Lounsbury: Iraq - Bush Admin Fantasy Land

« DoD, blind fools: Pushing the Iraq-Israel pipeline like morons | On Iraqi Opinon, anectdotal developments »

August 26, 2003

Iraq - Bush Admin Fantasy Land

The Washingtonpost continues some yoeman coverage of Iraq (I'm finding FT and WP to be far superiour to the old NYT - perhaps too much Friedmanesque influence in its halls.)

Patience On Iraq Policies Urged
Bush Aides Defend Troop and Aid Levels
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 26, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44757-2003Aug25.html

I believe the most noteworthy item from this piece is the following:
"The complaints from Democrats have been matched by similar criticism from conservatives who supported Bush's handling of the war. A day after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called for at least another division of U.S. troops in Iraq -- that would add 20,000 to the approximately 136,000 there -- two influential conservatives accused the administration today of a "baffling" failure "to commit resources to the rebuilding of Iraq."

"While it is indeed possible that, with a little luck, the United States can muddle through to success in Iraq over the coming months, the danger is that the resources the administration is devoting to Iraq right now are insufficient, and the speed with which they are being deployed is insufficiently urgent," Robert Kagan and William Kristol wrote in the new issue of the Weekly Standard. "These failings, if not corrected soon, could over time lead to disaster."

They concluded that "it is painfully obvious that there are too few American troops operating in Iraq." They said it is the same with financial resources and wrote of "the astonishing lack of American civilians" in Iraq."
[End Quote]

Indeed. I believe I have made this point as a drum beat of late. Above all in regards to the issue of resources, less so military as I can see some argument there, but unarguably and without question there is not enough resources or urgency. E.g. the issue of insurance coverage for entering Iraq. Private sector won't touch it, US agencies, esp. OPIC, should have been ready to go - even if things went well apres guerre - but still nothing has been concluded (in part because their proposal, which I saw thanks to insiders, depended on oil receipts which have not materialized, but also for pure bureacratic reasons, they've not been given PERMISSION to go ahead!). However we're still waiting. At the very least I just saw and have been trying to help on a proposal to securitize certain USG contracts to help get money flowing to local contractors etc. Still, late, late, late.

Now, the Admin reply to criticism borders on the surreal, quoting the article once more:

"Rice, in her remarks, described a vastly different Iraq. Outlining improvements in services to the Iraqis, she counseled patience as the United States embarks on a broad rehabilitation of Iraq and the entire Middle East, an effort she called the "moral mission of our time." She did not directly answer the call for more resources in Iraq, instead making the case to remain in the region. "Transformation in the Middle East will require a commitment of many years," she said. "The transformation of the Middle East is the only guarantee that it will no longer produce ideologies of hatred that lead men to fly airplanes into buildings in New York or Washington."

Rice remained optimistic about the broader Middle East. "Despite the horrific events of recent days, we have seen real progress toward peace for Israelis and Palestinians," she said. Rumsfeld, too, outlined progress in Iraq. "The 100-plus days that have passed since Iraq's liberation have been days of both difficulty, to be sure, but also progress," he said in a session with troops at nearby Lackland Air Force Base after his VFW speech. "And the outcome is not in doubt."

Rumsfeld did not rule out future increases in troop strength. "We will put whatever number of U.S. forces in that country as the combatant commander and the Joint Chiefs of Staff decide is appropriate at any given time," he told reporters. He said Gen. John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command, believes the number of U.S. forces "is appropriate at the present time." He said if Abizaid wanted more troops, "it would happen in a minute."

The defense secretary said Abizaid wants to increase forces from other countries, and Rumsfeld said that is happening. "We do need international support and assistance," he told the soldiers, but made clear that the United States would not relinquish control of the operation to the United Nations. "What is the likelihood of our forces serving under a blue-hatted United Nations leadership? I think that's not going to happen."

Rice and Rumsfeld must be living in some bizarro world that I don't have access to, as what I hear from the CPA-I people is not much improvements (phone service at 50 percent pre war), no real substantive progress. Just dribs - the sort of bullshit spin shit that Sam Stone in the SDMB liked to cite with wide eyed faux naivete as progress (I recall his rich intervention citing to over X number of projects in Afghanistan, as if the number of projects said something).

However a further item.

Readers may recall my pimping of the film, "The Battle of Algiers" as a key document in understanding these kinds of situations. For over two years I think I have done so. Well, in this article:
"Think Strategy, Not Numbers"
By David Ignatius
Tuesday, August 26, 2003; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45136-2003Aug25.html

What do we find:
" Andrews argues that if Iraq is becoming a war of counterinsurgency, the United States must make sensible decisions about strategy and troop levels. Bad news shouldn't stampede America into pulling out. But it shouldn't mean an automatic decision to send more troops to implement a flawed strategy.

Pentagon sources report one hopeful sign that the military is thinking creatively and unconventionally about Iraq. The Pentagon's special operations chiefs have scheduled a showing tomorrow in the Army auditorium of "The Battle of Algiers," a classic film that examines how the French, despite overwhelming military superiority, were defeated by Algerian resistance fighters.

A Pentagon flier announcing the film puts it in eerie perspective: "How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. . . . Children shoot soldiers at point blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film." "

Mad Fervor? Well, I guess it seems so to the Pentagon pinheads, but certainly the film depicts how the Algerian (Arab and Berber) population of Algiers turned against the French.

At the very least, those of you who may have followed my long pimping of this film were ahead of the game, you discovered a film and in a larger context a somewhat similar situation that the Pentagon thinkers have just stumbled upon.

Brilliant, well, I suppose I should be happy I am ahead of Pentagon Pinheads in my analytical background.

August 26, 2003

Iraq - Bush Admin Fantasy Land

Trackback Pings

Comments

Comment Subscription