Who's Kidding Who?

The debate raging over the situation of Iraq is more divorced from reality than it was when Paul Wolfowitz testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and claimed that the efforts in Iraq would cost the US far less than $100mm and likely even pay for itself. Let me try to set forward the facts as they stand today: More than 3,000 dead American military personnel; more than 20,000 serious non-lethal American casualties; American public support for American involvement in the Iraqi conflict at its lowest ebb; the Administration and its supporters fervently believe that Iraq must become a sustainable political state; at this point, the Iraqis are incapable of governing and securing a united, inclusive Iraq.

In my view the chances of the Administration regaining the support of the American people for its Iraqi policy - is nil. The dirty little secret is that the Administration is still unable to level with the American people about what it will take to accomplish its goals in Iraq. Irrespective of your position on Iraq, there is no reasonable scenario under which the Administration goals can be accomplished within the next two years. In fact, five years might be the absolute best case scenario. The Iraqis collectively have precious little appetite for the very goals being sold to the American public.

It has been said by a number of political pundits, quite correctly, that the American Administration and the American people can not want this more than the Iraqis. Despite NSC Adviser Hadley's assertions that this plan is the Iraqis plan (and consequently they support it and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary for success), the facts simply do not support that contention. Moreover, the current plan is a single pronged strategy, military without a political component. Thus, even the rosiest conclusion of this initiative is but a beginning.

Given that the administration is not interested in a multi-lateral political solution, what we are left with is a Hobbesian choice, effectively sit back and let the pieces fall where they may or hunker down for what is likely a decade or more or direct involvement in Iraq. The only sustainable argument in support of the later is to operate as a check on the Iranians. In order for that to work it is imperative for the Administration to elevate the perception of the Iranian threat to the US. The President began to lay the groundwork for this political sleight of hand in his speech on Wednesday. The VP, in his remarks on Fox News Sunday fulfilled his role as Administration cudgel by further setting the stage for conflict between the US and Iran by emphasizing its threat to the US.

Note, I stress the threat to the US because I don't believe the Administration can recapture public support if the perceived threat is Israel. The incursion into Iraq on ginned up "intelligence" on the threat posed to the US mainland with its enormous cost in American lives and monies without concomitant success has serious dulled the American public's appetite for war. Thus a casus belli for action against Iran is necessary.

The basis for such action may be found in the upcoming National Intelligence Estimate ("NIE") on Iran that is expected to be completed soon. I expect the Estimate to have much in common with the NIE issued prior to Congress' vote on Iraq, long on descriptions of worst-case scenarios with less ardent views relegated to footnotes or ignored altogether. There has been limited speculation that John Negroponte's reassignment to a less prominent role within the Administration was a precursor to a hawkish Estimate (note, I have a previous post discussing Negroponte's reassignment, interestingly his departure has received precious little attention in the press, overshadowed by the President's revised Iraq strategy).

Finally, I am of the opinion that irrespective of the success new military policy nothing much will change because the Iraqis are not invested in fundamental political change. The Sunnis want to be back in charge, the Shia, even those not interested in direct retribution against the Sunnis, want the spoils of political power and the Kurds want no more than the oil around Kirkuk, relative political autonomy and US protection from the Turks. Until that political landscape changes our efforts in Iraq are a fool's endeavor.

What are the Appropriate Parameters of "Force Potection"

The military has broad ability to act proactively against perceived threats. The concept seems quite commonsensical and prudent. However, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a threat, too lies in the eyes and minds of those charged with protecting the military. In the post-9/11 world it appears that the perception of what constitutes a "threat" has apparently expanded. They are now operating under the belief that the Patriot Act broadened their authority to engage in investigations within the US. This includes most notably the surveillance of various groups engaged in peaceful protests against the war. This to light when a Vermont church group was subjected to defense department surveillance. Shockingly, Big "Swingin' Dick" Cheney finds these expanded efforts legal and no threat to civil liberties. I don't know about you, but Cheney's assertion assuages all my concerns.

Much to the chagrin of the CIA, the defense department has also expended its intelligence gathering activities overseas. This was an initiative pushed strenuously by former Secretary of State Rumsfeld, whose disdain for the CIA is well-chronicled.

Sunday News Shows 1/14

What gives, Chris Wallace and Fox News Sunday gets Mr. Happy aka VP Cheney and Russert and Meet the Press only gets Steve Hadley. Don't get me wrong, Hadley's very bright and an engaging interviewee, but for pure star appeal it's no contest. Regardless, Fox News Sunday is a formidable competitor to Meet the Press, while Wallace can't carry Russert's groceries,the Fox All Stars are must watch. Watching Bill Kristol begrudgingly offering support for the President, while holding his nose is priceless. I'm convinced that no one believes Bush is a bigger moron than Mr. Kristol. Thank god for TiVo.

Negroponte Ousted?

Last week amongst the barrage of personnel moves within the Bush admin perhaps the most vexing was the move to John Negroponte from National Director of Intelligence to Assistant Secretary of State. The Administration spin was that Negroponte is first and foremost a diplomat, true indeed. But upon reflection why does someone voluntarily give up a position that reports directly to President, in fact, regularly and often daily, for a position, under Sec of State Rice. Odd to say the least.

Reports are now emerging that Mr. Negroponte might have run afoul of VP Cheney and Darth Vader (David Addington). Two specific areas are mentioned - the soon to be issued National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq and domestic surveillance activities. Both make some sense. Negroponte two months back angered Administration zealots (the usual suspects) regarding Iran's current nuclear capabilities. With regard to domestic intelligence activities, longtime CIA, NSA and FBI professionals have frequently (yet carefully) expressed strong reservations with the broad scope the Administration advocates.

The objection is more about how such activities are conducted. The Administration remains steadfast in its intention to broaden presidential authority. What perplexes me is why such power is required for the "War on Terror" (an entanglement that is definitionally interminable) yet we as a republic did not see the need to provide clear legal basis for the executive with regard to these matters. One is sort of forced to conclude that the real reason is a pure and simple power play. I, for one, am a strenuous believer in the balance of powers between the federal branches of government, although considering the dottering dickheads that fill the House and Senate worthy of such a heay position is frightening.

Cheney "Summoned" to Saudi Arabia to Talk with the King?

Reports apparently have it that VP Cheney's recent trip to Saudi Arabia was at the behest of the Saudi's. I'll try to ferret out some more details, but such a request is at the very least humbling. It's worth noting that in State of Denial, Bob Woodward's recent book on the Administration's mishandling of Iraq, it is readily apparent that Prince Bandar, the long-time Saudi ambassitor to the US, was a significant source of Woodward's. Bandar's relationship with the Bush family and GWB in particular is said to be extremely close. Moreover, Bandar made it clear that the Saudi's had serious misgivings about invading Iraq - GWB, despite not understanding the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, knew better. OUCH.