Saudis Dis Bush - Condemning "Occupation" and Cancel State Dinner

In a relatively shocking blast to a President deeply wounded by the American public renunciation of his Iraq policy in polls and in the 2006 elections, he was hit with a devastating one-two combination from long-time Bush backers in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi King Abdullah first withdrew from his planned State dinner scheduled for April 17. That rebuke was stiffened by the King's harsh comments about the US "occupation" of Iraq. While it is well documented that the Saudi's (Prince Bandar, specifically) strongly cautioned Bush against its intention to invade Iraq (if for no small reason that the Iranians were likely to be the unintended beneficiaries by Bob Woodward and others, the Saudis criticism of the Bush administration has been publically muted. At least until now.

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.

Augmentation

Euphemisms ruled today while Secretary of State Rice was subjected to a panini grill during her testimony on the Hill today. It was the most painful Congressional testimony to watch since Bobby Kennedy grilled alleged members of Cosa Nostra. She got no quarter whatever, the "surge" isn't an escalation it's merely an augmentation. Unfortunately, the political tsunami brewing within the body politic appears ready to subsume the Administration Iraq policy. Secretary Rice was combative as she was battered about by Senators of both parties. The nonsensical horseshit sold by this Administration is being recognized for what it is - horseshit.

The dismissive tone of the Administration, the "we know better, so just do what we say," has run its course. That day has past. The Iraq policy has been such a disaster that unwinding it almost definitionally willbe a disaster. I don't pretend to have the answer, but what is clear is that the US can not want a stable, inclusive Iraq more than the Iraqis do. As distasteful as it is to many, I believe a multi-lateral approach involving the other players in the Middle East may be the best option.

President to Speak Wed. Evening

The President will speak to the nation (at least those willing to listen) Wednesday night regarding yet another change of direction in Iraq. This time the Pres. will announce his intention to increase troops in Iraq by 20,000 combined with new economic incentives theoretically conditioned upon political benchmarks for the pitifully ineffectual Iraqi government. reshuffled the military deck to come up with soldiers that believe (?) the new strategy can work.

Republican support for this strategy is weak within the Administration itself let alone in Congress. Irrespective, I think the President will ultimately get his way - this time at least - but with an extremely short leash. I think this sets up a really ugly late '07 going into '08 for this Administration. This is a tactical and political mess of enormous proportions. I do not believe this "new" stategy has a snowball's chance in hell of working.

Who Leaked the Hadley Memo?

Today's NYT front page leads with details of a "classified" memo issued by Steven Hadley, the Bush admin's National Security Director, that calls into question whether Al-Maliki is up to the job in Iraq. The resulting firestorm lead to Bush being stood up by Al-Maliki this evening in Jordan. Notable is the lack of screaming of treason by administration wonks regarding the "leak" of the classified memo.

My take - this administration intentionally and conscientiously "leaked" this message to send a message that it felt needed to be sent, but would have been difficult to deliver mano a mano by Bush to Al-Maliki. Fair game no doubt, but it should be noted that this administration, like its predessors (arguably more deftly and frequently than most), uses leaks to get out messages when it is politically expedient to do so.

What I find disingenuous and objectionable is when newspapers are labeled as treasonous. A free press is one of the best things about living in this republic. Attempts to silence or trivialize the press are ill-advised.

This is almost sad . . .

if it wasn't so insidious. Reasonable people gave up the WMD issue long ago. David Kay, former UN weapon inspector who went to Iraq at the behest of the US gov't has made best efforts to put this issue to bed. He has stated for various Congressional committees and was interviewed extensively for Woodward's, State of Denial and Isikoff & Corn's, Hubris that Saddam's Iraq; (a) did not have chemical or biological weapons, (b)had no nuclear weapons program, (c) found no evidence to support the existence of mobile chemical/biological weapons labs, and (d) found it did not possess unmanned airborne drones to deliver any such non-existent weapons. These findings were arrived at despite his sincere belief that such weapons existed prior to the invasion of Iraq. Mr. Kay's testimony is not equivocal and his bona fides are beyond reproach. Yet the tinfoil hat crew ain't ready to give up the fight. What is far more disturbing than that is that the Administration has the audacity to try and revive this fantasy, despite the fact that the president has been explicit that no WMDs existed in Iraq at the time of the US invasion.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Blitzer_shuts_down_Hoekstras_Iraq_WMD_1106.html

November Bump For Republicans?

I'm not sure whether it will have a measurable impact. but a verdict is expected to be rendered soon in Saddam's current trial (for killing 148 Shi'ite villagers in the 1980s). It would be the first time anything in that circus came off on time and I'm sure the timing is mere happenstance, but it would give a (lame) rallying cry for the otherwise desperate Republicans.

Hey, that reminds me, what exactly was the basis for removing the previous judge in Saddam's trial. My recollection was that he contradicted a witness that claimed Saddam was a dictator and said, no, Saddam was elected (technically, true and probably as competitive as any election held for mayor in the city of Chicago during the 60's and early 70's).

Saddam earnestly thanked him. Shockingly, the judge was removed from the case the next week, although the basis for the removal was a bit fuzzy - funny how that works. What is frankly more amazing is that the judge was allowed to preside in the first place as he was initially named to the bench by Saddam himself. Ain't this Iraq stuff a hoot.