The Occasional Observer

4 comments:

Fredo said...

The two comments are similar in form, but completely different in substance.

Here's what Bush said, from the article SHK linked:

"I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation" there.

"I'm not satisfied either"

Fair enough. As SHK suggests, he's trying to gain the support of those who might be inclined to support his aggressive approach to foreign policy, but are unsatisfied with the execution.

Graham's comments were not of the same ilk at all. Lindsey said, in essence, 'we dropped the ball and heads need to roll.'

The President is the one that leads the party, and he's doing that here by saying that we should be flexible and continue to adapt in Iraq.

On the other hand, when a back- bencher starts sniping at his own leadership, saying they have failed, AND does it just before an election in attempt to curry favor with the press for himself and McCain, AND when he offers no constructive alternative to the current prosecution of the war, only criticism of leadership, the two comments should not be called "similar."

They are being offered for totally different reasons. Bush wants to save a policy that he thinks is in jeopardy, but which he feels is crucial for our own safety (whether he's correct or not is open to debate). Graham's actions appear to be completely self-serving.

I will say, Bush is way too late to jump on the "we're not getting results, but we can't quit" train. How many generals would Lincoln have fired by now? He needs to be holding people's feet to the fire, and he hasn't been.

10/25/2006 2:09 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

The problem is that Bush values loyalty above all else and will not move to replace anyone except too late in the game.

It's hard to know who bears most blame from the outside looking in, all you can do is speculate based on the bare minimum of unclassified info you see in the press. But based on that you get the sense that while Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are probably very good at invasion strategy and tactics, they are not the right group for this phase of the rebuilding. I would imagine that some senior people at Pentagon, CIA, State Dept., Army, etc. have a good sense of what it will take to secure some form of meaningful peace and move forward so we can withdraw without leaving a power vacuum, which is the WORST case scenario and means everything we did was a waste. But Bush has got to be willing to put a lot more flexibility in his plans and take their advice.

In particular, I'm still unclear why he's so insistent on a strong federal government in Iraq. The Federalists saw this as critical to the early success of the US, worrying that without strong federal control the states would soon splinter apart and while collectively strong in the international arena, they'd be individually weak. However, why does this matter in Iraq? Unless the participants are CIVIL and willing to engage in rational discussion, which is NOT the case in Iraq, it's not worth the fight. Unless someone can explain why it's important to US interests to have a strong centralized Iraq, as opposed to a weakly-linked association of three republics, I'd say just move towards the latter.

10/26/2006 8:13 AM

Fredo said...

I'm still unclear why he's so insistent on a strong federal government in Iraq.

I think the primary reason is the regional implications of a multi-state model. From what I've heard, the bulk of Iraqi oil is in Kurdistan and the Shiite South. Central Iraq, which is in the worst shape of all the area right now, would be left without income and landlocked. Does a large power imbalance lead to war? Iran and a Southern Shiite state could probably roll central Iraq. Would that create momentum for militant Shiites who want to see conquest? What would it look like to the American people, if the afterwords of our war was Iran conquering Iraq. If Iraq splinters, I think there is legitimate concern of whether they would be strong enough to repel Iranian aggression.

Another issue, the Southern Shiite state's close ties with Iran could also lead to Iranian troops on the Saudi Border, so we might be getting heat from the Saudis. And while I don't pretend to understand the inner workings of the Saracen, I think there has been this age old debate over who controls the Arabian peninsula, Shiite or Sunni. That could make for an uncomfortable situation.

Lastly, Turkey, who we still view as a key ally in the region, has consistently stated that a Kurdish homeland is unacceptable, b/c they have a large Kurdish minority within their borders as well. Guess they're worried that they could have a secessionist movement on their hands, and it would be a lot harder to deal with if the secessionists had a state sponsor with a lot of oil revenue.

10/26/2006 9:05 AM

SheaHeyKid said...

That's why I say you sit them down and explain that oil revenue is going to be split equally among the provinces, regardless of location. Anything else is a non-starter. Then, once that's out of the way, if they can't find a way to leave together peacefully (and they haven't for 14 centuries so I'm not sure how we're going to change that), you allow a weak federal government with stronger regional authority and autonomy. Not total autonomy, which is what Turkey opposes, but somewhere in the middle. If we try to force strong federal government there's only two results: (1) we stay a lot longer than we need to, and (2) it dissolves into loose association of regions anyway once we leave, either in practice or by bloody civil war.

The most important thing is to get some sort of infrastructure in place that everyone in the country buys into, and gives them a reason to avoid civil war as well as rebuff outside advances (Iran, Syria,...)

10/26/2006 3:12 PM