes were headed for the militant group Hezbollah,” Reuters reports. “One defense official dismissed speculation Israel had aimed for any nuclear-related target.”

SCANDALS

• “The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is poised to dive back into the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal in coming weeks, according to several sources who say Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has issued letters to a range of Abramoff associates seeking information about his contacts with the White House,” Roll Call (sub. req.) reports. “The committee’s activity coincides with a number of Abramoff-related legal developments that are likely to keep the disgraced former lobbyist’s name in the news this fall.” Jack Abramoff related scandals have to be some of the worst in the history of Congress and possibly to a lesser degree in the White House, which TPC has covered for quite some time.

Caution - Children at Play in Iraq’s Bush Democracy

To the extent there was a government in Iraq, it may now be just an entry in history books. The leaders of Bush Democracy in Iraq, acting like school children fighting over candy rather than high-ranking government officials, have packed their toys up and gone home. The Iraqi government may have just self-destructed due to the inability of government leaders to agree on the terms and conditions of Iraq’s critical hydrocarbon law (i.e., oil law), which is arguably the most important of the 18 benchmarks Iraq must pass.

The New York Times reports, “A carefully constructed compromise on a draft law governing Iraq’s rich oil fields, agreed to in February after months of arduous talks among Iraqi political groups, appears to have collapsed.”

I suppose technically it should be stated the leaders of the three sectarian groups in Iraq (Sunni, Shia, and Kurds), and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki serving as a fourth agitator-intervenor could not agree on the final terms and conditions of draft legislation. But the inability to agree is hardly fitting to the scenario played out in the Times piece.

Instead, the draft legislation that George Bush, Tony Snow, General David Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker recently said was already working “de facto,” crumbled due to the absence of trust, recalcitrance, shenanigans, and an obvious absence of understanding the basics of a federal government system. Just yesterday, Tony Snow was asked about the hydrocarbon law in a press briefing, and Snow’s reaction was on the level of one of the Soprano’s “forget about it.”

MR. SNOW: First, you’re assuming that the Iraqis, themselves, don’t want change, and I think the events on the ground indicate that the Iraqis, themselves — especially the grassroots level — have had a significant change of heart. What you’re asking about I think is the political —

Q Right. But at the national level and the benchmarks that everybody seems to have forgotten, the 18 benchmarks — and now you’re talking about Anbar, it’s almost you’re redefining success.

MR. SNOW: No. Look, benchmarks were something that Congress wanted to use as a metric –

Q You signed off on it.

MR. SNOW: — and we’re going to produce a report. But the fact is that the situation is bigger and more complex, and you need to look at the whole picture.

But let’s talk about some pressure on the Iraqis. Number one, I’ve just talked about the fact that you’ve got these grassroots movements. Do you not think that people in Iraq, themselves, are putting pressure on the political system? My sense is that they probably are. Number two, the President has made it absolutely clear that he expects to see political progress, and he’s made it clear to the Iraqis that within the American political system there is an insistence that the political factions within Iraq figure out how to get together on important pieces of legislation. Again –

Q But, Tony, he’s done that for a long time, and there is no real significant political progress on the national level.

MR. SNOW: Well, actually — General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker pointed out some interesting things that have been going on at the national level, without necessarily the enactment of national legislation. For instance, there’s a lot of talk about the oil law, when do you come up with a hydrocarbon law. Well, it turns out the government has been redistributing oil and natural gas revenues to provinces –

Q It’s really their only revenue, right?

MR. SNOW: Well, but they’ve been doing it. You’re asking about —

Q At far lower levels than you wanted them to.

MR. SNOW: Look, they’ve started doing it sort of de facto. What we would like to see is an oil law passed. You have seen de facto de-Baathification. And the members — lower levels of the Baath party have, in fact, been readmitted to civil society in other parts of Iraq. You have started to see a recognition that these matters of reconciliation have to take place. Do we want to see more political progress? Absolutely. Absolutely.

The breakdown, which would be any lawyer’s dream come true, is a bit convoluted, so here’s the redux. Leaders from the sectarian groups have been conferencing on draft legislation created by Iraq’s parliament in February. The conflict, to an extent, can be segregated into five salient points: (1) no one trusted representatives external to their sectarian group (e.g., Sunni’s wanted protection from Shias); (2) Sects acted independently without having a formal law in place providing the proper controls (e.g. Kurds were selling oil); (3) parliament took too long to implement an oil law, and allegedly forced by default independent groups to take their own action (e.g. Kurds); (4) Kurds acting independently was seen as a declaration of their own independence; and, (5) Maliki was trying to turn the political wheels in his favor and also accused other groups of “not wanting him to succeed politically.”

As the respective elements combined the reactions became exponentially greater and whatever unity theoretically existed appears to be shattered as evidenced by the Kurd’s response to the rejoinder the Iraqi oil minister issued the Kurds.

“His views are irrelevant to what the K.R.G. is doing legally and constitutionally in Kurdistan.”

It is reasonably clear the Iraqis are having problems understanding or accepting, much less implementing, a strong central federal government.

The Kurds say their regional law is consistent with the Iraqi Constitution, which grants substantial powers to the provinces to govern their own affairs. But Mr. Shahristani believes that a sort of Kurdish declaration of independence can be read into the move [Kurds selling oil internationally without benefit of a federal oil law]. “This to us indicates very serious lack of cooperation that makes many people wonder if they are really going to be working within the framework of the federal law.”

Kurdish officials dispute that contention, saying that they are doing their best to work within the Constitution while waiting for the Iraqi Parliament, which always seems to move at a glacial pace, to consider the legislation.

“We reject what some parties say — that it is a step towards separation — because we have drafted the Kurdistan oil law depending on Article 111 of the Iraqi Constitution, which says oil and natural resources are properties of Iraqi people,” said Jamal Abdullah, a spokesman for the Kurdistan Regional Government. “Both Iraqi and Kurdish oil laws depend on that article,” Mr. Abdullah said.

That is just one example, but when combined and in context with various items from the Times’ piece, it is not hard to state establishing a strong central government appears to be an item for the next millennium, maybe. Each day it appears that a decentralized federal government with Iraq divided into three distinct entities may be the only solution, and that is indeed debatable itself.

There is one item in this disarray that I suspiciously question — the Kurds selling oil to Hunt Oil Co. in Dallas, TX. What part of Hunt’s due diligence process “overlooked” the absence of the federal oil law? What responsible corporate officer would not be knowledgeable of  the fact or properly ensure the most notable legal issue in the country was not intact?

Suffice it to say, the President’s sales pitch tonight for further rolling out Bush Democracy in Iraq has been dealt another blow.