Article

2004-12-14 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2004-12-14 9:52:26 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 So, um, where's the problem? Vigilantes serve their purpose during times when there is insufficent or non-neutral local law. It fades as bona-fide law takes root - local law and enforcement that is trustworthy and even-handed - and that always has and always will take time. Most societies have a tradition, a custom, of some sort dealing with feuds and overripe blood debts. Certainly the Arabs do.

"Laws are sand, customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment escaped but an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishment."
-Twain

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the posse is being formed and there are some necks to be stretched - for decades of wanton violence perp'ed under the aegis of Saddam's thugocracy. Payback's a bitch.

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 10:21:09 AM|| 2004-12-14 10:21:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 My thoughts exactly, .com. In fact, among the most consequential disappointments with Iraqi performance, post-liberation, has been the LACK of ferocious score-settling directed against the portion of the Sunni community implicated in the decades of despotism. Obviously in the majority-Sunni heartland like al-Anbar this wouldn't apply, but within B'dad and perhaps northern Babil, and around Mosul, the Shi'a and Kurds should have gone medieval on their erstwhile tormentors. I know there has been an ongoing, limited, and barely reported (Strategy Page talked about it yesterday, I think) campaign of informal retribution by non-Sunni hit squads. But imagine how much further we'd be in the civil war to crush the violent part of the Sunni community if their former victims had cleaned house in mixed areas like B'dad metro and northern Babil. This is a politically incorrect little item making up part of the The Blindingly Obvious Fact That Dare Not Speak Its Name: Iraqi performance has been the main problem since liberation, not anything done/not done by the US or coalition.

Posted by Verlaine 2004-12-14 10:31:32 AM|| 2004-12-14 10:31:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 payback's a bitch.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 10:40:14 AM|| 2004-12-14 10:40:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 And, to some degree at least - certainly a distant second to Turkey's betrayal, that lack has exacerbated the post-war occupation woes that are constantly heaped on Rummy by the 20/20 hindsight voyeurs and hand-wringers. Sigh. They are slow, aren't they? Especially for all the tough talk about Arabs and their blood feuding. The whole stable of MSM BS has been utterly discredited, from the vaunted tough Afghan fighters and their brutal winters to the terrible blood oaths of Arabs. Yadda3. Yeah, we've heard it - and it didn't happen. So much romantic twaddle by cheesedick reporters, so few facts. Pfeh.

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 10:41:01 AM|| 2004-12-14 10:41:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 rollback of Arabization is a problem huh? I'd like to see it rolled WAyyyyyy back

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-14 10:46:08 AM|| 2004-12-14 10:46:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 verlaine - are you seriously suggesting that Rummy was counting on Shia vigilantes, and that the problems of the occupation are due to their absence?

Lets get real folks - we didnt go into Iraq to avenge the Sunni deeds against the Shia - we went into Iraq to strenghten our position in the region. Now I know that there are two ways that works the public plan (which I favor) of making Iraq a model for democracy. And the implicit plan, preferred by many here, of scaring the bejeezuz out of everyone in the region. To some extent these strategies conflict - the first strategy requires a greater emphasis on hearts and minds, the second on showing how much it sucks to be beaten by the US. And they conflict as far as initial numbers of troops - the democracy strategy needed large numbers to restore order and rebuild society - the make em quake in fear strategy required showing what we could do with only three divisions.

But vigilantes does neither. On the one hand it gets the entire Sunni Arab world to hate you (especially as vigilantes have nasty tendency to go beyond justice, and to get the wrong people, or to pursue personal grudges aside from war crimes, etc) and it ALSO fails to make the Sunni arab world fear - there is no similar demographic situation anywhere else in the region - a vigilante strategy CANT be repeated, and so adds to reason for sunni arabs OUTSIDE of Iraq to fear. To go with a vigilante strategy is a sign of FAILURE, a willingness to settle for whatever will get Iraq under control, and get us out of the "quagmire" and give up on Iraq as a WIN in the WOT.

And, BTW, it was Rummys job to have backup plans, not to count on Turkey.

I mean at some point you have to use hindsight. No one here, or in the MSM, or in the blogosphere could judge Rummy with foresight, since we were not (and are not) privy to his plans, the info he had available, etc. We can ONLY judge by the results. Which, while not as bad as the more alarmist segments of the MSM imply, seem to be worse than they should have been.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 10:56:22 AM|| 2004-12-14 10:56:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Lh - Thank your for your contribution.

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 10:57:26 AM|| 2004-12-14 10:57:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Your welcome.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 11:01:17 AM|| 2004-12-14 11:01:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 "You're"

Tanx.

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 11:03:27 AM|| 2004-12-14 11:03:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Since when has perfection been an option in the real world?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-12-14 11:11:03 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-12-14 11:11:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 good comments LH.

As an aside, not meant to contradict - I don't understand this piling on Rumsfeld. He's not an all seeing God. He had to make a billion decisions and the idea that he could conduct the "Perfect War"TM is ridiculous. You can always say, "it could have been done better". Quite frankly, I think we were lucky to have Rumsfeld, as I think few others would have had the strength to do it as well.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 11:13:31 AM|| 2004-12-14 11:13:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Good Lord, I remember reading about vigilante murder of Saddam's henchmen right after the invasion...April or May of last year, or thereabouts. This is fish wrap stuff! In Germany, Jewish troops were quietly hunting down Nazis for considerably longer than this -- it will go away when the courts are processing cases at full speed.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-12-14 11:46:40 AM|| 2004-12-14 11:46:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 among the most consequential disappointments with Iraqi performance, post-liberation, has been the LACK of ferocious score-settling directed against the portion of the Sunni community implicated in the decades of despotism.

Nonsense. The Kurds and Shia have acted with great restraint because they are grownups and actually want a peaceful, governable country based on the rule of law.

I have great respect for the Kurdish leaders and Sistani based on how they have restrained things in anticipation of elections. Verlaine, OTOH, takes a narrow, shortsighted and counterproductive stance.

Posted by Theans Angomotch9553 2004-12-14 11:51:48 AM|| 2004-12-14 11:51:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 2b - oh, yeah, Rummy made a lot of good decisions. I think he did very well in the war in Afghanistan, and in the first few months post 9/11 generally. It may well turn out, when we have fuller info, that he did about as well as could have been done in Iraq. I dont really know. What I have problems with is the tendency to jump hard on any criticism of Rummy, and to deny the extent to which things ARE screwed up in Iraq.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 11:53:25 AM|| 2004-12-14 11:53:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 LH - fair enough. I'm a knee-jerk Rummy defender, and will rethink. My main bitch is that the same people (Dems, MSM, etc.) that criticize him for (pick one, or several) not using enough troops, armor, etc., would undoubtedly be the loudest Rummy critics if he had sent another 100,000 troops over. Quagmire!

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-14 11:56:56 AM|| 2004-12-14 11:56:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 What I have problems with is the tendency to jump hard on any criticism of Rummy, and to deny the extent to which things ARE screwed up in Iraq.

Hmmm...I guess I just haven't noticed that tendency in the MSM :-)

Seriously, I have no problem with constructive criticism, but 99.9% of what I've read is nothing but useless, woulda,coulda,shoulda. I don't think it's constructive.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 11:58:49 AM|| 2004-12-14 11:58:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 I asked it on another thread, but I'm curious LH. If Rumsfeld sucks so bad, who do you think was the right person to conduct the war in Iraq?

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 12:05:17 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:05:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Lh / Theans Whatever - Hey, folks, I'm the vigilante guy. Pick on me, K? You are woefully ignorant of history if you don't know, understand, and see where vigilantism occurs and why.

Restraint on the part of the Kurds, I completely agree with. They are busy building a very nifty capitalist society - and policing their own and their area most effectively. Kudos to them - I wish they were independent of the baggage of Arabs.

Regards Sistani, name all of his positive accomplishments on behalf of the Shi'a who blindly follow him? Compared to what he might have done? Rummy gets whacked for anything and everything that goes awry in post-war Iraq - and Iraqis such as Sistani get a pass. Bullshit. Sistani's actually been AWOL / MIA in terms of doing anything more than the minimum of, say, breathing. Bush spends capital attempting to accomplish goals. Other leaders, such as Putty, Sistani, et al, seem to hoard their capital and polish their knobs.

When the Arab Iraqis pull on their bootstraps and get serious about doing something for themselves, then positive shit will happen. Blaming Rummy for their lazy blame society and the lack of Shi'a accomplishment to counter the Sunni insanity of longing for The Good Old Days sorta reeks of disingenuity to me. I know you guys are after the same thing I am, a free and democratic Iraq, but let's be even-handed and call a spade a spade, heh.

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 12:06:54 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:06:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Dot com - once again, it was Rummys job to PLAN for things like Sistani being a problem. Thats what youre supposed to do when you occupy a country like Iraq - you dont assume it will all go hunky dory. You recognize that things locally are gonna go wrong, and you have resources to deal with that. Its Rummys job to assure the interests of the United States, its not Sistani's. There were folks who said this couldnt work, cause the locals were too fucked up. I didnt agree then - and IIRC, neither did you. But I did think that we were going to manage this thing well ourselves. Look dot com, you have yourself made inciteful criticism of how we deal with Sistani and the locals - maybe Rummy needed a dot com at his side. At least if hed listened to you he would have known how f*cking hard it would be to fix an arab society. Maybe he did know - but its sure hard to get that impression from the planning that was done (or largely not done) I suggest reading Hanlons piece in full.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 12:16:08 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:16:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Sistani's actually been AWOL / MIA in terms of doing anything more than the minimum of, say, breathing

Somebody needs to be reading the news and thinking about it more. Sistani gave his support to crushing Sadr's Mahdi. As a result elections WILL happen soon.

If you don't see that as a serious contribution, your ability to judge anything about Iraq is called into major question.

Posted by rkb 2004-12-14 12:20:05 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:20:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Magic wands. Rumsfeld was SORELY lacking in his failure to procure and issue them prior to the invasion.

Nasty nasty SECDEF. Not nearly as competant as armchair critics with loud rhetoric.

Pfah.

Posted by too true 2004-12-14 12:21:27 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:21:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Why do I feel like I've just been had? Lol!

Well I guess we part ways regards our expectations. I don't care for the blame society. I believe in what I believe is a pragmatic approach: you plan for the knowns, try to buffer up resources for the unknowns, and deal with shit as it happens - for the plan is toilet paper 5 minutes after the show begins. [Hey, it's how I live my life - do you make plans which execute to perfection? Hey - I want some of your advice about my investments, heh!] I believe that's what Rummy did, IMHO, so I am naturally empathetic - and bristle at the second-guessing. So we have different approaches leading to different expectations. You think mine are whacked-out frequently enough, right? I think yours are the Pollyanna game in this case. Such is life.

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 12:28:28 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:28:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 I don't care for the blame society.

amen. If I was asked to point to the number cause for all ills we face, the "blame society" would top my list. Blame is nothing but a way to make yourself feel useful, without actually doing anything useful.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 12:31:04 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:31:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 rkb - You mean when he suddenly had a heart problem to fix in London? Lol! Oh yeah, he's been a peach of a leader. Y'know, your comment is pretty fucking arrogant... from here you may take it where you will.

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 12:32:20 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:32:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 oops..number one cause

and just for the record LH...I'm not directing that complaint at you personally. Just stating my belief.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 12:35:25 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:35:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 As for Rummy, the Afghanistan campaign was a work of art. A masterpiece. Well planned, well executed. Iraq on the otherhand, while not as bad as is presented, could have been done better. The simple fact of the matter is that given the scope of the mission in Iraq, it is going incredible well. To deny that and try to "blame" Rummy for this or that is to deny history and to deny reality.

The ONLY way that the occupation could have gone "smoothly" would have been by bringing the full force of our power against them. To crush them. To beat any will to fight out of them. If we'd have had 100k more troops for the invasion and hit every area of Iraq hard, those troops could have made a difference. But today, 50k or 100k more troops will NOT make a difference at this point. What are they going to do? And don't forget this, we handed sovereignty over to the Iraqi's. They need to and are taking more responsibility for their own destiny. We don't need to double our footprint there. It will only breed resentment against us. What we need to do is everything we can to help the IP and ING to become an effective force as quickly as possible. Because while we are the ones stomping out the bad guys, we generate resentment and we hinder the growth of confidence in the IP and ING.

Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-12-14 1:03:07 PM|| 2004-12-14 1:03:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Amen, AHM... The grief began (and continues) with Turkey's betrayal, but the future is exactly as AHM sez: with the Iraqis, themselves, making Iraq a better place once day at a time while we cover their backs.

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 1:08:12 PM|| 2004-12-14 1:08:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Okay, my language was stronger than it needed to be.

But seriously, .com, I think you don't acknowledge the key role Sistani has been playing. That "heart problem" took him out of the country after several attempts at assasinating him and as we were moving in on the Mahdi holed up in a very holy Shia site -- a move he did not condemn at all and which threatened major damage to the shrine to which many are deeply attached.

More important overall is what he has consistently refused to do despite great pressure from some Shias - and against the influence of Iran's mullahs. He has refused, multiple times, to endorse the idea of an Islamic government in Iraq. His refusal of an overt leadership role politically is consistent with the form of piety for which he is considered the spiritual leader among Shia, but his rejection of Islamacism for the government was also a key factor in preventing either a greater Islamicist tone to the insurgency or a Shia uprising of their own.

He may not be a US puppet, but that's fine with me. From my perspective he, Allawi and others are doing pretty much what we might hope they would do in moving Iraqis along towards a stable, secular and peaceful representative government.

As for arrogance, well ... sometimes I'm guilty of that, although I hope not in this case. But from over here I might gently suggest that the demands of many here at RB and elsewhere that Rumsfeld have A Plan Which Foresaw and Accounted for All Possible Events seems to tend a bit in that direction as well ...

Anyway, peace bro? .....

Posted by rkb 2004-12-14 1:19:00 PM|| 2004-12-14 1:19:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 LH â Interesting post â couple of points:

Now I know that there are two ways that works the public plan (which I favor) of making Iraq a model for democracy. And the implicit plan, preferred by many here, of scaring the bejeezuz out of everyone in the region.

Making Iraq a democracy will, by its very nature, scare the bejeezuz out of everyone in the region because none of the governments in that region, with the exception of Israel, rest upon popular suffrage. Point in fact, the overwhelming majority of governments in that region must suppress popular suffrage in order to survive. This is evidenced by their continued use of military and paramilitary force against dissenting citizens, lack of an institutionalized and impartial legal system, opaqueness of the political and governmental process as well as an operative and independent fourth estate.

Your use of politically charged characterizations like âpublicâ versus âimplicitâ strikes me as an unnecessary aside which detracts from your argument. We went in for a number of reasons, some validated, some disproved, but all discussed in the public market by a free and unfettered press and citizenry. .

To some extent these strategies conflict - the first strategy requires a greater emphasis on hearts and minds, the second on showing how much it sucks to be beaten by the US. And they conflict as far as initial numbers of troops - the democracy strategy needed large numbers to restore order and rebuild society - the make em quake in fear strategy required showing what we could do with only three divisions.

I donât want to be overly contentious about this characterization other than to say itâs a meme thatâs been advanced since the fall of Baghdad. The argument about the number of troops required for post-conflict stabilization versus initial invasion depends more upon the local national government, its legitimacy, police powers, etc. than our own. Restoring order requires paramilitary and police forces not military forces. Consequently, putting more infantry on the ground wonât, necessarily, enhance order but will increase US force protection requirements.

But vigilantes does neither. On the one hand it gets the entire Sunni Arab world to hate you (especially as vigilantes have nasty tendency to go beyond justice, and to get the wrong people, or to pursue personal grudges aside from war crimes, etc) and it ALSO fails to make the Sunni arab world fear - there is no similar demographic situation anywhere else in the region - a vigilante strategy CANT be repeated, and so adds to reason for sunni arabs OUTSIDE of Iraq to fear. To go with a vigilante strategy is a sign of FAILURE, a willingness to settle for whatever will get Iraq under control, and get us out of the "quagmire" and give up on Iraq as a WIN in the WOT.

In my experience as a prior Special Forces Captain, most of the world operates on the demographic situation that LH claims is not repeatable. The idea of local police operating under a formal code of laws in an impartial manner is the non-repeatable situation. Most of the places Iâve worked or visited, donât have police. Justice, such as it may be, is delivered locally by âvigilantesâ or not at all.

The assumption that there is a unified Sunni Arab world which will either hate or fear us, seems, perhaps, a bit naÃ¯ve. Exactly which Sunni Arabs are you talking about? There are significant and historic dividing lines within the âSunni Arabâ world. It isnât a singular group except to outsiders, typically with an agenda. Within the context of Iraq Sunni Arab tribal society, particularly in the towns and tribes sponsoring insurgent violence, vigilante justice âper se, is the normal condition. You may consider it a failure. They donât. Vigilantism may be sanctioned or restrained by tribal necessities or religious proscriptions or it may ignore those if the grievance is considered serious enough by the affected parties.

If Iraq is a quagmire given the time and casualty rate, then how would you characterize WWII or the US Civil War, where more Americans were killed in a single battle than in Iraq to date? This sort of sloganeering speaks more to your fortitude than to the realities on the ground. We are the dominate military force in the country. Local national police, national guard (paramilitaries) and military forces are being built. Two thirds of the country and the majority of Iraqi population supports the current situation and looks forward to transitioning into some form of representative government..

And, BTW, it was Rummys job to have backup plans, not to count on Turkey.

I mean at some point you have to use hindsight. No one here, or in the MSM, or in the blogosphere could judge Rummy with foresight, since we were not (and are not) privy to his plans, the info he had available, etc. We can ONLY judge by the results. Which, while not as bad as the more alarmist segments of the MSM imply, seem to be worse than they should have been.

The presumption of perfection is a canard maintained only by those who remove themselves from responsibility. What should the results have been? Show me a comparable but more successful military/political operation? Certainly not the Revolutionary War, Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.

Posted by DaveK 2004-12-14 1:19:38 PM|| 2004-12-14 1:19:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 "Exactly which Sunni Arabs are you talking about? There are significant and historic dividing lines within the âSunni Arabâ world. It isnât a singular group except to outsiders, typically with an agenda"

Please tell me which Sunni Arabs, anywhere from oman to Morocco, will be more friendly to the US, or to US supported experiments in democracy, due to vigilante justice by SHIA and KURDS in Iraq? Really, if you know of any, id be eager to find out. I did not say vigilante justice was rare - when i said the demographic situation was unique, I meant that to the extent we have an end result that Shia look on approvingly, but that Sunnis do not, it MIGHT help inspire pro-US democratic revolution in say, Iran, but not in the arab middle east - theres no other country where Sunni arabs are a minority and Shia are an overwhelming majority (although on reflection perhaps Bahrain is an exception to that)

What was the civil war? It was conflict in which Lincoln went through TWO secretaries of war, and numerous commanders in the East (hard to count, due to the confusing and changing command structure - do we count John Pope, for example? Meade AND Grant?)Similarly in WW2, Churchill went through 3 commanders in the Mideast before he got Montgomery, IIRC.

You misread me. I am NOT saying we wont pull this out and win, ultimately. As we did in the civil war and as we and our allies did in WW2. I am saying there is considerable appearnce, from the outside, of major incompetence. And a refusal to hold certain people accountable.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 1:40:20 PM|| 2004-12-14 1:40:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Justice, such as it may be, is delivered locally by âvigilantesâ or not at all.

DaveK - that's an interesting thought. While a system of laws is preferable, it's far from perfect itself. Here in the US, rapists, child molestors and murderers are routinely set free to shatter an exponential number of lives. Rich and powerful often get a pass. Lawyers in the western world see justice as a game, and very frequently, justice is NOT served by our courts.

Laws and courts are the ideal, but justice correctly delivered by the hands of vigilantes is still "justice". The danger with vigilantes is simply that it is so easy for power to be abused. But I would say that our lawyers are often just as abusive.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 1:42:30 PM|| 2004-12-14 1:42:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 rkb - I took it that you were saying I'm not paying attention regards Iraq and Sistani's "actions" - hell, that's all I do, lol! I do believe he has largely wasted the last 18 months and acted for the greater good primarily by inaction. Indeed, by not coming to Sadr's aid in Najaf, instead flying off to London, he allowed Sadr to be seriously roughed up. It was opportune, and we laughed about it here IIRC, but the water was carried by the Jarines and Air Cav so I'm loathe to give Sistani credit for it. Okay - different views . In one regard you have me cold: I have a saying that "no answer is, indeed, an answer" so I'm hoisted on my own pitard there, heh.

In total I recall only 2 times Sistani has been constructive - first by saying he was apolitical way back after the invasion had succeeded in toppling Saddam and second regards Sadr and the Najaf operation - which was rather nice for him in that it marginalized Sadr completely.

I can think of several times when he was unhelpful, such as openly favoring Shi'a militia when another Shi'a cleric was bombed / killed, saying that the occupation was illegal, resistance was okay by him, and we should leave immediately, calling Allawi and the Interim Gov't illegal, openly opposing the Constitution and the panel writing it that he apparently failed to control - especially the Federal aspects and wymyn's rights, backing on the "slate of candidates" vs local representative democracy to boost the Shi'a's power, formulating the committee to create the Shi'a slate and rather stacking it with his kind of people: clerics, etc. I guess you could say that I think he failed to serve the Iraqi people, but served his own interests excusively.

So believe me: I am paying attention, heh. Too much for my sanity, lol! We're cool - just in disagreement over the value ol' 1000 yard stare here brings to the table:

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 1:46:14 PM|| 2004-12-14 1:46:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 "I don't care for the blame society"

Now my head is spinning. I thought it was called the RESPONSIBILITY society, where folks are accountable for results.

If Iraq were a school district in the US, Rummy would have 12 months to meet numerical goals in terms of number of violent incidents, number of US casualties, etc, and if he failed to meet those numeric standards, the Iraqis would be able to reject US troops and instead be able to apply a portion of the US defense budget to CHARTER infantry divisions, instead. Rummy would say to hell with strategy, and would spend his time drilling officers in how to meet the numerical goals.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 1:46:14 PM|| 2004-12-14 1:46:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 A typo, sheesh, after all that:

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 1:47:37 PM|| 2004-12-14 1:47:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 LH, I agree that Rummy's arrogance has often been (to coin a phrase) unhelpful to our overall objectives in Iraq. No problem with criticizing him here.

But I think one source of the intense reaction your critiques generate here is the quite obvious bad faith of so many of those who also critique Rummy without ever having committed to promoting Iraqi democracy or overthrowing Saddam. As for me, when I hear someone criticize Rummy these days, I know it's an opening wedge for later arguments in favor of quietly, slowly, gradually walking away from Iraq. I predict that the most strident critiques of Rummy will soon come from isolationist Republicans. First Buchanan, then Novak, then Hagel and co, and finally from the Bush41 realpolitik crowd.

If you want to help us stay the course in Iraq, it's more helpful to couch your critiques as constructive and friendly. Replacing Rumsfeld now would be a green light to all the isolationist hyenas, both left and right, to call for bringing the boys home, moving the goalposts from promoting Iraqi democracy to promoting Iraqi stability, and a fortress America approach. I don't think that's the outcome you want.

Posted by lex 2004-12-14 1:50:09 PM|| 2004-12-14 1:50:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Spin no more, Linda Blair. You're absolutely right, LIBERALhawk.

He failed to meet your specs, your criteria, in an obviously predictable endeavor. Apples = Oranges = Hot Dates at the Oasis. I will go wash my keyboard out with soap to atone. Rummy's shit. The entire situation is shit. Quagmire! Liberals should hang him. He should resign. Life sucks. Rummy's at fault.

Glad we're in agreement. Right. Okay-fine. Gotcha. Great. Cool. Neato. Gear. Fab. W00t!

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 1:54:33 PM|| 2004-12-14 1:54:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 LH: You are one of those annoying fans who screams at the professional athletes about how much they suck - each and everytime they fail to move the ball forward - aren't you?

Tell the truth now.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 1:59:31 PM|| 2004-12-14 1:59:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 What I have problems with is the tendency to jump hard on any criticism of Rummy, and to deny the extent to which things ARE screwed up in Iraq.

Perhaps what you call "denial" is, in fact, recognition that things are LESS screwed up in Iraq than they were two years ago.

As for Rummy -- I rarely hear valid criticism of him. It's mainly Monday morning quarterbacking and whiny sniping by people who, intellectually, aren't fit to shine his shoes.

If Iraq were a school district...

You expect us to take you seriously after that?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-12-14 2:05:54 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-12-14 2:05:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 But I think one source of the intense reaction your critiques generate here is the quite obvious bad faith of so many of those who also critique Rummy without ever having committed to promoting Iraqi democracy or overthrowing Saddam

Theres certainly plenty of bad faith on the left, and those whove heard me here no I despise it. Theres ALSO bad faith on the right as well. I havent let Karl Rove keep me from criticizing Michael Moore or John Kerry, and I wont let Robert Byrd or Dan Rather keep me from criticizing Rumsfeld.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 2:12:35 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:12:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 You are one of those annoying fans who screams at the professional athletes about how much they suck - each and everytime they fail to move the ball forward - aren't you?

Tell the truth now.

I think its more like a team with a huge budget, just barely beating inferior teams, and several obviously bungled calls by the head coach. Just cause the team is pulling out wins, and just cause there are some idiots who think it will lose (when it wont) doesnt mean the coach should get a pass.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 2:15:19 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:15:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Perhaps what you call "denial" is, in fact, recognition that things are LESS screwed up in Iraq than they were two years ago

Less screwed up than under Saddam? So youre saying that unless Iraq is as bad off as it was under Saddam, the worst totalitarian on the planet, you wont accept that things are screwed up? Can anyone say "the soft bigotry of low expectations"?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 2:19:22 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:19:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 and dont get me wrong. i would like events to prove me wrong. I would like nothing better than for Zarqawi to be capture this month, for the Iraqi elections to run smoothly, for the insurgency to collapse, and for US forces to be freed up for other tasks. Id rather have Rummy, and four years of a Bush clone after 2008, if we SUCCEED in this endeavour.

But if, in November of 2008, we're still talking about how plans go awry, and how at least things are better than they were under Saddam, and how people whined during WW2, I will NOT be with you.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 2:23:38 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:23:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 I believe you Lh. You're the cherry-picking strawman bees knees, bro.

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 2:25:51 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:25:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 I think its more like a team with a huge budget, just barely beating inferior teams, and several obviously bungled calls by the head coach. Just cause the team is pulling out wins, and just cause there are some idiots who think it will lose (when it wont) doesnt mean the coach should get a pass.

But there's no "final score" here with which to judge success. Even if you think there is one, this "game" is more like one of those cricket matches that goes on for weeks. And it's a match at which we are not even spectators. Your critique of our side's cricket coach, no matter how intelligent or convincing you may think it, is about as reliable as a translation of a Chinese reporter's version of a French weblogger's account of what his buddy told him he saw happen in the match from watching it intermittently on a barroom TV.

I'm sorry but none of us is an expert on troop strength or counter-insurgency in a post-stalinist multi-ethnic arab state.

Posted by lex 2004-12-14 2:31:40 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:31:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 I do believe he has largely wasted the last 18 months and acted for the greater good primarily by inaction.

Agreed, .com. However, that is consistent with Sistani's broader interpretation of Shia Islam, which is that clerics should not be involved in politics or governing -- a position we should be grateful for, I think. He went wobbly once or twice when it looked like the Sunnis were being cut a deal, but by and large he has refused to oppose us, which is a big help in and of itself even if he's not out there pro-actively giving sermons in favor of Allawi and the coalition. I don't doubt that clerics influenced by him have in turn influenced their listeners on Fridays, which has contributed to Shia patience in the runup to the elections.

Posted by rkb 2004-12-14 2:38:49 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:38:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Why is it fair to criticize Rumsfeld for the political aspects of the Iraq campaign? I thought he was only responsible for the military. And is doing a reasonably good job of it.

Posted by Rafael 2004-12-14 2:39:06 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:39:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Less screwed up than under Saddam? So youre saying that unless Iraq is as bad off as it was under Saddam, the worst totalitarian on the planet, you wont accept that things are screwed up?

No. Not at all.

Were you expecting, perhaps, things to get better without going through the intermediate state of "screwed up, but better than it was"? We're in that intermediate state, and will be for a while. Focusing on the "it's screwed up" is worthless; it does nothing to solve the problems and, honestly, looks more like political point-scoring.

What did you expect to happen in Iraq? What standard are you judging against?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-12-14 2:40:11 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-12-14 2:40:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Why is it fair to criticize Rumsfeld for the political aspects of the Iraq campaign

Cause at least till Bremer left, and Negroponte came in, DoD was running the political aspects. Unless it comes out in the future that Bremer was forced on Rummy.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 2:41:38 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:41:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Why is it fair to criticize Rumsfeld for the political aspects of the Iraq campaign?

Because State is sacrosanct.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-12-14 2:44:30 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-12-14 2:44:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 what standard?

The insurgency, in mid 2003, is said to have numbered about 5000 men, and was under pressure as we rounded up Baathists. I expected that it would DECLINE from there, and that by now Iraq would be quiet. That wed be well into physical reconstruction, and that there would be zero cities where contractors couldnt go. Failing that, that at least the insurgency would be no worse than it was in summer 2003. That the borders would be secure.

Rantburg has an archive. Point me to where in 2003 you said that things would still be like this 20 months after the invasion.

Ive already discussed why its worth reviewing this.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 2:51:55 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:51:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 rkb - Okay - agree to disagree with what he could've / should've done? Lol! The Shi'a have been cowed so long I'm not sure they really "got it" that they were finally free for awhile, heh. Even then, they were convinced they should be protesting the "invaders" and "occupiers" cuz that seemed the safest game - once they figure out that we wouldn't shoot them for protesting. Must've been a serious shock, heh. I can only imagine the mental machinations, though we had a few early Iraqi bloggers trying to illuminate us. Here's to tomorrow and the elections and the Iraqi security forces - may they survive first contact and realize they can actually do the job. :-)

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 2:53:51 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:53:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Lh - Some (much?) of what you're describing does come from an unanticipated phenomenon: the flypaper effect.

Posted by .com 2004-12-14 2:55:44 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:55:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Lex, you mentioned Lincoln's two secretaries of war. This reminds me of the Civil War in general... I was under the impression that Grant and Sherman were very controversial, and Lincoln had to spend a lot of political capital in order to keep the other politicians off their backs.

LH: I didn't think the insurgency would still be going on in Iraq to this extent because I thought by now we would have attacked their sources of logistical support in Syria and Iran (which everyone is pointedly not talking about, and reaching for issues to talk about instead, hence the every truck/jeep a tank meme).

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-12-14 3:15:52 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-12-14 3:15:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 rummy: a defense

the Weekly Standard:

"And Rumsfeld is correct to concentrate his efforts on building a set of military institutions that will be appropriate to the long-term fight in the greater Middle East and elsewhere. Rumsfeld is not the real problem with Bush administration policy--the problem has been, and remains, the unwillingness of the White House to increase defense spending sufficiently and to enlarge U.S. ground forces, especially the Army. This has much more to do with macro political judgments and the president's second-term agenda than anything inside the Pentagon. If told to rebuild the Army, Rumsfeld and Army chief of staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker would build the right kind of force."

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 3:40:11 PM|| 2004-12-14 3:40:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 think its more like a team with a huge budget, just barely beating inferior teams, and several obviously bungled calls by the head coach. Just cause the team is pulling out wins, and just cause there are some idiots who think it will lose (when it wont) doesnt mean the coach should get a pass.

There is a saying, that I doubt you are familiar with or will understand:
If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Even if your dark assessment were true, it doesn't change the fact that your comments, blaming Rumsfeld, aren't meaningful. If you were suggesting who might be better than Rumsfeld and why, or advancing your own beliefs on how things should move forward..it would be interesting. But your comments lack solutions and thus amount to little more than screaming "The coach sucks!" from the stands.

I think you mistakenly believe you are scoring some sort of cheap political points by doing so, but you are just annoying the other readers.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 3:43:22 PM|| 2004-12-14 3:43:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Phil Fraering -
Lex, you mentioned Lincoln's two secretaries of war

actually, I made an anology to a cricket match that no one seemed to find clever or germane. :-

But you're absolutely right that the Civil War was the ultimate botch job, at least til late 1863. In any case, the deciding factor was ultimately Lincoln's willingness to stick with the "drunken butcher" whose determination to exploit his numerical advantage-- ie send many tens of thousands of Union troops to their deaths, again and again-- allowed him to triumph in the western campaigns and turn the tide of what until then was a complete disaster.

Get a little perspective, LH. Rummy's done an OK job overall. Axing him would make the NYT editors happy and do f***-all to help us crush the ba'athist deadenders at this point.

Posted by lex 2004-12-14 3:48:53 PM|| 2004-12-14 3:48:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 But your comments lack solutions and thus amount to little more than screaming "The coach sucks!"

Oh c'mon. Then we should never criticize anybody because for all intents and purposes we can never propose meaningful solutions with the information we have, or better yet, the information we don't have. We are simply judging results. And if they suck, well, we can surely admit that they suck, can't we?

Posted by Rafael 2004-12-14 3:52:17 PM|| 2004-12-14 3:52:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 haha. LH.. glad to dump Rummy in exchange for the pres himself, are we??

Do you just not care how tranparent your political cheap shots are, or do you really believe that you accomplishing something?

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 3:54:54 PM|| 2004-12-14 3:54:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Rafael..no, fire away. I think criticism is a good thing. But..

we have a war going on and good men are dying to keep us safe here at home. I just think it is shameful to use the war as a tool to advance personal politics.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 4:07:55 PM|| 2004-12-14 4:07:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 the prez himself - honestly, i saw the thing on WS, and was impressed by it. the dig at the prez was only a side benefit. The point remains unanswered of course.

it is shameful to use the war as a tool to advance personal politics

2004 victory

Its not shameful to hold political leaders accountable for the results of their policies. Thats democracy. If Bush succeeds I will give credit where it is due. If not, not. AS lex says, things are mixed. Maybe, net - net Rummy is good. Maybe screwing up Iraq will mean less in the long run than winning in Afghanistan. Maybe the consequences of scaring the bejeezus out of everyone (the turning of Libya, the discovery of the AQ Khan network) etc will prove more important than having 130,000 plus US troops tied up in Iraq for months or years longer than was necessary. Maybe reforming the Pentagon and the military into something leaner and meaner will be worth an Iraq thats less of a model than it might have been - honest folks, we wont know that this year. We may not know it this decade.

But the attitude that forbids any acknowledgement of whats wrong to the point that folks can blame the current state of Iraq (blame culture, anyone?) on the lack of sufficient Shia vigilantism, is well .....

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 4:24:49 PM|| 2004-12-14 4:24:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 I have a broader concern.

I think it will take a generation, say 25 years, to bring stability to the Muslim world. Both the insurgency in Iraq and Islamacist jihadis are something we need to deal with, but they themselves are not necessarily aware of all of the forces shaping their actions nor are they in control of them. Things like the possibly predictable but maybe not actions of a Sistani ... all of these are in play in Iraq. So are larger forces yet, including oil, weather, the election here in the US, our success so far in intercepting attempted attacks on US and UK soil since 9/11.

To put it in the jargon of my academic research, movements like the insurgency and political events in Iraq are "complex adaptive systems". Short form: the behaviors we see are due to many many interactions and decisions by many players at the local level. In CAS it is very difficult to predict the system-level behaviors even if you know the tendencies of each of the players.

There ARE techniques for modeling CAS and they are being used to good effect wrt the insurgency now that we have some data to work with. Those models helped capture Saddam and shaped the Fallujah offensive. but they are not a panacea either.

My perspective is that Rumsfeld has the bigger picture right on some key ideas. First, the transformation of our military along multiple lines (technology, unit rotation, the rise of Special Ops, an increased emphasis during training on cultural and language skills). Second, that too large a US presence in Iraq will inevitably have the effect of removing from the Iraqis responsiblity and incentives for creating a representative government and stable country for themselves. And third, that a confrontation such as the one going on in Iraq right now is both inevitable and also a very delicate balancing act, given the larger desire to maintain an effective power base in Iraq and Afghanistan for some time to come.

Finding the right level of involvement would IMO be very difficult even not taking into account the hostile actions of e.g. the insurgents, not to mention neighbors like Syria and Iran.

For that reason, it's important to consider what a Plan might or might not entail. For instance, those who criticize Rumsfeld for not sending more troops at the start are conspicuously silent re: the geopolitical impacts and perverse incentives involved if we just pulled troops overnight from places like Germany and So. Korea for that purpose.

I tend to cut Rumsfeld a fair amount of slack, as I do Bush, because I believe that a) their overal assessments of the threats we face are accurate and b) their general strategies are right. There will be mistakes at the more tactical level but those must be put into perspective.

And here's why that's so important to do: we *will* be facing these sorts of amorphous, difficult conflicts (whether shooting or otherwise) for a couple of decades. We had better get good at rewarding leaders who get the main things right, or we will find ourselves electing leaders who do all the wrong things flawlessly.

Posted by rkb 2004-12-14 4:35:16 PM|| 2004-12-14 4:35:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 honestly, i saw the thing on WS, and was impressed by it. the dig at the prez was only a side benefit.

lol!

Well to be honest, I'm glad you found that quote too. Cause now that you have a better quote, that directly blames the president, I guess we can all stop trying to this silly game of trying to pull down Rumsfeld's pants in order to embare-ass the president.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 4:41:00 PM|| 2004-12-14 4:41:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 We had better get good at rewarding leaders who get the main things right, or we will find ourselves electing leaders who do all the wrong things flawlessly.

rkb...very well said! All of it. And on that fine note, I must say goodbye.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 4:44:03 PM|| 2004-12-14 4:44:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 2b - im glad you think you can read my mind. I dont want the president to be embarassed, i want him to succeed. Especially in the WOT, which i see as a life and death matter.

RKB - if there had been more US troops, the Iraqis would have gotten lazy and not built their own force? The welfare reform approach to force sizing? Dont make em dependent. But if their had been a smaller insurgency they could have also gotten lazy. So the insurgency was a GOOD thing, in that it meant that the Iraqis have to build their own force? Oh, but wait, for the first few months, when we needed more US forces, there WAS no iraqi force, or at least no effective one. Were only getting an effective Iraqi force NOW. And its completely dependent on the US for training and development (Well, were finally getting some Nato help, I suppose). Sorry this makes no sense. The welfare reform argument may have made sense in Afghanistan, where there WAS a local fighting force, which might have sat on its hands if there were too many US troops. But not Iraq, where the only local force was the peshmerga, which we have not used effectively until the last couple of months.

As for there not being troops available in april 2003 - well I would suggest that given that the WOT started on Sept 2001, Rummy had plenty of time to increase force size. In fact the Army was asking for larger forces from the beginning of the admin.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 4:53:47 PM|| 2004-12-14 4:53:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 rkb, excellent comment. I concur on the key points, and furthermore strenuously agree that they ARE the key points.

My comment on vigilantism possibly having some benefit was merely a common sense observation that if some non-Sunnis were spontaneously doing some of the harvesting/intimidation of the bad guys, we'd have less to do and probably have fewer losses. Of course I wasn't suggesting such actions had been part of any plan, or that the lack of major score-settling explained the state of affairs.

LH, you've completely lost me with your last comment, yet I suspect I'm not the one who's lost. rkb's point about dependency is a very salient one in Iraq, as anyone who's followed things knows. Your focus on numbers of troops suggests you're not serious about this discussion, since there were obviously far more troops than needed at the outset, and probably still are today. The challenge is what to do with the troops, not whether you have a few more or less.

I mourn and am enraged at the losses we and friendly Iraqis are taking, yet I understand that things are going pretty well. The "insurgency" has no program and no chance, about 95% of the nightmare scenarios never developed, and we have a leadership that is both smart and tough enough to persevere in what is clearly a winning strategy.

Posted by Verlaine 2004-12-14 5:04:23 PM|| 2004-12-14 5:04:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 In CAS it is very difficult to predict the system-level behaviors even if you know the tendencies of each of the players

What rkb said. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that anyone could have grasped all the factors, contingencies, unintended consequences etc of this war. Rumsfeld's done a remarkable job in many areas-- remember all the howling lsat March re Rumsfeld's insistence on a lightning strike, relatively lightly armed strategy? and a so-so job in other areas. Perhaps more troops would have helped, but I seriously doubt it. It's a long tough slog regardless of the path taken and it's wishful thinking to presume otherwise.

I'm beginning to think that keeping Rumsfeld on as a whipping boy for the anti-Bush brigades is yet one more example of Bush's supreme political cunning. Keep 'em distracted. Let 'em vent. Keep 'em away from any substantive policy matters where they might come up with a valid, well thought-out alternative.

Posted by lex 2004-12-14 5:08:38 PM|| 2004-12-14 5:08:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 LH: the dig at the prez was only a side benefit.
v/s
LHI dont want the president to be embarassed, i want him to succeed

Posted by anon 2004-12-14 5:17:08 PM|| 2004-12-14 5:17:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 In CAS it is very difficult to predict the system-level behaviors even if you know the tendencies of each of the players.

That's why we need a new generation of gunships.

Whoopsssie... Nevermind. Not that kinda CAS.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-14 5:17:57 PM|| 2004-12-14 5:17:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 One of the first few comments on this thread expressed disappointment at the lack of vigilante action. (I have not read all of the comments yet). However, let me assure you that personal scores ARE being settled. I would not be surprised to see another 1000 or more Saddamites exterminated in 2005.

Posted by leaddog2 2004-12-14 5:39:12 PM|| 2004-12-14 5:39:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#70
#50 what standard? The insurgency, in mid 2003, is said to have numbered about 5000 men, and was under pressure as we rounded up Baathists. I expected that it would DECLINE from there, and that by now Iraq would be quiet. That wed be well into physical reconstruction, and that there would be zero cities where contractors couldnt go. Failing that, that at least the insurgency would be no worse than it was in summer 2003

Based on what's happened since, and what information has come out about the pre-war planning and external support for the terrorists, that's not a reasonable expectation. Remember, the enemy gets to make their input into how things turn out.

Rantburg has an archive. Point me to where in 2003 you said that things would still be like this 20 months after the invasion.

I can't. Because I'm pretty sure I didn't. I don't even understand why you'd make such a demand. I may have said I thought it would be better, but so what? I've never claimed to be prescient.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-12-14 5:51:58 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-12-14 5:51:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 I hear a few soldiers sharted their pants in the field, and didn't have extras. Rumsfeld should be held personally responsible, or something, and all of his undies should be confiscated.

Yeah, right LH, that's exactly what we need. Ultimate accountability and infallibility. Gotta be perfect, don't they?

Posted by Asedwich 2004-12-14 10:54:26 PM|| 2004-12-14 10:54:26 PM|| Front Page Top

12:50 2b
12:50 2b
00:40 Pholuns Threresing2158
00:10 Angash Flinelet3775
23:49 Mike Sylwester
23:46 Dcreeper
23:40 mojo
23:38 Steve White
23:36 lex
23:25 phil_b
23:07 Robert Crawford
23:04 Frank G
22:57 dubois
22:54 Asedwich
22:52 John Q. Citizen
22:44 John Q. Citizen
22:36 Desert Blondie
22:31 Desert Blondie
22:20 Desert Blondie
21:52 .com
21:52 Frank G
21:50 RWV
21:50 Frank G
21:43 Frank G