Progress

Negotiations for a law to specify how oil revenue will be shared in Iraq are once again breaking down, once again casting the failure of the surge into stark relief. Bush meanwhile, has decided that his plan to end the surge when it's logistically impossible to continue it is a moderate "way to bring America together."

At the same time, Barack Obama's latest, most detailed scheme for withdrawing troops from Iraq isn't perfect in my view, but does meet all of the whining objections from the dwindling liberal hawk caucus that anti-war people are ignoring the humanitarian aspects to the situation. Obama's plan won't magically eliminate the now-inevitable continuation of the massive suffering that's been taking place for years now in Iraq, but it is the most thoughtful program out there for how to mitigate it.

Of course, since the political purpose of raising these humanitarian issues is just to try to build political support for an open-ended military deployment whose relationship to humanitarian goals is very hazy, the existence of an actual plan of humanitarian action isn't going to actually shelter Obama from these criticisms.

Comments

We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region

Q: How many forces?

A: Some.

Q: What will they be doing?

A: Stuff.

Q: What about those massive permanent military installations we're building in Iraq?

A: Shut up, hippie.

Yeah, this is progress alright.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 13, 2007 9:05 AM

Negotiations for a law to specify how oil revenue will be shared in Iraq are once again breaking down, once again casting the failure of the surge into stark relief.

And the contract signed by Hunt Oil was apparently the last straw.

Gosh, you'd think that Bush was intending to tap the one revenue stream in Iraq for his Texas oil buddies, dump Iraq on the next president and fuck off to Crawford, building his My Pet Goat Memorial Library with a healthy donation from Ray Hunt.

Still, it's a good job the US isn't like those third-world countries with dictatorial leaders who loot the treasury for their own ends.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 13, 2007 9:13 AM

Well yes the oil deal looks bad but at least we now have a definable purpose for the war, to increase Kurdish oil revenue!

Posted by Rob | September 13, 2007 9:16 AM

Why can't the Democrats just pass an emergency bill making it illegal for U.S. companies to enter into oil contracts with Iraq's various sectarian interests? Why can't they demand that Bush sign said bill?

In any case, isn't this a violation of the Logan Act? It is the express foreign policy of the U.S. that all Iraqi interests work together to resolve their differences on this issue. Whether you agree with the practicality of the Surge or not, that is the freaking point of it. And along comes this Hunt scumbag and adds to the waste of American lives?

I guess it would be too much to expect the Democrats to make an issue of this or anything.

Posted by space | September 13, 2007 9:34 AM

It is truly remarkable how little the Bush administration has done to broker workable deals, rules, laws, etc. among the parties.

Other than allowing wealthy Republican pals/corporations (e.g. Hunt, KBR) make all the money they can over there, there isn't a single statesman-like thing accomplished by the Bushies.

Really, while the military is trying to impose order, the rest of the administration sits back expecting a democracracy to rise from the ashes.

Kinda like the phoenix in Harry Potter, except not as sophistocated.

Posted by ESaund | September 13, 2007 9:38 AM

BTW, I'm serious about the Logan Act. Remember when all the wingnuts got apoplectic over Pelosi just for MEETING with Syrian leaders? I suppose it would also be too much to ask them to extend their outrage to a situation where (a) an actual deal was made; (b) the private actor has no Constitutionally provided foreign policy role; (c) the action directly undermines U.S. foreign policy; and (d) American troops are being asked to die for said policy.

Posted by space | September 13, 2007 9:41 AM

About two weeks ago, seven Army NCOs wrote an OpEd in the New York Times titled "The War as We Saw It ".

Two of those sergeants, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, have just died in Iraq.

What they tried to tell us before they died:

"VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population.

To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched.

As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework.

Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes.

This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense. "

Their full OpEd is available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ex=1189742400&en=10c7f4155337e9ab&ei=5070

Posted by Don Williams | September 13, 2007 9:42 AM

Meanwhile, Obama unveils another fantasy scheme that will not happen and will be out of date by the time he would be inaugurated. Can I admit that I actually get bored hearing about Democrats' plans at this point?

Why not do something useful like attack Rice for allowing this deal to happen? At least that would give people some tangible evidence of how he would run his administration. Same goes for the other candidates. First one to call for Rice's resignation wins.

Posted by space | September 13, 2007 9:45 AM

Here is today's story about the death of two of the OpEd's authors. A third author has been shot in the head and has been evacuated to the United States:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3594058&page=1

Why do I suspect that those flag-waving cocksuckers over at Fox News -- along with flag-waving cocksuckers Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh -- will bury this story?

Probably because they are too busy counting their money and figuring out how to lie America into another war in Iran.

Posted by Don Williams | September 13, 2007 9:49 AM

THIS is what Matt thinks is a "plan":

1) "We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown."

2) "We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year."

3) "We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities."

4) "If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces."

5) "We need to launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent history to reach a new compact in the region. This effort should include all of Iraq's neighbors, and we should also bring in the United Nations Security Council."

"This compact must secure Iraq's borders, keep neighbors from meddling, isolate al Qaeda, and support Iraq's unity. That means helping our Turkish and Kurdish friends reach an understanding. That means pressing Sunni states like Saudi Arabia to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, increase their financial support of reconstruction efforts, and encourage Iraqi Sunnis to reconcile with their fellow Iraqis. And that means turning the page on the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to Syria and Iran."

6) "Iran poses a grave challenge. It builds a nuclear program, supports terrorism, and threatens Israel with destruction. But we hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda, ignoring the violent schism that exists between Shiite and Sunni militants. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war."

"Now is the time for tough and sustained diplomacy backed by real pressure. It's time to rally the region and the world to our side. And it's time to deliver a direct message to Tehran. America is a part of a community of nations. America wants peace in the region. You can give up your nuclear ambitions and support for terror and rejoin the community of nations. Or you will face further isolation, including much tighter sanctions."

7) "The final part of my plan is a major international initiative to address Iraq's humanitarian crisis.

It's time to form an international working group with the countries in the region, our European and Asian friends, and the United Nations. The State Department says it has invested $183 million on displaced Iraqis this year -- but that is not nearly enough. We can and must do more. We should up our share to at least $2 billion to support this effort; to expand access to social services for refugees in neighboring countries; and to ensure that Iraqis displaced inside their own country can find safe-haven."

Now let's analyze this in ways Matt hasn't.

1) Basically irrelevant. The Iraqi government will do what we tell them to do.

2) Backwards. Cut casualties by removing troops from volatile areas FIRST, AND removing them from "secured area" (if any, which is doubtful outside of the Kurdish areas). The more sign we show that we are leaving and no longer fighting, the fewer attacks we will experience the fewer casualties we will sustain. The Iraqis want us to go - demonstrate that we ARE going.

3) You can NOT protect US personnel in Iraq once we leave. You DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO DO THAT. Period. Neither do you have enough troops to do force protection AND carry out anti-terror missions. EVERY American must leave - except the contractors if they're dumb enough to stay, it's their goddamn problem. No Embassy until Iraq stabilizes should be the policy. NO US personnel at risk until Iraq stabilizes.

4) Because of the big IF, this concept isn't bad. But only once Iraq stabilizes. You can't have US training personnel in Iraq until it stabilizes because they will be attacked if they are not protected. Again, you CAN NOT leave enough troops in Iraq to both do force protection and ANY kind of mission. And since Iraq won't stabilize until it has a credible state and a credible military, it's a "chicken-and-egg" problem. So it's basically irrelevant.

5) Fine - Obama wants to talk to everybody. But where is the actual proposals he will make other than "do what we want you to do"? What are the INCENTIVES he will offer those nations to actually do that? He doesn't say.

6) Here is where he loses it - big time. Here is where he demonstrates that he just doesn't get it. Here is where he demonstrates that he is just as "owned" by the Israeli Lobby as Clinton and the Republicans. Here is where his entire "compact" plan falls to pieces.

Because Iran IS the regional power on which everything depends. Without the CREDIBLE engagement of Iran - without sanctions or threats of military action - Iran has ZERO motivation to assist the US in Iraq. Iran already has its own operations going on to establish relations with and influence over Iraq. It doesn't need the US to do this. The US needs Iran. The US can only stabilize Iraq (possibly) with the direct assistance of Iran.

And the US can only do that by eliminating all complaints about the Iranian nuclear energy program, and providing security guarantees to the Iranian government, as well as by taking a more active role in resolving the Israel-Palestinian issues, thus reducing Iran's need to support Hizballah or confront Israel in the region.

And Obama just doesn't get that.

7) Fine, he wants to spend humanitarian money. Whatever. For external Iraqi refugees, that's fine. But how does he actually intend to develop a "safe haven" for displaced Iraqis in country without a stabilized Iraq?

Here's the bottom line on this "plan":

It's hand waving.

He does not on any significant level address the two main issues concerning Iraq and Iran:

1) Iraq will not stabilize until the power imbalance between the Shia and the Sunni is resolved - or until exhaustion on both sides sets in. There is nothing the US can do directly to influence this power imbalance.

2) Iran is our natural ally in the Middle East. The US should totally reverse its course in the ME and engage Iran, at least to the degree of dropping all complaints about their nuclear energy program and giving security guarantees.

Neither point is addressed by Obama's plan, which makes it essentially worthless.

The Biden plan was more detailed than Obama's and it had an equally unlikely chance of working.

And Matt needs to develop a more critical attitude to these political proclamations. There's a whole other level of reality here that needs to be addressed before declaring that some politician's
"plan" is what he claims it is.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 13, 2007 8:05 PM