Succesful Talks in Baghdad

"The United States ambassador in Baghdad said he and his Iranian counterpart agreed broadly on policy toward Iraq during four-hour groundbreaking talks on Monday, but insisted that Iran end its support for militants.

During a meeting that U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker described as businesslike and focused solely on Iraq, the American said Iran proposed setting up a ''trilateral security mechanism'' that would include the U.S., Iraq and Iran. Crocker said the proposal would need study in Washington." AP

---------------------------------------------------------------

This is the way out of Iraq.  It should be clear by now that Iraq's problems are beyond our ability to solve.  The disparate nature of the population carries within it enmities and rivalries that we have exacerbated by "kicking over the ant-hill" of their fears and hopes.  George Carlin likes to talk about "ancient hatreds and modern weapons" as the formula for much of what is happening in the world today.  In Iraq, the weapons in the hands of the insurgents and Shia militias are not very modern, but there is no need for them to be.

In my article "Toward a Concert of the Middle East" (posted below somewhere) I suggested that the road out of our situation in Iraq would be found in a sustained "campaign" of diplomacy (backed by force) designed to resolve internal Iraqi issues and regional tensions sufficiently to re-stabilize the Middle East.

Such talks must be conducted by hard headed, practical people like Ryan Crocker.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq-US-Iran-Talks.html?hp

Comments

[steve pelletiere]

Pat,
I think you're wrong here. In any tri-lateral setup, it'd be us against the Iranians and their surrogate, the Iraqi government. Where do the Iraqis come in? How would us and the Iranians settling their future appease the Iraqi insurgents, who are as anti-Iran as they are anti-the-United States.
Steve

[Clifford Kiracofe]

Seems positive; late AP wire:
"The Iranians laid out their policy toward Iraq, Crocker said, describing it as "very similar to our own policy and what the Iraqi government have set out as their own guiding principles.""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070528/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_iran_talks;_ylt=AoSvrjtcEI.oLk6gCAWDGrGs0NUE

[W. Patrick Lang]

Steve

Good to hear from you. Did you read the article that I mentioned? my approach favors us and deals with everyone else as they deserve and our interests require. pat

[jb vanover]

How to win a broad sunni-shia truce?

We have botched the situation so badly, even intelligent negotiation may not work.

Of course I believe, yes, negotiations immediately - everything on the table, but in the face of so much violence it will be a tricky road.

(consider your blog essential reading - thanks.)

[Martin K]

Is giving the south to Iran worth it to exterminate Al QUaeda? Very interesting article over at Just World News on Irans policy towards Al QUaida. Quoting:

"Unreported in the west, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad replied with a full-bore blast aimed at al-Zawahiri:

"Why do you, who want to kill Americans, kill innocent people and place bombs in the [Iraqi] market place?... On behalf of all the women and children in Asia, Europe and America, who have been victims of al-Qaida terrorists, I wish for you and your terrorist group hellfire, and would gladly sacrifice my life to annihilate you."

There might be quite a lot to talk about at operational levels, if the realists finally have been allowed into the room. I hope the AIPAC loonies havent been given Lebanon as a recompensation.

Small sigh: Perhaps Bush has finally understood that he does not have magic powers and does not have the ability to fundamentally change Persia and Sumeria with a wee little wave of his magic military wand. That whole Magic Christian foreignpolicy doctrine will go down in history as one of the most naive and curious ideological gambits ever.

[johnf]

Admiral Fallon has likewise been stirring the pot again by saying something sensible:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/28/ap3762404.html

[walrus]

There is no logical reason I can see for not accepting Iranian assistance if it is offered in a positive and useful matter.

I believe however that the offer will be sabotaged in Washington since it is not in Israel's interests for there to be any possibility of accomodation with a potentially nuclear Iran.

[Cold War Zoomie]

Maybe that meeting between Bush and fellow Republicans a few Sundays ago helped lead to this? There are also rumblings of Bush reviewing the Baker-Hamilton recs again.

[Masif]

Col, at the end of the day, what is US really willing to concede to the iranians ?

[Cloned Poster]

Pl. you are grasping at straws here. State have made a coup here (congrats Rice) but darker forces will eliminate this initiative BIG TIME.

[Chris Marlowe]

Why is it I can't help thinking that American foreign policy is all about keeping a few military superbases in Iraq (and maybe Lebanon), without coming out and admitting it to the American people and the players in the ME (except Israel)?

And that is why the US can't "just withdraw" from Iraq. Gotta have some guarantees, after all...

[steve]

Colonel:

Though I'm not a student of the military (I'm only a humble English prof and a lawyer who had a high draft no. in 1970) I always appreciate your most informative posts on our political, military, and diplomatic concerns in the Middle East.

[Michael Murry]

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, jaw-jaw beats war-war every time. I agree with any and all attemts to resolve this colossal unforced error in American foreign policy through diplomatic overtures of any kind imaginable. Key word here: "imagination." Some creativity, for a change, COULD work wonders.

I also agree with those who point out that Israel's right-wing Likudnik operators in America -- working every lever they possess in the Vice President's office and in Congress -- will have Senators Mad Dog John McCain, Holy Joe Lieberman, and You-Know-Her from New York out on the campaign trail and Sunday talk shows every week screaming at Iran and offering to bomb it as "an existential threat" to Israel. Since America has no treaty or alliance with that transient foreign entity, however, it still requires explanation why these three belligerent bozos and many like them equate expansionist Zionism with America's national interest. I don't see the two as in any way connected. So making an unnecessary enemy out of Iran (if not the entire Muslim world) over such nonsense needs to cease -- in America's national interest. Israel can take care of itself. Or perhaps not. I don't care either way.

I only disagree with the euphemistic "backed by force" reasoning. America's use of vaguely-alluded-to "force" (why don't we just call it "unpleasantness"?) in both Iraq and Afghanistan has proven the greatest of America's woes since we last applied similar "force" in Southeast Asia to save villages by destroying them. Since Americans in general can't even bring themselves to call "war" by its proper name or address and debate its issues -- let alone openly "declare" it and its objectives, mobilize, and pay for it -- I see no purpose in allowing Americans and their Lunatic Leviathan government to further dabble in it to the ruination of all concerned. If, as the old saying goes, "War is too serious a business to leave it to the generals," it certainly seems far too serious for a people whose "commander-in-chief" easily lied and manipulated them into unnecessary war by exhorting them to go shopping.

[Clifford Kiracofe]

Helena Cobban's take is positive:

http://justworldnews.org/

[anon]

Michael Murray: I am not an HC supporter at all, but didn't she recently get booed at some AIPAC of AJC meeting for saying we needed to engage in diplomacy with Iran? And, link above says Admiral Fallon is publicly advocating negotiation. I think attacking Iran has become such an obviously very bad idea that even the most powerful and influential warmongers are losing ground (thank goodness). If the talks are as limited as public reports indicate, however, I wonder if they can accomplish much.

Today I heard Rep Tom Lantos, who some accuse of being overly AIPAC obedient (and who I think has had a very negative and almost Likudnik influence regarding Palestinian issue in Congress), strongly assert need for Iranian and Syrian diplomacy -and he went on that infamous trip to Syria with the Speaker Pelosi.

I disagree with the Likudniks' positions, but I don't think they run everything or have bought everyone off. They, along with the neocon and imperialist crazies have produced a string of abject, dangerous, heavy-duty and obvious failures, and they are losing some of their influence because of that. They can give a candidate all the money in the world, but sometimes very foolish and unpopular positions that might get a politician unelected will trump money.

I think we can realistically hope that the neocon and neo-imperialist "Give War a Chance" factions in the administration are losing influence. Have any policy groups ever been more catastrophically wrong about everything they said?

[Michael Murry]

People of goodwill everywhere want this madness in Iraq to end. But as a Chinese businessman in Beijing admonished me once back in 1994: "Good people are good people everywhere. It's the bad people you have to watch out for!" To which timeless wisdom he then added: "And never trust your interpreter. He's the one selling your secrets to the competition." So, about those bad people and untrustworthy interpreters -- especially in the present context -- we should bear a few things in mind, if only in our own intellectual self-defense.

First off, as Helena Cobban emphasizes on her blog "Just World News" (which helpfully links to this site), we all applaud diplomacy and wish it great success. However, we must also recognize -- as many in this forum have -- that Iran (not to mention Russia and China) has no interest in helping America out of its own unforced, self-instigated quagmire in Iraq as long as America and Israel keep threatening to do to Iran (if not to Russia and China) what they have, respectively, already done to Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza. So, playing devil's advocate and asking "cui bono?" (who benefits?) consider this:

(1) What makes anyone think that the American government -- or that "elite" pack of knaves and fools who infest it -- WANT to get out of Iraq? I see no evidence to support any such thesis. The pathological perps do want something, of course: they want the American people to stop nagging them about things that they consider none of the people's business -- like militaristic imperial foreign policy as a means of grasping even more domestic political power and the keys to the nation's treasury for the benefit of themselves and their crony camp-followers. (President Eisenhower quaintly called this cancerous phenomenon "the Military-Industrial Complex." I call it Warfare Welfare and Makework Militarism.) Prolonging the American military occupation of Iraq advances the purposes of this self-serving political/economic/military "elite." Getting out of Iraq doesn't. So, again, what would lead anyone to suppose that the American regime in fact wants to get out of Iraq?

(2) Given that The Worst and the Dullest (i.e., America's corrupt and inept political "elite") want to stay in Iraq and that Iran wants this also (at least until it can safely develop its civilian and defense nuclear power programs), then what do the two ostensible antagonists have to discuss except how to make America's occupation of Iraq last at least long enough so that a new American administration gets the "who lost Iraq? (hint, hint)" hook placed in its throat before it can gain any independent traction for a true reversal of policy?

(3) As with the Lunatic Leviathan in its former Southeast Asian incarnation, the current schizophrenic rendition only seeks to defuse anti-war domestic opposition by ever-nebulous "hints" and "intimations" of "troop withdrawals" and "new beginnings" "sometime soon" (like at least a year from now before the next year from now) that in fact only result in mission-creeping escalation, or "surges" that look more like trickles and dribbles. How many times can one stupid people fall for the same transparent tripe, over and over and over again?

(4) Some will argue that the unpopularity of America's War on Iraq (unpopular among the American and Iraqi people) will somehow force the political powers in those two countries to come to their senses and end the destructive, counter-productive stupidity. Especially in America, some deluded souls imagine that a change in political parties occupying the White House will somehow prompt sanity to break out in Washinton, D.C. Yet, as someone (Scott Ritter?) recently and accurately observed: the "Democrat" Bill Clinton proved a much more effective (if not simply lucky) imperialist than the Republican Deputy Dubya Bush.

As well, Richard Nixon swore in 1968: "I'm going to end that war (in Vietnam) because if I haven't ended it in six months, it will become MY war." He didn't end it in six months, though, so it did become his war. He therefore became its prisoner, as had his predecessor Lyndon Johnson. "His" war then destroyed Nixon, just as "Johnsons's War" destroyed America's preceeding presidential "owner." I see the same future for any Democratic Party president who "inherits" (i.e., covets) the opportunity to see this "war" through to a "victorious" conclusion (which the opposition Republicans will loudly demand but never allow to happen as long as any Democrat could justly claim credit for such a "win.")

Just see all the Napoleonic pretenders -- of both right wings of our one corporate party -- standing before their bedroom mirrors pathetically practicing their best "commander-in-briefs" salute -- with both of their left hands. This awful, monkey-on-a-stick militarism does not bode well for the Great Republic.

(5) If America truly wanted out of Iraq we would simply betray the Iraqi Shiites (we've done it before) and re-install the Sunni Baathists in power. ("Re-install," here means to greatly give ourselves credit for simply getting out of the way and letting nature take its course.) In any event, those "dead enders" always "in their last throes" whom "the world's greatest military power" hasn't managed to defeat in over four fruitless years (of throwing everything including the kitchen sink at them) will emerge with all the nationalist credentials upon unceremoniously expelling us. So just recognizing this reality and switching expedient alliances to come out on the same side as the eventual "winners" would make the most sense -- IF America really wanted to leave Iraq.

So, where do the eventual Sunni/Baathist "victors" enter into this diplomatic conversation between Americans and Iranians who say that neither of them wishes for the marginal "Al Qaeda" to "win" in Iraq?

In light of all the above, then, I still see only political posturing for the home domesic audiences (in both America AND Iran.) Nonetheless, I hope that this diplomatic process, once begun, may eventually lead to some good for America, Iraq, and Iran. Furthermore, if Israel and its belligerent AIPAC lobby in America don't like that, well, too bad for them.

Still, as Colonel Lang and others have pointed out repeatedly: the various groups contending for power in Iraq do so for long-standing reasons of their own, not because of any interests (much less competencies) put forward by the American government. As Barbara Tuchman said at the end of her book Stillwell and the American Experience in China: "In the end [after four years of failed American intervention], China went her own way, as if the Americans had never come." The same sort of comment applied to the desultory end of America's much-longer, but just as futile, intervention in Vietnam. And I think the same sort of comment will apply to the upcoming end of America's spastic, a-historical, anachronistic attempt to re-introduce Western colonialism into post-colonial Middle Eastern affairs. American imperialism comes and goes not because of events that happen in the larger world outside America, but rather because of what H. L. Menken called "the strife of the parties at Washington," or what Barbara Tuchman called "intimidation by the rabid right at home." Whatever one calls the reactionary struggle for power and dominance in America, the long-standing reasons why peoples fight and die (sometimes against America) until they achieve national independence and self-determination endure and always prove dispositive in the end, "as if the Americans had never come."

[Got A Watch]

Not sure all the optimistic reports are all that accurate - I think the media reporting on this brought their various pre-conceived biases to the table before reports are filed.

Actions speak louder than words - I am sure the Iranians noted the flotilla steaming around the Persian Gulf today. Wasn't it the French President or Foreign Minister who stated a few years ago "America is the last nation that practises gunboat diplomacy." It seems little has changed since the late 19th century.

I would say it is some reason for very cautious optimism - but given the power of domestic extremist lobbies in both countries, whether any long-term positive effect will be realised is still very much in doubt.

Disclaimer: I did not read the NYT article referenced above, as I will not deal with websites that require time wasting "free registration" ( and yes, I use http://www.bugmenot.com/)- media dinosaurs like the NYT/WSJ are doomed to oblivion because of policies like these, I will not buy or read or view anything they produce until/unless they drop the firewall. If they want to limit the access to paying subscribers, I don't have a problem with that. But I digress, sorry.

[Cold War Zoomie]

As the German soldier on Laugh-In used to say...verrrry intrestink:

"U.S.-Iran Talks: Much To-Do About Nothing

On Monday, May 28, 2007, the United States and Iran engaged in a rare face-to-face discussion regarding the security of Iraq. Both sides described the event — the first official meeting between the two foes in over 27 years — as “positive,” but the two nations did not accomplish much."

Fox Article

Yes, consider the source.

[anon]

Some of the 'analysis' of the talks I have heard on national media show disturbing signs of bias. A guy on CBS news (O'Hanlan is the name?) has been simply blasting the pissing on the whole idea of talks. I've heard others like it, but this is only name I remember. It would be just as bad if some person claiming to be an analysist just praised the talks as the greatest thing since sliced bread and a miracle cure. But I have heard several talking heads just blasting, almost as if they were venting. This kind of biased venting disquised as expert analysis is a very dispiriting thing to hear on major media outlets. Is it outright bias, or a marketing idea that current events has to be jazzed up like the old Crossfire program, mixed with a little pro wrestling bad 'tude to attract an audience?

[anon]

Correct term is 'baditude', I think. So, will we soon have the 'hawk analyst' in a black turtleneck and mask: "Last time you won, Lang, because the host fixed the match. NEXT TIME, I'm taken you down to the mat and your sissy analytics wtih you!"

[shepherd]

Re the Fox News article. The author is:

"Alireza Jafarzadeh (born 1957) is an expert on the Middle East, an author, a media commentator, and an active dissident figure to the Iranian government who is best known for revealing the existence of clandestine nuclear facilities in Iran in 2002. He has been associated with the National Council of Resistance of Iran and Mujahedin-e Khalq, the terrorist organization on the U.S. foreign agency black list." --Wikipedia

His main point in the article, not surprisingly, was to say nice things about the Mujahedin-e Khalq and urge us to attack Iran. Interestingly ironic for Fox. The MKO were Saddam's allies. According to Wikipedia, we bombed, captured, and disarmed those great freedom fighters after the invasion.

[FB Ali]

Michael Murry is right when he says that the US has no intention of getting out of Iraq. This is graphically supported by Tom Engelhardt’s piece today on the building of the Imperial Colossus in Baghdad at : http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=199798.

However, I do not think that Iran also wants the US to stay in Iraq. The Iranians probably believe that they can handle the Sunni Baathists and jihadis on their own, with the help of the Iraqi Shia. It is the latter who generally want the US military to continue fighting the Sunnis, since they do not want to be too dependent on their Iranian brethren (of course, different factions within the Shia have their own agendas, and these colour their views on this subject).

Murry refers to the military-industrial complex, which he also calls “warfare welfare” and “makework militarism”. There is a more familiar name for this entity : capitalism. The argument made by Lewis Mumford, summarized rather crudely, was : to flourish, capitalism needs consumption; the ideal consumer is war; hence capitalism tends to lead to unending warfare. Since governments make war, capitalists began to control them. Where democracy functioned, the corporate complex (replacing the old capitalists, the “robber barons”) needed to control this process, including political parties and the media. This is what is happening in the US today.

How fares, then, the imperium? In Rome’s case, when citizens became too comfortable to serve in the legions, the underclasses were recruited instead. When they, too, preferred bread and circuses (today’s equivalent would be beer and TV), mercenaries were hired (Blackwater et al). When mercenaries from the “civilized world” became scarce, barbarians were inducted. Unfortunately, most of them came from the same warlike tribes that were threatening the empire, encroaching on its frontiers, and which, finally, overwhelmed Rome itself. Even though the US is spending billions on the "mercenary" armies of Pakistan, Egypt etc, the check for the US is not likely to come from the “barbarians”, but from the “resolve of peoples to reject foreign rule and take charge of their own destinies” (Jonathan Schell; as he lays out in his book The Unconquerable World).

[W. Patrick Lang]

FB Ali

Murry will see no good in anything the US does. he lives in self-imposed exile. I can sympathize with that.

You, on the other hand, are not distinguishing between the citizens of the United States and the government of the moment. Surely, you do not believe all this marxist twaddle about oligopolistic business interests having the country in thrall.

The American people are a little slow, but not that slow. pl

[FB Ali]

Colonel,

I do not think the corporate complex "has the country in thrall". But it certainly exerts a huge influence on US politics, government policies (irrespective of the party in power), the media and many other key institutions.

I believe in the attachment of the American people to the ideals upon which their country was founded. What is troubling is that many of the means which enable people to exert their will on governments – the media, public discourse, political diversity and choice, the sanctity of the vote – are being compromised, even as the populace is being subjected to the mindless distractions of TV, talk radio, the entertainment media, etc.

I hope that the idealism of the people, and the institutions created by the founders of the republic and their successors, will prove strong enough to overcome these attempts to distort them.

[Kevin Rooney]

"George Carlin likes to talk about "ancient hatreds and modern weapons" as the formula for much of what is happening in the world today. "

Is it that Iraq has hatreds that are particularly intense or ancient? Or is it the normal state of tribal peoples to fight with each other?
In other words, maybe the problem is not the presence of tribal hatreds, but the absence of the next step in social evolution, a real nation.
Europe was riven by "ancient hatreds". Right up to the rising of modern states. The 30 Years War of 1618-1648 was worse than anything the Middle East has seen since the Mongol invasion in the 1200s.
The reason why Iraq is in pieces and Northern Ireland is at peace is not the difference in their ancient hatreds, but that Northern Ireland now has a well-functioning economy that gives people (esp. young men) something better to do than kill each other.
If you had a nation full of young men with nothing constructive to do, even if they had no "ancient hatreds", they would just make up new ones, as China did during the Cultural Revolution.