Armchair Generalist's blog

Max Boot, Idiot Commentator

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:05:32 +0000

SHORTER Max Boot: "Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki doesn't know his place - he needs to listen to us conservatives as we tell him what's good for his country."

I suppose this is a common view among the conservatives desperate to continue the war and occupation in the Middle East, but honestly, one could hope for an opinion that was less sneeringly condescendent toward other nations' politically-appointed leaders.

Appeasement In Our Time

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:31:50 +0000

I hate to steal the TPM title but this topic is really too delicious not to. It seems that The Decider is actually willing to negotiate with rogue nations after all...

William Burns, America's third highest-ranking diplomat, will attend talks with the Iranian envoy, Saeed Jalili, in Switzerland on Saturday aimed at persuading Iran to halt activities that could lead to the development of atomic weapons, a senior U.S. official told the AP on Tuesday.

Official contacts between Iran and the United States are extremely rare and although Washington is part of a six-nation effort to get Iran to stop enriching and reprocessing uranium, the administration has shunned contacts with Tehran on the matter.

The senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of a formal announcement of Burns' plans expected on Wednesday, acknowledged a shift in the administration's approach but stressed that Burns would not meet Jalili separately and would not negotiate with him.

"This is a one-time event and he will be there to listen, not negotiate," the official said.

Oh, my bad, he's there to listen, not talk. I'm sure there's a subtle difference there, but you know what? Traveling to meet the guy is in fact the opening move in negotiations. We know it, they know it, and any protests to the contrary is just obfuscation. Or is this just a fig leaf for future operations?

Iraq Doesn't Love Us Anymore

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:02:22 +0000

Kudos to Democracy Arsenal for doing the research on this question - if the Iraqi government tells the US government that it should remove all forces by such-and-such a date next year, what should the McCain position be?

With news coming from Nouri al-Maliki that he is leaning towards a security pact with the U.S. that would include language describing the "departure of [American] forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal," one wonders how this would affect John McCain's plan for perpetual troop presence in Iraq. Well, at the Council of Foreign Relations, the John McCain of 2004 gave us a pretty clear answer:

Question: "What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?"

McCain's Answer: "Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."

Does the John McCain of 2008 agree with this assessment?

Ouch! Curious minds want to know the answer. More importantly, are there any reporters with the guts to ask McCain this question directly?

Why Isn't Iraq Working With Us?

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:27:15 +0000

SHORTER Max Boot: "We need to force Iraq to do what is good for us. I mean, them."

Dr. iRack has a much, much better analysis of the proposed US-Iraq SOFA. But I guess we have to work with the op-ed articles that we read in the major newspapers, not the op-ed articles that we wish we had.

That Shining City on the Hill

Mon, 05 May 2008 17:58:11 +0000

You know, back when Paul Bremer was running things in Iraq - in his unique fashion - I was amazed by the stories of Republican advocates in his staff trying to push their style of democracy onto the nation. They were trying gun rights, flat taxes, all kinds of silly things. Now it sounds like the proponents of "let capitalism have a chance" are back and bigger than ever.

Forget the rocket attacks, concrete blast walls and lack of a sewer system. Now try to imagine luxury hotels, a shopping center and even condos in the heart of Baghdad.

That's all part of a five-year development "dream list" - or what some dub an improbable fantasy - to transform the U.S.-protected Green Zone from a walled fortress into a centerpiece for Baghdad's future.

But the $5 billion plan has the backing of the Pentagon and apparently the interest of some deep pockets in the world of international hotels and development, the lead military liaison for the project told The Associated Press.

For Washington, the driving motivation is to create a "zone of influence" around the new $700 million U.S. Embassy to serve as a kind of high-end buffer for the compound, whose total price tag will reach about $1 billion after all the workers and offices are relocated over the next year.

"When you have $1 billion hanging out there and 1,000 employees lying around, you kind of want to know who your neighbors are. You want to influence what happens in your neighborhood over time," said Navy Capt. Thomas Karnowski, who led the team that created the development plan.

Yes, this is a Grand Idea! Because there is nothing like having the vast and unforgiving chasm between the "haves" and the "have nots" being shown to the dirt-poor Sadr City occupants on a daily basis to make them happier and obedient servants of the United States government. Can you just imagine the propaganda that will flow if this "Wizard of Oz" city is allowed to flourish? Exactly what kind of social science idiots are being employed here?

UPDATE: More opinions here.

Where Are Iraq's Neighboring States' Embassies?

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:33:31 +0000

Abu Aardvark has an interesting post that outlines a challenge I had not previously seen - the fact that there are no Arab embassies in Baghdad to keep the monstrosity known as the ~~Taj Mahal~~ US Embassy company.

Finally, the Saudi position, from which other GCC states will likely take their lead, can be seen in Saud al-Faisal's announcement that security concerns prevent opening an embassy in Baghdad, and in today's column by the well-connected al-Arabiya director Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed dismissing the American and Iraqi demands on debt and embassies as a side issue: security is the "first, second, and third Arab issue", he writes, and when that is solved the rest will fall into place. None of this is surprising. The real reasons, I suspect, lie in their continuing perception of Maliki as a pro-Iranian, sectarian leader and Iraqi state institutions as deeply penetrated by Iranian influence - as well as their lack of interest in doing the US any favors right now. As Ambassador Edward Gnehm, one of America's most experienced diplomats in the Arab world, told me:

Gulf Arab states reacted predictably to Secretary Rice’s blandishments urging those states to open embassies in Baghdad and to forgive Iraqi debts. Those states remain wary and concerned over Shia dominance of the Iraqi political scene, Iranian influence that they perceive follows, and doubts that the U.S. really has an end game plan for Iraq that protects their interests. Both actions are seen as means to pressure the Shia political figures to give Sunni Iraqis their “rightful” place in the power structure as well as to nudge Iraq back toward the “Arab” camp. Until they conclude that Shia political figures are ready to move on these fronts, they will not act --- and they certainly will not make the concessions to the U.S.

In that regard, perhaps the most interesting thing I've seen in the wake of the conference is what seems to be an unusually direct outreach to Saudi concerns over the last two days, with an abrupt about-face on the part of senior Iraqi officials. In Kuwait Maliki called "on all our brothers and friends and all neighbouring countries to make more effort and to strengthen security measures to prevent terrorists from infiltrating our territory through joint borders." Arabs seem to have taken this as directed at them, rather than Iran, particularly when Maliki specifically expressed his dismay with the level of Arab support for Iraq.

So if we can't get the Arab community to reach out and start state-to-state negotiations with its troubled neighbor, how exactly will this Iraqi adventure suceed in becoming a stabilizing force for the region?

Sometimes It's Okay to Bomb

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:57:34 +0000

SHORTER Bush administration: "It's okay to bomb nuclear plants that aren't yet active, as long as you photograph them first. For instance, consider those in Iran..."

Petraeus is Promoted

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:43:41 +0000

It's time once again to update the list of COCOM commanders. The AP says that General David Petraeus has been nominated to be the next CENTCOM commander. This ought not to surprise anyone. Lieutenant General Ray Odierno will replace General Petraeus in Baghdad as the commander, Multinational Forces - Iraq, instead of the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, as previously announced. Lieutenant General Pete Chiarelli will be nominated for that position.

Here's the new score:

CENTCOM - Army General David Petraeus
PACOM - Admiral Tim Keating
EUCOM - Army General Bantz Craddock
NORTHCOM - Air Force General Victor Renuart
SOUTHCOM - Admiral James Stavridis
AFRICOM - Army General William Ward
JFCOM - Marine General James Mattis
STRATCOM - Air Force General Kevin Chilton
SOCOM - Admiral Eric Olsen
TRANSCOM - Air Force General Norton Schwartz

Army - 3, Air Force - 3, Navy - 3, Marines - 1. Wow, look at that balance. It's almost like a sense of reality has returned to the Pentagon.

[UPDATE BY ERIC: At the risk of stepping on the AG's toes, just wanted to point out that (as noted in the comments) Spencer Ackerman has a good round up of commentary about the Petraeus promotion - including a link to a post at Newshoggers by Cernig with an update from yours truly.]

Turf War in Basra

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:47:36 +0000

There is news that Basra, the third largest city in Iraq, is in turmoil as Shi'ite gangs fight the Iraqi militia for control of the local oil fields.

The BBC's Adam Brookes says three Iraqi army brigades were deployed from Baghdad to Basra as back-up for Tuesday's operation, and that up to 15,000 troops could be involved.

Coalition aircraft patrolling the skies above Basra have carried out air strikes to help the embattled Iraqi troops below.

Of the nine suspected known to have been killed so far, four died in street fighting and five in an air strike.
---------
Some of the fiercest fighting has reportedly involved the powerful Mehdi Army, which is loyal to radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr.

The Iraqi commander in charge, Lt Gen Ali Ghaidan, said the operation aimed to purge Basra of what he called "outlaws".

He said his forces had confiscated weapons and roadside bombs during raids across Basra.

Routes into the city have been sealed off, according to reports, while hospital officials spoke of a number of casualties.

Well who could have forseen that, after British troops turned over the city to the Iraqi government and declared success, this fighting would have broken out? I mean, the Surge(TM) was a success, no? And Sadr's spokesman is saying that this wasn't his idea.

Liwa Sumaysim, head of Sadr's political bureau in the central city of Najaf, denounced the bloodletting.

"We do not want the situation as it is in Basra. We are against bloodshed, especially in this critical period of time," Sumaysim told AFP.

"The Sadr movement is being targeted in Basra, that is why this tension has been created. The Iraqi government forces should not use force against poor people," he added.

"Sadr emphasises the need to solve the problem peacefully through dialogue. Sadr is following the events and his instruction is to solve this problem politically with Iraq's leaders."

This lends more credence to the thought that there won't be any drop in American troop levels in 2008, not with "successes" like this one.

It's Getting Better All the Time...

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:50:12 +0000

SHORTER Michael O'Hanlon: Having not heard about the increase in insurgent bombings and decreased availability of electricity in Iraq, I believe we should "work for success" in Iraq while reminding the Iraqi politicians not to emulate the US Congress.

After all, what's another Friedman Unit?

Guns and Money for Everyone

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:08:03 +0000

I've just recently stumbled across the fact that the US government had been supplying arms to the Palestinian Authority for the purposes of countering Hamas in the Gaza Strip and West Bank areas.

A well-timed Vanity Fair expose caused a flap on the first day of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip to the Middle East.

The article, "The Gaza Bombshell," by David Rose, cited confidential documents and interviews to allege that the Hamas takeover stemmed from a secret Bush administration plan to use Fatah security forces to confront Hamas. Hamas, the article said, caught wind of the plan and acted before Fatah could, seizing the Gaza Strip.

Since Rice is traveling in the region, trying to stem the fallout from the constant rocket attacks launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza, any article that claims that the current crisis is the result of administration mistakes, rather than terrorist actions, is bound to grab attention. Arab reporters here seemed especially interested in the Vanity Fair piece.

The article does contain excerpts from some fascinating documents--including talking points by a senior U.S. official accidentally left behind in a meeting--that demonstrate how much pressure Rice and other top officials put on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to dismiss the Hamas-led government. But many of the reporters traveling with Rice felt the article mostly summarized information that many of us had written about at the time. The administration's plan to bolster the Fatah security forces was well known--and the article does not definitely prove that even a partial coup was part of the plans.

I can't find the article on-line, but I have to wonder - why is it that the Bush administration's first answer to every regional conflict is to throw more weapons into the mix? You'd think that, by now, they'd have figured out that hard power doesn't solve these long-term conflicts. Or maybe that's the problem - that the Bush administration hasn't in fact learned this lesson. Certainly they have shown no appreciation for grand strategy elsewhere through this administration's term in office.

Who Are You Going to Believe?

Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:02:20 +0000

In regards to the newly formed U.S. Africa Command, there are those who insist that the US government's intentions in Africa are solely humanitarian and largely will not involve the basing or involvement of US military forces in Africa. So I'm sure that this news article will have absolutely no impact on the success of that new command.

Pentagon officials said Monday the United States launched an air strike in Somalia to go after a terrorist suspect.

In the strike early Monday, Somali police said three missiles hit a Somali town held by Islamic extremists, destroying a home and seriously injuring eight people.

A Pentagon official said the U.S. military was going after an al-Qaida suspect in the town. As yet, there is no word on whether the suspect was hit. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about the strike.

The strike follows one last year in which the U.S. shelled suspected al-Qaida targets in Somalia.

The DOD was brief in its explanation for the attack.

"On March 2, the United States conducted an attack against a known al Qaeda terrorist in southern Somalia," Bryan Whitman, Pentagon spokesman, said.

"As we have repeatedly said, we will continue to pursue terrorist activities and their operations wherever we may find them," he said.

Whitman said the United States works closely with partners in the region in the conduct of military operations.

"We share common goals with respect to fighting terrorism," he said. "We will continue to seek out, identify, capture and, if necessary, kill terrorists where they plan their activities, carry out their operations or seek safe harbor."

Interesting on how you don't hear about any US "non-kinetic" operations in Somalia, or any other African country (although I am sure that some are ongoing). A colleague of mine told me that most people learn by this practice: "I hear what the boss is saying, but I also see what he does, and they ain't the same thing."

AF COIN Tactics Strike Out Again

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:46:54 +0000

This week, we have a report of an air strike against a Taliban leader in Afghanistan.

The air strike took place in the Bakwa district of Farah province late on Sunday and killed one woman, two children and four men.

"Mullah Malang, a Taliban commander in the district, was the target, but he was not among the casualties," provincial police chief General Khiasbaz Sherzai said.

A provincial official, who declined to be named, said the civilians killed were family members of the Taliban commander.

Both the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the US-led coalition in Afghanistan said they had no immediate information on the air strike.

A total of 1,977 civilians were killed in 2007 in fighting in Afghanistan, including nearly 240 who lost their lives in air strikes by foreign troops, according to Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, a body that monitors security for non-governmental organisations.

Here's another fine example of the US Air Force's counterinsurgency tactics, except that they weren't insurgents. CBS News reports the incident of AF "air support" to soldiers in Iraq.

Iraqi police said the victims, including two women, were in two houses in the village of Tal al-Samar, which was bombed by American warplanes late Saturday. They were all Sunni members of the al-Ghrir tribe, an officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to media.
The U.S. air strike came after an American convoy came under enemy fire in Tal al-Samar, and soldiers called for air support, the Iraqi officer said.

Shortly after the incident, American officers met with a Muslim sheik representing citizens in the area, Evans said.

"We offer our condolences to the families of those who were killed in this incident, and we mourn the loss of innocent civilian life," he said in a statement e-mailed to the AP.

Saturday's strike was the deadliest known case of mistaken identity in recent months.

I keep forgetting, is the US Air Force fighting for our side or to aid the insurgent cause? Because they are doing a great job of pushing Afghani and Iraqi civilians into the insurgent camps.

Where is Waldo? And other states of interest

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:54:47 +0000

Who knew that Miss South Carolina was the norm, rather than the exception, when she accurately quoted: "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to [find the United States on a map] because some people out there in our nation don't have maps." Via Abu Muqawama, this story from the Olin Center at Harvard:

On average, young Americans can find one (1.3) of these four countries. Fourteen percent can point out all four countries correctly, while 44% cannot find any of them.

After three years of war in Iraq, only 37% of young Americans can find Iraq; 63% cannot. As many can—and cannot—identify Saudi Arabia. The result is even worse for Iran and Israel. Only one in four can find Iran (26%) or Israel (25%). Three-quarters cannot find these two countries. Overall, up to one in five say they “don’t know” where these four countries are located (ranging from 16% for Iraq to 20% for Iran).

Education makes a difference in young adults’ ability to locate these four countries in the headlines: young Americans with college experience (1.6 correct answers on average) are more likely than those with up to a high school education (0.9 correct) to locate these countries. That said, even the more educated group fares relatively poorly, with less than a quarter of those with a college education able to find all four countries (23%, 6% of those with up to a high school diploma).

Wow. We've been at war within the Middle East for more than six years, and less than 25 percent of college-educated Americans can't figure out the players. This is just pathetic. I personally blame Karen Hughes...

What the General Meant To Say...

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:18:15 +0000

Yesterday, the Washington Times reported General Petreaus's spokesman COL Steven Boylan as saying that Iran's leadership was pulling back from aiding Iraqi insurgents with material and training. Today, he's pulling back that statement:

The spokesman for Gen. David H. Petraeus said that a quote he e-mailed to The Washington Times for the article in yesterday's paper headlined "Iran no longer aids Iraq militants" was not clear and therefore misinterpreted.

Col. Steven Boylan said, "It is not clear if Iran's leaders stopped supplying weapons or training to extremist elements in Iraq. We hope that they have, but until we can confirm it, we are in the wait and see mode."

Oops! It sounds like someone's chain got snapped back, and hard. Didn't he know that Iran was and will continue to be the bad guys, as long as they refuse to participate in open inspections of their nuclear energy program?