« Knowing When to Fold 'Em | Main | Results! »

Someone I Should Be Reading

13 Aug 2007 11:09 pm

props.jpg

Whoever David Gardner is, I don't think I've ever read him before. Judging by this Financial Times column, I probably should start:

It turns out those Kalashnikovs went missing on his previous watch, as trainer-in-chief of the still barely existent Iraqi army. Gen Petraeus, a student of counterinsurgency with a PhD from Princeton and a gift for PR, had been lionised for his command of the 101st Airborne division in 2003-04, and especially his “hearts and minds” campaign in the north. After his withdrawal, however, two-thirds of Mosul’s security forces defected to the insurgency and the rest went down like fairground ducks. His forces appear not to have noticed, moreover, that Saudi-inspired jihadis had established a bridgehead in Mosul before the war had even started.

But US commanders seem to have no trouble detecting the hand of Tehran everywhere. This largely evidence-free blaming of serial setbacks on Iranian forces is a bad case of denial. First, the insurgency is overwhelmingly Iraqi and Sunni, built around a new generation of jihadis created by the US invasion. Second, to the extent foreign fighters are involved these have come mostly from US-allied and Sunni Saudi Arabia, not Shia Iran. Third, the lethal roadside bombs with shaped charges that US officials have coated with a spurious veneer of sophistication to prove Iranian provenance are mostly made by Iraqi army-trained engineers – from high explosive looted from those unsecured arms dumps.

Shia Iran has backed a lot of horses in Iraq. If it wished to bring what remains of the country down around US ears it could. It has not done so. The plain fact is that Tehran’s main clients in Iraq are the same as Washington’s: Mr Maliki’s Da’wa and the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq led by Abdelaziz al-Hakim. Iran has bet less on the unpredictable Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army, which has, in any case, largely stood aside during the present troop surge.

Well-said. One worries, however, that the relentless blaming of things on Iran is more than a bad case of denial. Justin Logan, for example, notes Max Boot saying of Syria and Iran "Why we're not at war with them is a little bit of a mystery." Boot, obtained a position as a Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations on the strength of his work for the legendarily rigorous Wall Street Journal editorial page, so he must be a person we should take very seriously.

DoD photo by Master Sgt. Robert W. Valenca, U.S. Air Force.

Share This

Comments (39)

We've always been at war with Iran.

Regarding those missing Kalashnikovs (and someone with actual knowledge of US Army please comment). I have a really really REALLY hard time believing the new excuse, that at the time, recording details like serial numbers and who they were given to, just didn 't seem important enough to do.

Come on, in a fscking army, the first rule is "Cover Thy Own Ass" in triplicate, with stamps.

Yeah, how did motherflippin' Max Boot get to tell everyone what to do? I mean, the second surest sign that he's a lightweight is that the LA Times hired him.

Just a question:

Gardner refers, accurately, to the "largely evidence-free blaming" of Iran. But he then says that

the lethal roadside bombs with shaped charges ... are mostly made by Iraqi army-trained engineers – from high explosive looted from those unsecured arms dumps.

As far as I'm aware, that assertion is equally
"evidence-free." Does anyone know of a basis for his statement?

I don't think much of David Gardners observational acuity:

If it wished to bring what remains of the country down around US ears it could. It has not done so.

No, because the Iranians are playing a dangerous game of helping slaughter US soldiers, bleed our treasure, thwart out objectives but doing actions they think will not rise to the level that will drive the American public to support either putting a big hurt, or full war against Iran. Bringing Iraq down around our ears would lead to us doing our best to bring Iran down around the Iranian Mullah's ears and we have many, many ways of making their lives hell.

(Such as wiping out their Navy and AF in about 3 weeks, ending electric power in 3/4s of Iran for months, and going in and heavily arming Iranian opposition forces. Or escalating past that to strategic bombing and abandoning Iraq and moving our entire Iraq force east for seizure of Iran's oil fields and securing the whole Gulf from Iran's forces.)

It is a dangerous game. Sometimes countries miscalculate. Cambodia's Kymer Rouge took to abushing Vietnamese along the border and sowing mines inside Vietnam to "punish Vietnam" - they killed one too many Vietnamese peasant or soldier and the next thing they knew they had 120,000 battle-hardened VC and NVA invading and hunting down all the Kymer Rouge they could find - not the brief border clash the Kymer Rouge thought was coming. The Vietnamese effectively destroyed Rouge as a genocidal force..
Saddam sure miscalculated by deciding to not listen and keep "vexing" the US and other nations.

We calibrated our bleed of the Soviets in Afghanistan such that the Soviets didn't feel threatened enough to hit us back elsewhere or go into Pakistan. That one was successful.

But it is a dangerous game, and the Mullahs have done other things that haven't been rationally thought out - like pissing off the EU, the attack on the British boarding party that could have sparked full war if the Brit sailors and Royal Marines hadn't been wusses that day, and fought back..

The evidence for Rumsfeld leaving the arms dumps unsecured is well documented and I'd pose that is the biggest reason for the trouble we're in. There would have always been an insurgency, and a well armed one. But the combination of the billions of cash and free-for-the-taking arms depots right out of the gate drove this insurgency to an unforseen height. His devotion to a single-column high-speed push to Baghdad at the expense of every other contingency made Iraq what it is. It was always a mess, Rumsfeld made it a total f*ing fiasco.

YO, KVENLANDER

"I have a really really REALLY hard time believing the new excuse, that at the time, recording details like serial numbers and who they were given to, just didn't seem important enough to do."

TOP WAS QUOTES

We can't REALLY do that in the US(state/city gov) why in Iraq?

(I'd cite it w/ links but I'm a dummy...see guns daly, guns bloomberg, etc...I hope it might come up but it's an urban gov't issue, see News Hour Lehrer '07)

And the detestable Bill Kristol, in the middle of another, rare, interrogation at the hands of Jon Stewart, gave the game away. Petraeus will come back and say just what Bush needs to run out the clock and sustain the Blue Dogs' cowardice. The fix is in.

"Why we're not at war with them is a little bit of a mystery."

Much less of a mystery than why Boot gets paid to say such shit, when the appropriate venue would be in a shadowy street, sitting on cardboard, in between kicks in the groin.

Someone apparently just realized that other states have interests that do not coincide with our own.
The power of the blogosphere is amazing.

IIRC, Max Boot is a former scholar in residence at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, the AIPAC related think tank. That may help answer several questions raised in the thread above.

> ending electric power in 3/4s of Iran for months,

Coming from one of the Radicals who claim that the human cost of continuing sanctions was a justification for launching an unprovoked war on Iraq. Now he wants to "end electric power in 3/4s of Iran" (as if doing so in Iraq for 4 years wasn't enough), which would of course result in untold suffering and death among millions of innocent Iranians - particularly infants and children.

Or perhaps Mr. Ford doesn't think there are any innocent Iranians (including children).

Cranky

So much bloodshed could be avoided if the Iranians would simply thank us for the Shah... sigh.

Funny how loss of electricity in a country that didn't have it for a majority of it's residents until the 1960s will cause "untold death and suffering". For the life of me, I don't know how the Persian Empire survived and prospered, (largely, 'cept for those Greeks and MOngols) - for 3,000 years without it.

I guess you're hysterial, sort of like those who said people were dying after Katrina from lack of ice - when it wasn't much in existence for weeks or months after America's 440-460 major hurricanes in our history, or not at all before ice was sold in stores. Or the welfare Mommas and their Victimhood Defenders after Katrina that complained the Mommas found MREs disgusting and were "starving to death" after nearly a week without good food. And their chilluns! The ice-less, hate chicken a la King MRE meal chilluns!
************************

Or perhaps Mr. Ford doesn't think there are any innocent Iranians (including children).

The fact that there were innocent Confederate citizens, innocent Nazi civilians, innocent Mongol Horde children etc. in wartime is completely irrelevant.

If we must defend ourselvcs in war, we must. ....All societies at war have innocent soldiers who have committed bo crime, innocent civilians that supply the soldiers, and innocent children that cheer their daddies and brothers in uniform...
War just means stopping the enemy if hostilities and actions threatening others go past the ability of diplomacy and politics to control it. We may have to war against the Iranians if they escalate their disruptions in Iraq and their killing of American soldiers.

That they have "innocent children, innocent Mullahs, innocent Pasadan, innocent fat women with moustaches is as irrelevant as any other society at war having 99.9% innocents in their populations. That they have been killing US citizens with bombs, EFPs, training terrorists to kill us, and are working on nukes IS relevant.

As is also true that if they try and "Bring Iraq Down Around America's Ears" we can kill a good part of their military and economy in very short order, sow destabilization across Iran, and make their lives hell if they try it. Which greatly increases the odds they won't try it.

Mr. Ford and other Iran hawks fail to understand that while we "end electric power in 3/4s of Iran" Iran, Iran will be ending sub-$180/barrel oil. One tanker sunk in the Straights of Hormuz will make last week's stock market gyrations look like nap time. Hell, even a few failed attempts would be "interesting" in the chinese sense of the term.

He and his ilk also fail to realize that one of the best ways to rally people around an odious and unpopular regime is to start bombing the country in question. Have they forgotten 9/11?

And, while hyping Iranian meddling in Iraq on the one hand, they blithely ignore the difficulties a motivated and threatened Iran could present for us in Iraq on the other. It's as if they want to prove that Iran is stymieing us in Iraq by provoking them into stymieing us in Iraq.

Where have all the amoral realists of the conservative movement gone? They are infinitely preferable to the current pack of amoral fantasists that we are currently saddled with.

Mr. Ford, perhaps you should run along and play some more Dungeons and Dragons or World of Warcraft before contemplating the wisdom of armed conflict in the Persian Gulf. Think of it as sort of like not going shopping for groceries on an empty stomach.

Chris Ford is in dire need of being on the receiving end of a disaster.

Watching horrible things happen to other people from his entitled perch hasn't given him much perspective, and it shows in his lack of basic human compassion.

Chilluns?

Chilluns?

What's the point of the Uncle Remus talk?

Oh, I get it. They're black children.

Now that's comedy!

Regarding those missing Kalashnikovs

To be blunt, its because Petraeus sucks at counter insurgency warfare. All fabricated evidence to the contrary. Seriously.

War just means stopping the enemy if hostilities... -- Chris Ford

ZZZZZZzzzzzzz.......

like you have any fucking clue about war, you fucking worthless oxygen thief. Geez, i am so tired of these keyboard pussies with their Band of 300 WOLVERINES fucking fantasies...

Fuck you, grab a fucking rifle.

I originally missed the "Chilluns" part of his post. Wow...that's disgusting. Figures he'd be all for destroying an entire nation filled with millions of people who actually like us and the West in general.

Thank you, Hubris.

Logorrheic assholes really do grate on my nerves, especially the sociopathic ones.

> If we must defend ourselvcs in war, we must. ...
> [...] That they have "innocent children, innocent
> Mullahs, innocent Pasadan, innocent fat women
> with moustaches is as irrelevant as any other
> society at war having 99.9% innocents in their
> populations. That they have been killing US
> citizens with bombs, EFPs, training terrorists to
> kill us, and are working on nukes IS relevant.

The thing is, I think these people actually BELIEVE this kind of crap. And I suspect that this is exactly how the "foreign policy team" that Giuliani has assembled thinks.

Cranky

quoted, the lethal roadside bombs with shaped charges ... are mostly made by Iraqi army-trained engineers – from high explosive looted from those unsecured arms dumps.
and then wrote, As far as I'm aware, that assertion is equally "evidence-free." Does anyone know of a basis for his statement?

I'm pretty sure that American forces have seized at least actual Iraqi workshop where shaped charge penetrators were being built.

In any event, they're apparently not amazingly difficult to make. Though interestingly I did read somewhere that the methodology became widely known after a botched British sting operation against the IRA, or something like that.

Previous post was in reference to *LarryE*; I think the comment software stripped it out because I used a bold HTML tag.

The fact that there were innocent Confederate citizens, innocent Nazi civilians, innocent Mongol Horde children etc. in wartime is completely irrelevant.

Well, it's irrelevant now that the Geneva conventions are "quaint" and the war crimes tribunals are "outdated". It didn't used to be irrelevant.

If we must defend ourselvcs in war, we must.

Absolutely true. I agree 100%.

Please explain how this applies in any way, shape, or form to the situation in Iraq. Remember, according all international laws and dictionary definitions, we are the agressors and the Iraqi insurgents are the defenders. (Here's a quick way to tell: which group lives there? Is their right to live there disputed by any legal precedent, governing body, ethnic group, religious movement or even any random collection of reality-challenged neo-conservatives?)

The fact that there were innocent Confederate citizens, innocent Nazi civilians, innocent Mongol Horde children etc. in wartime is completely irrelevant.

Well, it's irrelevant now that the Geneva conventions are "quaint" and the war crimes tribunals are "outdated". It didn't used to be irrelevant.

If we must defend ourselvcs in war, we must.

Absolutely true. I agree 100%.

Please explain how this applies in any way, shape, or form to the situation in Iraq. Remember, according all international laws and dictionary definitions, we are the agressors and the Iraqi insurgents are the defenders. (Here's a quick way to tell: which group lives there? Is their right to live there disputed by any legal precedent, governing body, ethnic group, religious movement or even any random collection of reality-challenged neo-conservatives?)

Chris Ford wrote, No, because the Iranians are playing a dangerous game of helping slaughter US soldiers, bleed our treasure, thwart out objectives but doing actions they think will not rise to the level that will drive the American public to support either putting a big hurt, or full war against Iran. Bringing Iraq down around our ears would lead to us doing our best to bring Iran down around the Iranian Mullah's ears and we have many, many ways of making their lives hell.

Huh? Iran's main purpose in Iraq isn't to bleed us dry. It's to pursue what they think is their national interest. In the case of Iraq, that means a friendly, perhaps compliant, neighbor.

As far as I'm aware, that assertion is equally
"evidence-free." Does anyone know of a basis for his statement?

The basis for his statement is the Iraqi bomb factory that was found in February of this year. It was very widely reported -- just Googling "iraq bomb factory" brought up stories from CNN, the BBC, ABC Australia, and the US Army (with, of course, their own special propaganderiffic spin on the story).

Did you miss the story or were you not paying attention?

Chris Ford wrote, Such as wiping out their Navy and AF in about 3 weeks, ending electric power in 3/4s of Iran for months, and going in and heavily arming Iranian opposition forces. Or escalating past that to strategic bombing and abandoning Iraq and moving our entire Iraq force east for seizure of Iran's oil fields and securing the whole Gulf from Iran's forces.

You clearly don't know anything about war. If you did, you'd know that that kind of undertaking would require a much larger Army than we have now; I don't see how we could do it without a draft.

Not to mention what it would do to the price of oil and our economy.

Chris Ford wrote, War just means stopping the enemy if hostilities and actions threatening others go past the ability of diplomacy and politics to control it.

Right. Which means there's no reason to go to war with Iran, as (a) they've committed few hostile actions against us (certainly fewer than we've committed against them), (b) a few years ago Iran presented us with a quite reasonable diplomatic proposal that covered some very important areas, only to have it rejected by the Bush administration (hence: we can "control war" by looking after ourselves and dumping megalomaniac pro-war politicians like Bush), (c) there's no reason why our true national interest in the middle east should be in opposition to that of Iran. (By "true national interest" I'm not talking about e.g. making the ME safe for Israeli ethnic cleansing of the Occupied Territories.)


The AP reported in early April that the American forces had found a factory in Diwaniya(that's in Iraq!) that made the armor-piercing EFP's.

Before the war the Iraqis were so technologically advanced that they could send drones over our airspace to poison us all and we would have been helpless to stop them. Now our government wants us to believe they are just too incompetent to be able to make a bomb whose design has been in existance for several years.


Lord Mr. Ford, you go to war with the Army you have. And we don't got one. Unlike Clinton, who left Rummy the army he had, Bush has pretty much destroyed it.
Of course, with your extensive knowledge of strateregy, tic-tacs, diploma-millacy combined with your unquestioned courage and leadership abilities, not to mention your sensitivity and deep knowledge of the conflict (Iran bad-we good),
I don't see how we can suceed if you don't call 1-800-GO-ARMY.
You will do that Mr. Ford, won't you? Our future depends on it. Just don't hoard all the glory when you defeat the hordes. Spread it around a little.

"But it is a dangerous game, and the Mullahs have done other things that haven't been rationally thought out - like pissing off the EU, the attack on the British boarding party that could have sparked full war if the Brit sailors and Royal Marines hadn't been wusses that day, and fought back.."

You obviously don't know anything about power dynamics, factionalism and informal lines of authority in Iran. To chalk these all up to "the mullahs" is a bit ignorant. Iran isn't a clear-cut dictatorship with clear lines of authority running to either just one man or a Politburo-type inner circle. It is unlikely that the mullahs decided to capture the British sailors. The evidence points to an on-the-spot decision made within the framework of Iran's partially informal military structure.

Chris Ford also seems to ignore, as most Iran hawks do, that their clients in Iran are our clients. How much harder do they need to be hit over the head with that? If you want to support the current government of Iraq, you need Iran on board. Al-Maliki is starting to cut deals with Tehran, which the Bush administration is against. If you want to play Iran brinkmanship, man up and say you want to overthrow the purple finger government of Iraq because you'll need to do that for the venture to make any sort of sense.

The AP story from Diwaniya was in addition to others, e.g.

November, U.S. troops raiding a Baghdad machine shop came across a pile of copper disks, 5 inches in diameter, stamped out as part of what was clearly an ongoing order. This ominous discovery, unreported until now, makes it clear that Iraqi insurgents have no need to rely on Iran as the source of EFPs.

..."These bombs drove the Israelis out of Lebanon," a former Pentagon weapons-effects expert told me unequivocally....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-cockburn16feb16,0,6714688.story?coll=la-opinion-center

And then, shortly thereafter, in Hilla:

An Iraqi unit, aided by American advisers, caught militants in the act of constructing devices known as explosively formed projectiles in a house in Hilla, south of Baghdad, on Saturday, according to the American military. The explosive devices have proved especially lethal to American troops in recent months, and both military commanders and the White House have pointed to Iran as the source of a component essential in making the devices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?ei=5090&en=0d886c14b6abaf92&ex=1329627600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

So that's two or three different "factories" in as many months after the Bush administration first started harping on it, as it continues to.

Which, uh, how hard is it to fit an IED with a concave copper plate set opposite the charge? Nevertheless it continues to be reported as 'devices which Washington accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi militants'.

Regarding those missing Kalashnikovs

To be blunt, its because Petraeus sucks at counter insurgency warfare. All fabricated evidence to the contrary. Seriously.


Posted by Hubris Sonic | August 14, 2007 9:10 AM

Yes. Read Edward Luttwack's articles in Harper's on counterinsurgency to see why Petraeus is the wrong man in the wrong place.

Also, Chris Ford seems capable of doing level-one (or first step only) analysis in the sense of Allison (1971). As Allison implied, that would have led to nuclear war over Cuba. So I think Chris Ford can be safely discounted. However, as Dick Cheney is only interested in the same order of analysis, we should all feel most UN-safe.

Yes, that was a good article.

Petraeus just doesn't get it - or perhaps he ignores the reality because he thinks he can get a career boost out of this even though it will be an utter failure.

Which makes him a suck-up, not a "non-partisan general" as Kristol told Stewart.

It was hilarious listening to Kristol tell Stewart that "Petraeus thinks you're a pussy". Kristol is so funny he could take over Stewart's (or perhaps more precisely Colbert's) job. Everything he says is so ridiculous you have to laugh...

But that obscures the real danger here. The news media has picked up this nonsense from Pollock and O'Hanlon that "the surge is working" and that is the message the US public is getting. Look at the poll numbers - a rise in the public's belief that the war was worth doing.

This is really bad news for the antiwar movement.

This is the spin and this is what Petraeus will be peddling in September and October.

And trust me - it will work. This war will go on indefinitely. The Democrats don't have the ability to reverse this media trend no matter how many good articles like Glen Greenwald put out in Salon butchering the Pollack-O'Hanlon op-ed.

And that will just stimulate Bush to take it further. He's already talking about MORE surge and a longer surge.

And of course he's still determined to "solve the Iran crisis" before he leaves office.

Give Bush an inch and he'll take a mile.

And the Democrats don't have the nerve to call him on an inch.

Just to add to that: the Democrats can't lose.

In the US system, you have the "War Party". One branch is Republican, one is Democratic. They both get their campaign finances and bribes from the same people - the military-industrial-security complex.

So what motivation is there for the Democrats to oppose any war? They were already elected back to power in 2006. Where is the motivation to change?

In 2008, the Republicans will still be in the doghouse over Iraq with the US people. Will the Democrats be in the doghouse? Maybe.

But so what? Who else will people disaffected with Republicans vote for?

The only other alternative is Democrats.

So why should they stick their neck out and try to change anything now?

In 2009, when the Dems take power, they'll start a war with Iran (if Bush doesn't do it first.) It will be another four to eight years before they're in the same doghouse the Republicans are in now. And will the Republicans be denouncing the Democrats for that war? Unlikely. Maybe for the way a Dem President handles the war ("He didn't nuke them right away!").

Get used to this. For both sides, it's now "all war all the time".

And you're the ones who will pay for it: with your taxes, with your crushed economy, and with your children. And if terrorists start blowing themselves up in Times Square and on your train station during your commute, with your lives.

Have a nice day.

Thanks to the people who responded to my question. I could nitpick and say the sources do not seem to show the EFDs are made by "Iraqi-army trained engineers" using "high explosive looted from those unsecured arms dumps," but having a good source for saying they were made in Iraq is quite sufficient.

Oh, Mnemosyne: The link you offered referred to car bombs enhanced with chlorine gas, not EFDs. Maybe you need to pay a little more attention yourself before you flip any more snide sign-offs.

Uh, that's EFPs, not EFDs. Duh. Speaking of not paying attention....


Comments closed August 27, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.