If This Be Success

Robert Farley has much more on the Pollack/O'Hanlon op-ed, including some discussion of dodgy numbers. Meanwhile, though not intended as a direct riposte to the op-ed, this chart assembled by Nick Beaudrot and the associated discussion is worth checking out:

Meanwhile, it's worth noting the incentives that O'Hanlon and Pollack face. If they bow to reality and say the US should move rapidly to start cutting our losses in Iraq, then they're people who advocated in favor of a disastrous policy and this'll be bad for their careers. If, by contrast, they say the surge is looking good, and then work together with Bush administration officials and The Weekly Standard to construct a stab in the back narrative about Iraq, then they can hope to salvage their professional reputations at the expense of liberals.

(of course, haha, that's to imply that the policy analysis put forward by Brookings Institution foreign policy program people might be influenced by crass careerism rather than Very Serious Expertise but that's absurd, right, after all Very Serious People are above such things)

Comments

If, by contrast, they say the surge is looking good, and then work together with Bush administration officials and The Weekly Standard to construct a stab in the back narrative about Iraq, then they can hope to salvage their professional reputations at the expense of liberals.

I believe that sentence qualifies you as a conspiracy theorist.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 30, 2007 3:42 PM

This graph is beyond me.

Posted by Freddie | July 30, 2007 4:00 PM

then they're people who advocated in favor of a disastrous policy and this'll be bad for their careersand this'll be bad for their careers

I've seen no evidence anywhere that this is the case.

Seriously, who has ever paid a price for being wrong about this stuff?

Posted by Brautigan | July 30, 2007 4:09 PM

Man, I thought I did a better job of explicating this graph than my previous one ...

Here's the nickel version: up on the red line means "more coalition troops are dying." up on the green line means "more coalition troops are dying or wounded in combat".

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 30, 2007 4:11 PM

"This graph is beyond me"

Quick summary: Gen Casey's strategy of "hang out
in big bases in the desert eating ice cream and
trying not to tick off the Iraqis" was moderately
successful in keeping the casualty rate low; Gen
Petraeus' "live on small outposts in Iraqi
neighborhoods" has the expected effect of a higher
casualty rate.

Neither one has done much for Iraqi security or
quality-of-life, as shown by the high civilian
death toll at www.icasualties.org, and by the
deepening humanitarian crisis documented in today's
NYTimes (43% of Iraqis living on less than $1/day;
90% of hospitals lack basic medicines; 4M people
going hungry).

And once you look at Iraq's political situation -
basically no effective government, and no prospect
of any alternative that could do better - it's
even more depressing.

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 30, 2007 4:12 PM

Was also thinking again about the nature of serious beltway expertise after reading the latest bilge from O'Hanlon and Pollack. Decided to take a look at their bios at Brookings and elsewhere, and found a curious thing. While O'Hanlon claims expertise in Taiwan/China and Southwest Asia, his bio indicates he has only French as a foreign language. On the other hand, while Pollack has been a boy wonder in both government policy and think tank circles - focusing also on Southwest Asia - he has fluency in neither Arabic nor Persian. Maybe this is just sour grapes from a historian who has spent a lot of time painfully building my chops in the language of my chosen field, but I really wonder how one can claim expertise in a field of foreign relations or area studies without having the corresponding language facility. Sounds like nice work if you can get it, but it also sound utterly laughable and dishonest from an intellectual standpoint. I'm sure these guys are extremely sharp and intelligent, but what happened to the grand old Orientalism of years past - an Orientalism where at least they used to learn/construct something about the objects of their political exploitation and academic reverie. Sorry to Ed Said who just did a somersault in his grave.

Posted by Plawless | July 30, 2007 4:17 PM

Man, I thought I did a better job of explicating this graph than my previous one ...

Bear in mind my public university education could be to blame, and not the graph.

(Go state.)

Posted by Freddie | July 30, 2007 4:19 PM

Look, the basic psychology of what's going on has been pretty obvious to anyone with a background in decision analysis or project capital budgeting.

Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated a long time ago that people become risk seeking (not risk averse) in the face of potential losses. What's also known in the business project R&D world is that managers will go to great lengths to keep failed projects alive: senior managers are sometimes ready to accept "costs" if there's a possibility, however unlikely, that a project will ultimately pay off, rather than draw a line underneath and accept "losses".

Given that President Bush is now, and always has been, playing with "other people's money," his behavior is extremely rational, given his own set of payoffs. For the troops and the country, not so - but it's not the first or last example of perverse incentives.

Posted by Andrew | July 30, 2007 4:21 PM

Matt: "...then they're people who advocated in favor of a disastrous policy and this'll be bad for their careersand this'll be bad for their careers"

Brautigan: "I've seen no evidence anywhere that this is the case.

Seriously, who has ever paid a price for being wrong about this stuff?"

Usually one of the things that helps avoid just repercussions is the BS cloud that they generate to obscur the issue. This editorial is part of that cloud.

Posted by Barry | July 30, 2007 4:22 PM

This graph has nothing to do with anything. The surge isn't designed to decrease our casualties, it is designed to decrease Iraqi casualties.

Meanwhile, the surge isn't even a month old (not that this matters to anybody on the left, Harry Reid was proclaiming it a failure before it even began, which seems to me the ultimate sign of bad faith).

Posted by Al | July 30, 2007 4:25 PM

Irony alert: This incarnation of "Al" complains about bad faith...

Also: the surge isn't even a month old

Geet, it seems awfully hot outside to be March...

Posted by Gregory | July 30, 2007 4:32 PM

oh Al, poor Al: just this once, could you please define what you think the purpose of this whole misbegotten adventure is? and how the "surge" is contributing?

the "official" explanation for the surge (as opposed to the "real" one, that bush wanted to tell the ISG to take a flying leap) is that its purpose is to improve the security situation to allow for political progress. this, of course, assumes that political progress is achievable.

as for "increasing" iraqi casualties, what a sickening remark: we've delivered quite enough casualties to iraq, thank you very much. supposedly the issue at hand are all those awful foreign AQ fighters....

and then we get to the heart of the matter: if we are to believe you, then all those republicans who said six months ago that this is really it, we'll see progress by september or else were the real "bad faith" actors (well, of course, the bush-cheney administration is the ultimate "bad faith" actor, but we don't expect you to acknowledge that).

indeed, we already know what jesus petraeus will tell us in september (he told hugh hewitt already, after all), and we also know that the iraqi parliament is now going on vacation, so there won't be any political progress by then (but we don't expect you to acknowledge that, either)....

Posted by howard | July 30, 2007 4:42 PM

Brautigan makes a good point. After all, Matt Yglesias now considers the Iraq War itself to be a "disasterous policy" and yet he, as a former advocate of it, hasn't appeared to suffer any career setbacks because of his previous hawkishness. Same is true of Peter Beinart. Which raises a couple of question:

Wouldn't it be easier for O'Hanlon and Pollack to simply recant, as Beinart, MY and other former war advocates have done, rather than risk life and limb humping around Iraq to report on the surge? If recanting hasn't hurt the careers of Beinart, MY, and others, why should it hurt the careers of O'Hanlon and Pollack?

As for the intimation that they are carrying water for the Bush administration in return for some future quid-pro-quo, what might that be? Jobs at the research desk of the G.W. Bush presidential library?

Posted by Fred | July 30, 2007 4:42 PM

You focus on dead people. Where's the line for the soccer team?

Posted by Peter Driscoll | July 30, 2007 4:51 PM

fred, the question at hand is what kind of career.

when a pundit is wrong (as every pundit is some of the time), what price should they pay? matthew was a very young blogger when he supported the war, he rapidly came to his senses, and there's no reason he should pay any price.

peter beinart was more experienced and had a bigger platform; he should pay some price, because his wrongness was obnoxiously loud and contributed (in a small way) to poor policy, and frankly, i'd say that he has paid a price (in many left/liberal circles, peter beinart is regarded as a complete and total jerk whose presence at a publication is a good reason to avoid it).

but o'hanlon and pollack are policymakers: their errors are much more significant than a pundit's errors, and their unwillingness to admit error demonstrates that they don't belong near government (or on tv) the rest of their lives. it's still possible for them to pay that price, especially if we call them on their crap in real time. and similarly, they appear to worry about that, which is why they are hoping to position themselves as long-time critics....

but broadly speaking, it's true: there isn't enough price paid in america for failure of this sort, whether it's the recycling of failed coaches and managers in pro sports or the recycling of serious foreign policy types....

Posted by howard | July 30, 2007 4:51 PM

Which shows again what a deeply unserious activity politics is. What you accomplish means nothing. How you can frame those accomplishments (or lack thereof) is everything.

So long as the warmongers get to write their narrative in the books, they don't give a crap about reality, save for when reality forces them to adjust their narrative (a relatively infrequent occurrence).

Posted by faux facsimile | July 30, 2007 5:26 PM

Interesting chart. Total American KIA/WIA in one day at Antietam were 20,950 with 93,400 engaged on both sides. This was from a total population that was 1/10th of what we have now.

Posted by danceswithgoats | July 30, 2007 6:00 PM

Danceswithgoats- Well at least now we know the conservatives objective for this whole mess is to kill 200,000 people, at least that one might be acheivable.

Posted by AJ | July 30, 2007 6:25 PM

There we have Degenerate Al again. Hello, Degenerate Al.

Posted by Jennifer | July 30, 2007 6:27 PM

This country and this war are in desperate need of radical changes. First and foremost is the need to pull our troops out of Iraq and stop the violence, poverty and terror that we are creating overseas as well as in our homes. Even now, President Bush would not admit defeat and the fact that this war is a disaster. The Bush administration has yet to recognize the Iraq war is a complete failure and mistake. There are more critical issues that affecting the lives of millions of americans and people world wide that our president is not taking actions against. Now the war has proven to be a failure and is causing more violence, terror and poverty in this world. According to the Borgen Project, it only takes $19 billion dollars annually to eradicate world hunger and poverty. However, our government has already spent more than $450 billion dollars over this fruitless war in Iraq. It is time for the Bush Administration to take a real interest in the lives of the American people as well as people who are in desperate needs around the world. Stop the lies and stop poverty now. Put away the arrogance and put the needs of the people before political gains.

Posted by Mstessyrue | July 30, 2007 7:59 PM

Matt,

I'm having trouble reading the graph or making sense of it anyway. I wonder if the source data might be incorrect? The reason I'm saying this is that I'd guess there would be something like 3 wounded (or more) per KIA; but from this graph (February of '05) it looks like there were around 21 KIA plus 6 or so wounded? Which would be more like 1:3. I'll look at the source data and see if I can figure it out but it's an interesting graph.

Regards,

Uber Pig

Posted by Fred Schoeneman | July 30, 2007 8:34 PM

Okay, it makes sense now.

-- Uber Pig

Posted by Uber Pig | July 30, 2007 8:49 PM

Posted by Mstessyrue | July 30, 2007 7:59 PM:"This country and this war are in desperate need of radical changes. First and foremost is the need to pull our troops out of Iraq and stop the violence, poverty and terror that we are creating overseas as well as in our homes."

There is no evidence whatsoever that America is creating any violence, poverty or terror any where in the world. Iraq may be a special case because the Americans are clearly preventing the massive, but probably short term, violence that an utterly unrestrained Iraqi government would probably use to end the violence - the choice seems to be a return the past 4000 years of Iraqi history with the usual despotism via a reign of terror or what looks like a failed attempt at creating democracy and freedom which is dragging out the suffering of the Iraqi people. An interesting choice.

As for poverty, worldwide poverty is directly related to dislike of the US and capitalism. The US makes the world rich, not poor.

Posted by Mstessyrue | July 30, 2007 7:59 PM:"According to the Borgen Project, it only takes $19 billion dollars annually to eradicate world hunger and poverty."

I promise if you give me $1.9 billion I'll eliminate hunger and poverty. If you don't believe and trust me, why do you believe them?

Posted by HeiGou | July 31, 2007 6:52 AM

There is no evidence whatsoever that America is creating any violence, poverty or terror any where in the world.

Okay, seriously, do you think even the most strident supporters of American foreign policy think this is true? Does the vast weight of the historical record not dissuade you at all from making statements like this? Do I really need to go through the long litany of historical crimes committed by the United States that have been confirmed by the release of CIA documents?

I mean when you say no evidence whatsoever, you're simply being obtuse. What about this country's own recent National Security Estimate, prepared by departments of the federal government, funded by the federal government, and prepared for the Executive branch of our government, which states unequivocally that the war in Iraq has increased worldwide terror? That is evidence, from a source that has every reason to want to reach the opposite conclusions, and it is only one piece of the enormous amounts of evidence we have.

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 7:35 AM

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 7:35 AM:"Okay, seriously, do you think even the most strident supporters of American foreign policy think this is true? Does the vast weight of the historical record not dissuade you at all from making statements like this? Do I really need to go through the long litany of historical crimes committed by the United States that have been confirmed by the release of CIA documents?"

I do think that any rational person who thinks about that for a while will agree with it. The vast weight of the historical record proves my point - America's enemies are invariably vastly more likely to be mass murderers and totalitarian. America has a record to be proud of. There is nothing in the historical record that suggests otherwise. What CIA documents do you have in mind?

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 7:35 AM:"I mean when you say no evidence whatsoever, you're simply being obtuse. What about this country's own recent National Security Estimate, prepared by departments of the federal government, funded by the federal government, and prepared for the Executive branch of our government, which states unequivocally that the war in Iraq has increased worldwide terror? That is evidence, from a source that has every reason to want to reach the opposite conclusions, and it is only one piece of the enormous amounts of evidence we have."

I said Iraq may be a special case but we have no idea how much terrorism would have increased if the US did not act in Iraq. However this is still a special case in that the US is not deliberately inflicting violence on anyone. It is trying to end dictatorship, poverty and violence there. It is not succeeding I admit but that is still a vast qualitative difference from the Islamists who are trying to create violence there and are doing an excellent job. Moreover there is a clear slow rejection of terrorism, especially of the Islamist variety, in the Muslim world. The NIE may just have been premature. Admittedly that rejection is largely the rejection of the murder of Muslims, but this war is inflicting huge damage on the Islamist cause.

At some point you need to give up your sophomore politics and accept the reality - America is not perfect, but it is pretty damn good. By and large in the 20th century the morally right side to be on in the vast majority of cases is whatever side America was or is on. There is simply no room for debate on that issue.

Posted by HeiGou | July 31, 2007 7:42 AM

By and large in the 20th century the morally right side to be on in the vast majority of cases is whatever side America was or is on. There is simply no room for debate on that issue.

Simply saying that, of course, is not an argument.

What is particularly amazing about your myopic vision of history is that it is contrary to some totally uncontroversial historical facts, facts supported by conservative historians.

There simply is no credible historian who denies that the United States engineered the coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, who was democratically elected (albeit in an imperfect system). There is is simply no credible historian, conservative or liberal, who denies that the CIA installed the Shah, a horrifically brutal dictator. There is no credible historian who denies that the United States continued to support the Shah for decades following, despite the terror he wrought on his people through torture, oppressive laws and the machinations of his secret police, Savak. And there is no controversy whatsoever in saying that his brutal, American supported regime created the conditions which lead to the Iranian revolution, the consequences of which we are dealing with today.

There is no credible historian who denies that the United States armed and funded the Afghani mujahideen during their war with the USSR (although it is likely Osama bin Laden himself was not himself trained by the Americans). There is no question that the United States continued to support these organizations who would become the Taliban, a horrific theocratic regime, in order to pressure Iran, who shares a border with Afgahnistan. It was the publicly stated policy of the United States to fund the Taliban, despite their terrible human rights abuses, as long as they worked to eradicate the opium poppies, up until September 11th, when the whole thing began to seem like a pretty bad idea.

There is no credible historian who denies that the United States helped General Suharto of Indonesia to take control of the country, and provided him with detailed information used directly to murder several hundred thousand (by conservative estimates) landless Indonesian peasants, because it was believe they might prove an impediment to Suharto's power. There is no question that the United States continued to support Suharto, in the hope of stemming Communism, as he murdered a third of the population of East Timor and ran for decades one of the most brutal regimes in the world.

There is no question that the United States supported the contras in Nicaragua, in direct violation of international law, as they inflicted by conservative estimates 30,000 casualties on the Nicaraguan people, the vast majority of whom were civilians. For following this policy and supporting these people (who by any definition were terrorists), in compliance with National Security Decision Directive 17 (NSDD-17) as ordered by Ronald Reagan, the United States was sued by Nicaragua in the International Court of Justice. The United States lost that suit, as the Court found the US's actions were clearly violations of international law, and that the actions of the United States had lead directly to human rights abuses and the killing of civilians. The United States, being the benevolent world citizen that it is, has never paid the reparations, despite being a member of the applicable treaties regarding the international court system.

There are many, many more examples. And the thing is this-- this factual information is not disputed even by conservative scholars, whether isolationist, realist or neo-conservative. The analysis of these actions is up for debate, and the wisdom and righteousness of the United States in pursuing these policies is up for debate. But the historical veracity of these claims is not seriously disputed by even the most pro-American historians. Because the evidence is simply too overwhelming. No one seriously doubts that the United States partook in these actions which lead to bloodshed and hardship.

Except for Hei Gou.

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 8:15 AM

As a conservative, it is amusing to see the Left battling about what the improving situation in Iraq means. Iraq sectarian casualties are down by 1/3rd according to Hanlon and Coalition data; Anbar province has seen a remarkable turnaround. This is not surprising when your foreign allies decide to impose Sharia Law and start chopping the fingers off of smokers and slaughtering children...
we know the enemy will counterattack with massive car bombs in the next few months, timed to coincide with the Democrats ramping up the surrender cry in the Fall when Gen Petreus gives his report...remember, like the Communists, they use you guys to further their goals, so I am sure you won't let us down...please make sure to make plenty of comments when it happens...something like "see!! Told you so!! You changed tactics a few months ago and look!! There has been no change!! Let's get out and screw the Middle East...Obama for President!! BusHitler! BusHitler!! Remember Lennon's song Imagine!! We deserved 9/11!!
All the evidence suggests a massive slaughter and destabilization of the Middle East if we leave...your project kids is to predict a worst case scenario and say why this would be beneficial for the United States Strategic Policy ...or is the loss of the Middle East, Israel and the creation of new areas for Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism a good thing for the Left? Well, we're here in America, so we're safe...phew!

Posted by Rich | July 31, 2007 8:53 AM

"I said Iraq may be a special case but we have no idea how much terrorism would have increased if the US did not act in Iraq. However this is still a special case in that the US is not deliberately inflicting violence on anyone."

Another lunatic's writing.

Posted by Jennifer | July 31, 2007 8:55 AM

There was a change in the way American casualties were counted in January of this year in response to Linda Bilmes work. Likely, the non-fatal casualty count is higher. Also, psychological casualties are not counted. Lastly, casualty figures for American civilian contractors are not being counted.

Posted by Jennifer | July 31, 2007 8:56 AM

For more detailed information with "graphs" go to victorycaucus.com.

Posted by Russell | July 31, 2007 9:17 AM

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 8:15 AM :"Simply saying that, of course, is not an argument."

Actually it is. Some statements are so axiomatic, or in this case obvious, that they need very little defense.

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 8:15 AM:"There simply is no credible historian who denies that the United States engineered the coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, who was democratically elected (albeit in an imperfect system). There is is simply no credible historian, conservative or liberal, who denies that the CIA installed the Shah, a horrifically brutal dictator."

I flatly reject most of those claims. The US was involved in the coup against Mossadegh but the idea that the Middle East needs lessons in coups from the US and are powerless without the CIA is absurd. He was "democratically elected" under a system created and run by said Shah who by any sane comparative standard, even within the region, was not horrifically brutal. His son would still be in power if he were. Mossadegh carried out a coup against the Shah and the Constitution - the Shah was installed in the 1940s by the Soviet Union and Britain, not by the CIA in the 1950s by the way. The Shah struck back. As if that wasn't going to happen anyway.

Notice, what is more, how desperate you have to be to find a plausible case against the CIA. Suppose for one second I granted this was the case. It does not in any way even dent my point. The Shah was not that brutal - not by Iraqi standards or the subsequent Islamic Republic.

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 8:15 AM:"And there is no controversy whatsoever in saying that his brutal, American supported regime created the conditions which lead to the Iranian revolution, the consequences of which we are dealing with today."

"Created the conditions" can mean anything. The Islamic Republic - the work of people mainly educated in France with a strong anti-American streak - proves my point. They were and are vastly worse than the Shah. Even in Iran you're better off with friends of the US than enemies like Khomeini. By the way, Iran is still not as rich now as it was in 1979.

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 8:15 AM:"There is no credible historian who denies that the United States armed and funded the Afghani mujahideen during their war with the USSR (although it is likely Osama bin Laden himself was not himself trained by the Americans)."

So what?

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 8:15 AM:"There is no question that the United States continued to support these organizations who would become the Taliban, a horrific theocratic regime, in order to pressure Iran, who shares a border with Afgahnistan."

Actually there is not the slightest evidence for this whatsoever. Indeed I'd say it was a lie. One of the standard complaints of the Left is that the US cut and ran leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban so it is interesting to see new lies being told about America.

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 8:15 AM:"It was the publicly stated policy of the United States to fund the Taliban, despite their terrible human rights abuses, as long as they worked to eradicate the opium poppies, up until September 11th, when the whole thing began to seem like a pretty bad idea."

If it was their policy you will, no doubt, be able to quote American officials to that end. I have looked into US aid for Afghanistan before and I have found so weapons so knock yourself out.

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 8:15 AM:"There is no credible historian who denies that the United States helped General Suharto of Indonesia to take control of the country, and provided him with detailed information used directly to murder several hundred thousand (by conservative estimates) landless Indonesian peasants, because it was believe they might prove an impediment to Suharto's power."

Actually that is not true either. The US may have backed military rule as an alternative to what they saw as the threat of a Communist coup, but Suharto hardly killed landless peasants. He slaughtered Communists and the peasants took the opportunity of disorder to murder as many Chinese as they could.

Still, Communism was worse than Suharto.

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 8:15 AM:"There is no question that the United States supported the contras in Nicaragua, in direct violation of international law, as they inflicted by conservative estimates 30,000 casualties on the Nicaraguan people, the vast majority of whom were civilians."

Indeed they did. And in doing so prevent Nicaragua going the way of Cuba. Good for them.

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 8:15 AM:"No one seriously doubts that the United States partook in these actions which lead to bloodshed and hardship."

And yet no one except you doubts that the usual alternative was vastly worse. Look at what you ignore - genocide in Cambodia, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Stalin, Hitler, the Great Leap Forward, the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Virtually every single episode of mass murder since 1900 has had the US on the other side. You really want to stand with Pol Pot and denounce the US?

Posted by HeiGou | July 31, 2007 12:28 PM

Freddie, you're obviously right and HeiGou is wrong on most of this, but you said: "It was the publicly stated policy of the United States to fund the Taliban, despite their terrible human rights abuses, as long as they worked to eradicate the opium poppies, up until September 11th, when the whole thing began to seem like a pretty bad idea."

And that's not true. We never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate govt of Afghanistan. We gave money to farmers to stop growing poppies through NGO channels. Still a dumb thing to do, and maybe the money wound up helping the Taliban, but we didn't "fund the Taliban."

Posted by too many steves | July 31, 2007 12:38 PM

The United States provide $43 million dollars, for the purpose of curtailing the opium, to the Taliban directly, 4 months prior to September 11. See here
for just one source, TMS.

Again, HeiGou-- what you say is totally against the grain of the vast preponderance of current scholarship. That's just a fact. I suppose it could be true that thousands of impeccably credentialed historians are wrong, and an anonymous troll is right. But it seems unlikely to me.

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 12:48 PM

RE HeiGou's comment "I flatly reject most of those claims. The US was involved in the coup against Mossadegh but the idea that the Middle East needs lessons in coups from the US and are powerless without the CIA is absurd. He was "democratically elected" under a system created and run by said Shah who by any sane comparative standard, even within the region, was not horrifically brutal. His son would still be in power if he were. Mossadegh carried out a coup against the Shah and the Constitution - the Shah was installed in the 1940s by the Soviet Union and Britain, not by the CIA in the 1950s by the way. The Shah struck back. As if that wasn't going to happen anyway.
"
----------
HeiGou's totally full of crap.

Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA officer who LED the coup that installed the Shad in the 1950s, wrote about it in his book "Countercoup". An excerpt:
-------------
p. 3: "The original proposal for AJAX (CIA plot to overthrow Mossadagh ) came from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) after its expulsion from Iran nine months earlier, when all efforts to get Mossadagh to reverse his nationalization of the AIOC had failed. Their motivation was simply to recover their oil concessions. We were not concerned with that but with the obvious threat of Russian takeover."
-----------

Yeah, right. After Mossadagh was overthrown, US Oil companies milked Iran's oil deposits along with the Brits.

Kermit makes clear that he and other CIA officers orchestrated and micromanaged the coup --NOT the Shah and NOT Iranian officers. Kermit consulted with the Shah but as the representative of British and American interests upon whom the Shah was dependent.

Posted by Don Williams | July 31, 2007 1:23 PM

Posted by Don Williams | July 31, 2007 1:23 PM:"Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA officer who LED the coup that installed the Shad in the 1950s, wrote about it in his book "Countercoup". An excerpt:
>Not a Word To Justify ANY of Mr William's Claims

Posted by Don Williams | July 31, 2007 1:23 PM:"After Mossadagh was overthrown, US Oil companies milked Iran's oil deposits along with the Brits."

Milked? You mean made Iran massively rich - richer in 1979 than it is now for instance?

Posted by Don Williams | July 31, 2007 1:23 PM:"Kermit makes clear that he and other CIA officers orchestrated and micromanaged the coup --NOT the Shah and NOT Iranian officers. Kermit consulted with the Shah but as the representative of British and American interests upon whom the Shah was dependent."

Then you will no doubt be able to quote him to that effect. I am looking forward to seeing evidence of Mr Roosevelt's claims and specifically the words "micro-managed" and "orchestrated" in Mr Roosevelt's account. I notice with great interest that you have utterly failed to do so so far.

Posted by HeiGou | July 31, 2007 1:36 PM

Re HeiGou's comment "Then you will no doubt be able to quote him to that effect. I am looking forward to seeing evidence of Mr Roosevelt's claims "
----------
Gee, how about reading the book? Which you obviously have not done -- even though it is the PRIMARY SOURCE on the very subject you are trying to discuss.

But some examples from Roosevelt's book re his role in the coup:

a)Foreword: "At the end of this true account, in the late summer of 1953, the Shah said to me truthfully , 'I owe my throne to God, my people, my army -- and to you!' By 'you' he meant me AND
the two countries --Great Britain and the United States -- I was representing. We were all heros."

b) p. 188: "Do you think the time has come to turn General Zahedi loose to lead the crowd?" Dick asked the question that was on all our minds. We gave it some thought.

Reluctantly, I said that I thought we should hold off just a bit longer. 'There is nothing to be gained by rushing. Let's wait till the crowd gets to Mossadagh's house. That should be a good moment for our hero to make his appearance."
[Zahedi was the new Prime Minister chosen to take control of the government away from Mossadagh.]

c) p 192: "He [General Guilanshah, commander of Iran's Air Force] gave me a broad smile.
'There must be something I can do to help.'
I sought for no explanation of his question but responded quickly. 'Damm right there is! Pick up a tank if you can and meet me one block west of here in fifteen minutes. I'll be in a small black Citrogen and I'll turn over General Zahedi to your care."

Posted by Don Williams | July 31, 2007 3:28 PM

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 12:48 PM:"The United States provide $43 million dollars, for the purpose of curtailing the opium, to the Taliban directly, 4 months prior to September 11. See here
for just one source, TMS."

Sorry but that link does not say that from what I can see. Moreover, Afghanistan had a government that the US recognized - the Northern Alliance. To say that any money given to Afghanistan *must* have been given to the Taliban and as a reward for opium suppression, as that article does, needs some proof. I see none.

Posted by Don Williams | July 31, 2007 3:28 PM:"Gee, how about reading the book? Which you obviously have not done -- even though it is the PRIMARY SOURCE on the very subject you are trying to discuss."

And just as obviously neither have you.

Posted by Don Williams | July 31, 2007 3:28 PM:"a)Foreword: "At the end of this true account, in the late summer of 1953, the Shah said to me truthfully , 'I owe my throne to God, my people, my army -- and to you!' By 'you' he meant me AND
the two countries --Great Britain and the United States -- I was representing. We were all heros.""

The famous quote. So far from claiming that the CIA was behind it all and Roosevelt micromanaged it, as you claim, the Shah listed Roosevelt as the Fourth factor behind God (well obviously), the People (amusing), the Army (even more obviously considering they carried out the Coup). Even assuming that he was not being merely polite. So sure, I am happy to agree Britain and America were the about fourth most significant factor in the coup. So much for orchestrating the whole thing.

Posted by Don Williams | July 31, 2007 3:28 PM:"Reluctantly, I said that I thought we should hold off just a bit longer. 'There is nothing to be gained by rushing. Let's wait till the crowd gets to Mossadagh's house. That should be a good moment for our hero to make his appearance."

Which is an interesting comment. I don't see the point but it is a quote in your favor. Assuming, of course, Roosevelt is not talking himself up.

Posted by Don Williams | July 31, 2007 3:28 PM:"I'll be in a small black Citrogen and I'll turn over General Zahedi to your care."

I'd say that was evidence of his irrelevance.

So now you have plundered the book and this is the best you can do? Pathetic.

Posted by HeiGou | August 1, 2007 6:41 AM