« "Inside Man" Alan Farrell | Main | Open Thread - Cordesman »

19 April 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I was absolutely aghast that Paul Bremer passed on Larry Johnson's invite to arrange a meeting with you. I guess that only affirms my vote for number one, too.

Chris Bray

I'll also take the first choice, in large part because Americans have also fought centuries of wars with the Pequot and Seminoles and Sioux of our dreams, the Filipinos of our dreams, the Vietnamese of our dreams...

For a knowledge of history, substitute the ability to chant, "Lesson of Munich! Lesson of Munich!"

We keep passing up our chances to know better.


I'll vote for 0 (zero). The idea to Iraq at all instead of making peace with them.

michael Singer

Dear Pat, I see in #1 a vague reference to a role Iran may have played in the run up to the war in Iraq. I begin to think of all the friendly Iraqis who were sitting in Iran, being fed whatever
while wating for Saddam's fall; they started feeding the US the intel that said Iraq could be easily overthrown, scores of them beside Mr. Chalabi. That intel transformed into the gossipal according to Paul (W.)--the genius who humiliated Gen. Shenseki in public. Then think about Chalabi's relationship to the Iranians and to Iranian intelligence. Remember that little scandal that never got resolved?Remember for all his ups and downs he was last seen as Minister of Oil. Then think of how well the Iranians are making out in Iraq. The Iranians surely wanted Saddam out. Could they have thought it would be a brilliant idea to feed the US the intel it wanted to hear and help get the American beast roused enough to attack Saddam? And then would it be possible for the Iranians to know or guess that the post battle occupation would turn into a guerilla war? And couldn't the Iranians have helped form and arm the Shia militias in case of sectarian war or Shite control of the "post war" government?
Could Iranian agents now be all over Iraq getting prepared and preparing for a change in power? Call me crazy but it sounds like a plan. If it was it may be one of the most incredible inteligence operations in history that the public knows about.
Michael Singer


I vote for No. 2.

No.1 a delusional reasoning can still be saved with perfect execution. (okay so maybe, the softening up of Iraqis people will take different tact, had we not see them as primitive nomads. Probably we'll give more consideration of existing political dynamic and social view.)

but with good execution and reasonable back up plans, Iraq could still have positive outcome, if not a gracefull exit if all fails. (IMO. The point of no return was before Fallujah)

No.2 is deadly. It's the difference between a gigantic frat house prank and a misguided policy. A misguided policy can be corrected, because there is structure that can be worked on. But a prank cannot. It's one ad hoc to another ad hoc decission.

Observe how Bushco keeps reassigning who is in charge of Iraq international diplomatic/civilian efforts of the operation. The DoD vs the State dept.

The whole thing is just one damage control after another. There is no bigger plan. We'll suffacte out of money and resource.

No. 3 is just an outgrowth of No. 2. (because there was no analysis/plan, it was just another ad hoc decission that looks good momentarily.)


the diplomatic situation with Iran is another thing.

These people don't think that a diplomatic row with Iran will magnify Iraq problem. Because Iran will feel threatened and forced to consider pre-emptive/aggressive counter move.

But it's too late now. We are already in low level conflict with Iran.

But then, there is the neocon game plan. Which could be the most brilliant gambit a small country EVER pull in history of the world.

Babak Makkinejad

The major mistake is the hubris that a country of 300 million can decide the destiny of a country of 27 million half way across the world without committing major resources; be they human and financial.


I vote "0" as well, though I see it as a superset of "1" (a cold calculation of reality agitated for no invasion at all, no matter your partisan opinions or grand strategic goals) as well as of "2" (recognition of the planning system's incompetence similarly agitated for no invasion at all; you go to war with the plans you're making, not those you wish you were making), and indeed of "3" as well (an accurate assessment of the competence of those doing the hiring and firing and signing off on the big decisions again agitates for no invasion at all).

Full disclosure: "no invasion" tends to align with my ideological preferences. Still, you can't make this style of "0" argument about, say, Grenada. I wouldn't have invaded Grenada either, but I can't fault the execution.

W. Patrick Lang


My assumption in writing the post was that the administration had decided upon intervention and that this was not a variable.

On second thought, I, too, would vote for Zero on the basis that the containment was successful as were the UN inspections. pl


What I'd really like to understand are the motivations that led to the decision making? Why was the political judgement for "Iraq of our Dreams?

That could shed some light on what transpired as a result - the planning, the execution of the occupation, etc.

And now like a gambler in Vegas who has lost a lot of chips are they doubling down with a bet on Iran?

W. Patrick Lang


My belief is that the principal motivation was a political philosophy of messianic utopianism that did not think existing customs, culture or history were relevant to the future. This notion further held that the whole structure of Islamic culture was rotten like a rotted wall and would come crashing down if knocked hard enough. The "Day of Jubilo" would then ensue with maybe even a little rapture along the way. In other words I think the neocons and their akky, "the decider in chief" did it with encouragement from the VP and the oilies.

A lot of greed played into the opportunity provided by the idelogical BS, but i do not think it was the essential thing pl


Every time I try to understand why the fuck the Bush administration launched on this course, I find myself returning to two basic observations - the principals were all motivated by vanity, narcissism and a compelling need to overcompensate for their emasculation on 9/11.

Josh Smith

I'll have to go with #1, as well, Pat. Although I was tempted to take the same route as Curious and select #2 (I do agree, to some extent, that piss poor ideas can work out with perfect excecution), but the underlying reality is that we did not have the kind of basic cultural capital we needed in Iraq.

There is no doubt that Iraq is just another example of an imperial reality, but let's compare it to European imperialism across the Southern hemisphere. In many areas, the Europeans had laid the groundwork with centuries of intermingling with the various cultures, creating mulatto races that integrated with the emergent imperial leadership. This was not a three-year long nation-building process. That is and always has been a myth. We simply could not have, no matter how "perfect" the execution, marched into Baghdad and expected a democratic, secular society to appear out of nowhere. Besides, we could look inward for a minute at ourselves. The United States still hasn't managed to become the post-Enlightenment society it claims to be. Why should we have ever expected the same of the Iraqis?


#1, of course. Well said, Zanji. There's an excellent article, Baghdad Year Zero, that proves your point about neocon philosophy trumping all occupational sanity in Iraq:


Excerpt One:
'...I was also reminded of the most common explanation for what has gone wrong in Iraq, a complaint echoed by everyone from John Kerry to Pat Buchanan: Iraq is mired in blood and deprivation because George W. Bush didn’t have “a postwar plan.” The only problem with this theory is that it isn’t true. The Bush Administration did have a plan for what it would do after the war; put simply, it was to lay out as much honey as possible, then sit back and wait for the flies.'

Excerpt Two:
'At the end of our meeting, I asked Mahmud what would happen if the plant was sold despite the workers’ objections. “There are two choices,” he said, looking me in the eye and smiling kindly. “Either we will set the factory on fire and let the flames devour it to the ground, or we will blow ourselves up inside of it. But it will not be privatized."'


er, that should've read, "Well said, Pat." Sorry Pat, the old astygmatism must be getting to me.

And Zanzibar, doubling down with a bigger bet on the next hand is all the necons, or Dubya, have ever done.

In strategy this trait has been called the "Flucht nach Vorne," which in colluquial translation means "bug out forward." It's a fairly common reaction to stalemate as a means of trying to take a lost original objective by opening a larger front. Offhand, I can't think of an example when it has worked.


PL, that is so scary!!

Your analysis of their motivation is very plausible. In fact at some level that is the only one that makes any sense.

I just find it so hard to believe that in the 21st century when we have the most technologically advanced society, we have elected leaders that really should belong in the middle ages. What have we as citizens done wrong that we can't see through this insanity? Why has our constitutional political system that has prevented absolute power for over 2 centuries failing us now? I am worried for the next generation. What is our legacy to them?

I don't want my country to go over the cliff with a "David Koresh" like cultist or like the other guy in San Diego that led his followers to meet up with the Hale Bopp comet!!


Marc, researching "Flucht nach Vorne" I ran into this very contextual piece that if you have not yet read should find interesting. Another analysis in a similar vein to PL's "messianic utopianism".

The Flight Forward

James Pratt

There is a class of people at or near the center of power in all empires (including the late Soviet one)who were raised by parents priveleged, generous and supportive but also vulnerable to flattery, averse to being told bad news
and ruthless in their ambition. Those are the kind of folks who still welcome the Iranian agent Ahmad Chalabi to the American Enterprise Institute, the State Department and Pentagon.
If they had more real patriots in their number and fewer globalized class loyalists then they could recognize the formidable
force that patriotism can be.


Once upon a time a very unpleasant man who was much smarter than George Bush or Dick Cheney told his generals to invade a country that was being viciously mismanaged by a crazed dictator. "Just kick the door in and the whole rotten edifice will crumble," was what he told his generals. Most of the world agreed with him and, less than 5 months into the war, Luce's Time magazine was explaining to one and all how the Nazis were able to completely defeat Stalin and his Red hordes in just 4 months. Didn't quite work out the way the chattering classes thought it would, did it?
A big part of attacking Iraq was that the neocons thought it would be easy. "Its do-able," Cheney is reported to have said. No thought was given to what the Iraqis could or would do; they were the inert clay, the lesser breeds that knew not the law, that would be guided forcibly to better things. Whatever resistance they might offer would be ineffective at best and probably laughable for were we not the new Romans? Everyone knew we had the greatest army since Rome, greater than the Wehrmacht, greater than the Grande Armee, greater than Gustav Adolphus regiments, greater than Spain’s Tercios during their Golden Age. Yep, we were all that and a bag of chips. I’d bet my bottom dollar that not one of these fools thought even for one moment that the Sunni tribesmen of Al Anbar would be able to mount a resistance 1/100 as lethal, savage, and intelligent as they did. I’m sure it never occurred to this collection of the world’s greatest geniuses that the turbaned Shia clerics would prove to be as intelligent, subtle, and devious as they have been. The neocons have been out-thought, out-fought, and out-politicked by Iraqis of all sects and opinions. (The latest piece of idiocy I suspect we’ve been maneuvered into is our planned operation to disarm the Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad. We’ll end up ethnically cleansing the city for Muqtada Sadr and the Badr thugs.)
Sun Tzu wrote 2500 years ago that the first key to victory is “Know thyself and know thine enemy and you will be victorious in 10,000 battles.” The neocons went into this war with no knowledge of the Iraqis and with a level of self-knowledge that is all but nonexistent. They believed in their own propaganda from the get-go and despised the Arabs in Iraqi with a breathtaking racism that would be considered a bit over the top in a Klan meeting. I’m not surprised that it ended disastrously. I am surprised by just how ignorant, ill-read, and just plain vulgar most of the neocons have turned out to be. How is it possible for a group of men with advanced degrees from our best schools to know so little about history? To be so openly contemptuous of one of the world’s great civilizations? The reason we even have a civilization is the Arabs preserved Greek learning, Roman technology, and Persian art and architecture.
There was never any chance of this little project ending any way but badly. From the beginning, it was a colonialist, imperialist, racist, and remarkably stupid attempt to reduce the Arabs in Iraq to compliant helotry. I advise anyone who doubts this to research our original plans for restructuring Iraq. The Iraqis were going to be left with the shirts on their backs, if they cooperated; the world hasn’t seen an attempted corporate gang rape like this since Leopold of Belgium invaded the Congo. But then it all went wrong. Who knew the Iraqi people were armed to the teeth? (Anyone who knew anything about Arab tribes for one. But they weren’t consulted.)
The new neocon plan seems to be to double down their bet and attack the Iranians; this will, they think, make everything come out right in the end. Right. Yale is going to spend the next 100 years living down George Bush and Dick Cheney.
One last thought: Does everybody now understand why the Founding Fathers put that Second Amendment in the Constitution? We were a weak little country at the mercy of much bigger and much badder polities that used highly trained and very expensive armies to enforce their will, but we knew, from our experience in the war of the Revolution, that a well armed militia could slowly grind those European armies to powder. The next time some fool politician starts talking about gun control to appeal to the soccer moms, remember the real reason we have guns. (By the way, I don’t own a gun nor have I ever owned one. I’m just glad that a large number of responsible and patriotic people do. )



"I am surprised by just how ignorant, ill-read, and just plain vulgar most of the neocons have turned out to be. How is it possible for a group of men with advanced degrees from our best schools to know so little about history?"

"From the beginning, it was a colonialist, imperialist, racist, and remarkably stupid attempt to reduce the Arabs in Iraq to compliant helotry."

- Erasmus

Now I understand many neocons such as Cheney & Rummy were brought together under Nixon and believed his rhetoric. Others like Wolfowitz were part of the Likud cabal. How were they brought together with a philosophy, ideology and purpose?

It seems that prior to 9/11 they were unable to have as much of an impact but that fateful day allowed them to manipulate a shaken public, including me, to support a lashing out. I never got the urgency for Iraq when Afghanistan was not done yet. But they have been very successful with political campaigns and information ops (aka propaganda).

I am really disturbed that in this day and age we elect and then give "messianic" leaders carte blanche. Its time to get more rational and sane politicians who can actually get something positive done. There is no reason why we can't be a positive influence in creating a more peaceful Middle East where people can go on with rebuilding lives and societies.

Norbert Schulz

I found an interesting article dealing with revisions that need to be revised, namely U.S. war critique atm. It argues that, even if the U.S. had employed 'enough troops' (where to take the needed 300.000 from, and sustain them to begin with?), or secured allies willing to hoin the noble cause (well, didn't America have the full support of El Salvador and the Marshall Islands?) and to provide additional companies of troops and so on and so forth.

An excerpt, arguing about the troop levels:

"Operation IRAQI FREEDOM was, in basic respects, a test of the theory that civilians must intervene in the military planning process and force their perspectives down the chain of command. Secretary Rumsfeld did this in the first instance by starting the bidding for the forces committed to the invasion at 75,000 troops and intimating that a smaller number would be entirely adequate. Events have shown that the number was ludicrously small in relation to the tasks given to U.S. forces, and that Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki was right in seeing the need for much larger numbers. On this crucial question, certainly, the record of Iraq war planning does nothing to advance the case for civilian activism. Even if the indictment of Secretary Rumsfeld is accepted, however, the case of the critics is not thereby confirmed.

Taken at face value, that case amounts to the proposition that there was a smart and a dumb way of going about the demolition and reconstruction of the Iraqi state, and that the Bush administration, blinded by ideology, chose the latter course. A more appropriate lesson is that there are certain intrinsic limits to what military power can accomplish that both defenders and critics of the administration’s course of action have ignored. “Policy must know the instrument it is to employ,” says Clausewtiz in one of his enduring formulations. For certain purposes, like the creation of a liberal democratic society that will be a model for others, it seems fair to conclude that military power is a blunt instrument, destined by its very nature to give rise to unintended and unwelcome consequences...

... Had the United States invaded with the 400,000 forces initially foreseen at the beginning of the military planning process, U.S. forces would have been placed under severe strain, and it is not evident how the challenge would have been met. The severe pressures placed on Army Reserve and National Guard forces by the Iraq campaign—including the odious expedient of the
“backdoor draft”—necessitate a rethinking of the entire system for the recruitment and retention of ground forces."

The greatest lesson learned should be IMO not to engage in this sort of wars of choice at all. If Saddam was contained, there was no need to attack Iraq. So why attack?


Norbert Schulz

The paper makes a second point, that can be summed up in the saying 'opportunity makes thieves'.

Just like Madeleine Albright said so well: If you have such a mighty global military as the U.S. evidently enjoys having, there is an overwhelming temptation to use it to reap some political benefits from all the investment in hardware and personnel.

Some Guy

I vote for #1 as well. The part about Ivy league elites pushing aside experienced foreign policy and military experts raises a question about the class-based delusions of this administration. In this case, a highly privileged and insular class of groomed experts stew in their own speculation and reject seasoned commentary on the limits of such speculation.

A classic split of theoreticians who have contempt for applied knowledge and experience. But given the pedigree of the theoreticians, it also spells out a class difference.

And it fits a pattern of self-justification I think the world has seen before. A set of intellectuals who lend academic sophistication to the blunt end of an ideology grow up in hothouses of privilege, then are feted for their vision and used as rationalizing agents. Please correct me, Colonel, but was this not a pattern in colonial contexts? Were not scholarly justifications of colonialism continually providing a veneer of "sound thinking" to exploitative and often ruinous adventures?


MARK TWAIN'S kind of fun to read, sometimes.


Anthony Cordesman has his own greatest hits list:



CIRCUMFLATION: the html link codes work here. Can't figure out how to get it to open link in new window, tho.


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad