by Patrick Lang
“Now Sunni Arab leaders were gearing up to try to veto the constitution at the ballot box. “With this result, the Sunni Arabs will be able to defeat the constitution, if there is honesty and an international supervision on the process,” al-Mutlaq said. “I am sure if there is honesty, 95 percent of Sunni Arabs will vote no.” Yahoo/AP
 Col. Patrick W. Lang (Ret.), a highly decorated retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces, served as “Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism” for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and was later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. Col. Lang was the first Professor of the Arabic Language at the United States Military Academy at West Point. For his service in the DIA, he was awarded the “Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive.” He is a frequent commentator on television and radio, including PBS’s Newshour, and most recently on MSNBC’s Hardball and NPR’s “All Things Considered.” His CV and blog are linked below the fold. |
Whetber the Bush Administration realizes it or not, the best chance it has to salvage its position in Iraq lies in defeat of the constitutional proposal in the referendum this month.
This may seem counter-intuitive, but the reason for this conclusion is compelling. The administration has refused for two and a half years to accept the basic truth that the Sunni insurgencies that afflict the country receive widespread support from the Sunni Arab population in the form of logistics, concealment, transportation, intelligence, etc. Recently government spokesmen have begun to sound as though they might be learning that this is true. I am sure that Ambassador Khalilzad is too sophisticated not to understand this and his recent actions in Baghdad in attempting to have the Shia government modify the constitution in favor of the Sunni Arabs show this.
The Sunni Arabs are supporting the insurgencies because they are unwilling to accept the radical re-distribution of power and wealth on the basis of “one man, one vote” that we are sponsoring. Why are we doing that? It is because we believe, deeply, that justice in voting rights for INDIVIDUALS produces government that embodies a “National Compact” that is accepted by all.
The Middle East is not like that. In the Middle East people self-identify in a number of ways, only one of which is at the level of the individual.
More importantly, people there predominately see themselves as members of COMMUNITIES of various kinds whether they be ethno-religious, tribal, clan, regional or just plain family. A system that strips an indivdual’s community of power and wealth is inevitably going to be seen as HOSTILE and to be defeated.
On Fox News yesterday a former Assistant Secretary of the Army said that political accomodation would not produce an acceptable result in Iraq and that the solution lies in unlimited application of force against the Sunni Arab population until “they give up” supporting the guerrillas. As appalling as this idea is, it has to be acknowledged that an unlimited application of force sometimes produces this result. I could give examples in the history of counterinsurgency warfare. Are we going to do that? NO!! NO!! We are not going to do that. The American people would not allow it.
If that is the case, then the only rational approach is to change the political circumstance that call forth resistance on the part of the Sunni Arabs of Iraq.
The international Jihadis are another matter. …
Continued BELOW:
 Intelligence: The Human Factor (Securing Our Nation) By Patrick Lang Editor: Larry C. Johnson |
The international Jihadis are another matter. They have no goal but the creation of Sharia states. There is nothing to do with them but “hunt them down” as President Bush likes to say.
If the constitution is ratified unmodified, Sunni Arab support for the insurgents will continue. If it is defeated, then it may be possible to convince all concerned that the interests of the Sunni Arabs as a COMMUNITY must be safe guarded if there is to be any chance of a cessation of hostilities against the Iraqi nationalists.
Personal Blog: Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005 || Bio || CV
Recommended Books || More BooTrib <a href="Posts
Novel: The Butcher’s Cleaver (download free by chapter, PDF format)
“Drinking the Kool-Aid,” Middle East Policy Council Journal, Vol. XI, Summer 2004, No. 2
Ah, reality. An antidote to Bush’s blather.
(He has a good speechwriter though … i’m sure he didn’t write a word of it.)
Funny thing, democracy, isn’t it?
The US has no interst in people being self-determined, we don’t even allow it here…thanks as always, for a great post!
We truly have no interest in democracy elsewhere — hence our long policy of supporting dictators.
But it’s a nice charade that fools almost half the American people. Sigh.
I worry deeply about the Iraqi people. They deserve better than this bloody, unstable fate .. at least with Saddam they had some electricity and a sewer system and didn’t get shot on the street all the time. Jesus.
If the constitution isn’t ratified, what happens then?
If the constitution isn’t ratified the entire process goes all the way back to the beginning, with a country-wide public vote for provisional representatives like the one that was staged in the beginning of this year, (the pruple finger election).
However, with increasing Shiite/Sunni/Kurd friction resulting from the power struggles over control of the country’s wealth, it’s not yet clear exactly how a political process will be able to move forward unless the ambition of the major players is radically moderated and a realistic understanding of the social dynamics in the region plays a central role in devising a political process that will allow true opportunity for all. And of course crooks and swindlers like Chalabi would have to be excised from any positions of power.
From a broader perspective, I’d say the US goal is for civil war to continue to manifest, and with this in mind I am fairly certain US operatives on the ground like Khalilizad will make certain real democracy and anything remotely resembling equal opportunity for all Iraqis will never come about. By it’s support for this current constitution, (which disenfranchises the basic individual rights for women and which elevates religious authority over secular democratic authority), the Bush regime has already shown they have little interest in real democracy or real self-determination for the Iraqi citizenry. And, sadly, there’s no reason to think this US position is going to change.
I am guessing that the final upshot will be some kind of federation (Kurd/Sunni/Shia) perhaps with some profit sharing since the Sunni portion doesn’t have much oil. Of course Turkey says they won’t accept an independent Kurdish state. . . .
First off, I think you will, by hook or by crook see the constitution ratified this month. Going from no Sunni Arab turnout to heavy Sunni Arab turnout (which is needed since some majority Sunni areas have a significant non-Sunni minority and they need two-thirds in three provinces), is not an easy thing.
After that is done, one of the first things that will happen, in addition to a new election for a non-transitional government (which will likey have far fewer parties running now that the first election has shaken out coalitions a little), is that the South will quickly form an autonomous region, probably called Sumer, to play on history, to rival the Northern Kurdistan. Sunni’s will be underrepresented in the non-transitional parliament vote and as a result in the larger government, but will finally get real political representation at the provincial government level which will be very hostile to the central government.
The bottom line is that the new non-transitional government will be overhauling the law in their favor, to redesign the country, and the Sunnis are going to be entirely shut out of the process and return to an armed struggle unless provincial authority approaches near total autonomy.
The result will likely be an intensification of the civil war.
A tribal religious people are kicked out of power by an invading aliens that treat them like scum. In every novel, motion picture, and in history, people have fought back. Most peoples successfully gain their freedom unless faced with overwhelming power and force of Rome or the USA.
Why is the USA replaying the Vietnam War instead of previous victories against North American Natives, Philippines, Japan, Germany and Central America:
As currently being fought pn the cheap without a political settlement acceptable to the Sunnis, the US will sooner or later will be forced out of Iraq.
You’re good.
Hope you’ll write more on this in a diary.
I agree with all your individual points. The only thing for me is that I see the significance of them all differently, because i believe the goal ofthe US in this Iraq conflict is to perpetuate the conflict with the idea of widening it to engulf the entire region, rather than attempting to achieve stability.
Under this rubric, all the “incompetence” all the misreading of the reality on the ground, all the monumental strategic blunders, (from low troop levels and inadequate armor and artillery, to the failure to secure the ammo dumps in the aftermath of the invasion, [insuring a huge supply of munitions available to the insurgents]); all of these “blunders can be seen as part of a process to help guarantee stability will not take place.
Regarding the long term agenda of the government, it’s different with Iraq than it was with Vietnam. In Vietnam, despite the false premise upon which we started that debacle, the goal of the US govt. in the end had been to defeat a communist effort to pull the country into it’s sphere. In short, the US wanted to “win” the war they were fighting there and bring the conflict to an end. In Iraq, I believe “Winning” entails perpetuating the conflict, not resolving it.
Tell me why in the name of god they’d want instability. It makes no sense … it’d harm the oil supply, etc., etc.
Not necessarily. The old divide and conquer theory of colonial powers. As long as the Sunni and Shi’ia are fighting they will both need money and the only way they have for that is selling oil. And maybe the worst prospect if the Sunni and Shi’ia stopped fighting, they might unite as they have done in the past to drive the occcupier out. Moqtada al Sadr is their worst nightmare as he could unite Iraqis.
They want to create a region wide climate of instability in order that they may gain control of virtually all the petroleum resources in the region. They want control of the oil in Iran and Saudi Arabia too, not just in Iraq. More instability means weaker government structures means less resistance to an ultimateUS takeover sometime before “peak oil” grips the planet.
No country on the planet with significant energy resources is safe from US aggression. Even the Saudis know that at some point in the not too distant future it’s likely the US would attack them too to seize control of the oil fields.
Obviously this crackpot scheme by the neocons will notbring the desired result. Civilization as we know it would collapse under the weight of such insanity. But, we need to remember that, ideologically, these ambitious and powermad neocon loonies are not rational beings. They believe, just as all the others before them who’ve sought empire have believed, that their own plan for global hegemony will work despite the clear historical record that shows it won’t. They’re so infatuated with their own ideology that they’re incapable of perceiving it’s fatal flaws.
Pinochet, for instance, even now, doesn’t understand that his murderous behavior and ideology contained the seeds of it’s own destruction. Hitler blamed his ultimate failure on the lack of support from the German people, and he was willing to see Germany destroyed just to punish them. Cheney and his gang are no different from these previous megalomaniacal sociopaths.
I’ve seen similar comments that the Bush Administration intention is to perpetuate a never ending war, keeping the Middle East in perpetual conflict. Incompetence touched by a loony ideology is the best explanation of a policy that is counter to the USA’s national interests.
I may have ideological blinders just as polarizing as the neo-cons. But, I can see the alienated, disenfranchised and humiliated, instigating a never ending insurrection until they gain their freedom or their grievances are settled. American Colonials fought for 8 years. But, the Super State cannot fight a never ending colonial war. They must have peace at home in order to tax and accumulate the power and wealth necessary to conquer the periphery. The farther away the insurrection and the harder it impacts the homeland through death, taxes and lost business, the sooner the war will end.
If at anytime the Iraq War becomes actually in the national interest, then the draft will start, taxes will be raised and all extra-ordinary means used to win the war. This will be either a nuclear strike or a shut off of Middle East oil. I believe in incompetence because continuing the ongoing insurrection in Iraq without a political settlement increases these threats to the State rather than decreasing them without gaining the State anything in return. All that Iraqi oil in the ground doesn’t do anyone any good while the insurrection continues.
One might argue that the Middle East in perpetual conflict will ease Israel’s apartheid of Palestine. But, this is has nothing to do with aiding the USA’s national interest.
Keeping the war going to avoid the appearance of a humiliating defeat and staying in power is incompetence of a reoccurring nature.
I’m not sure what the central point is you’re making, unless it’s that “incompetence” of BushCo is the primary or central problem around which the Iraq debacle is being played out. I understand the rationale behind this perspective, but I just don’t agree.
I believe the so-called “incompetence” is in many ways deliberate. This is not to say that I think someone like General Meyers knows what he’s doing and is is deliberately orchestrating military failure. Meyers, after all is a loyal follower of the regime and even without his koolaid diet he doesn’t come across as the brightest bulb in the room.
No, what I’m saying is that the policy, the big decisions from the suits in the Pentagon and elsewhere are designed to ensure that “peace” or “stability” in the MidEast doesn’t break out before we’ve positioned ourselves to seize control of the regions resources. In short, Peace is the enemy of the Bush regime, at least in the short term.
I would challenge anyone to name even merely 2 or 3 major policy or strategy decisions in this whole mess that might refute the simple view I take. As a matter of fact, can anyone name even 1 major US decision in this Iraq mess that refutes my position?
Reading what I wrote here I can see how it could be interpreted as somewhat snarky or aggressive. Such is not my intent and I hope you don’t take it that way.
the first reason to doubt a deliberate plan of failure (and that is what you are really saying) in Iraq is that it might have cost them the election. It’s true that they hyped the threat of WMD, but they never thought they wouldn’t find even a thimbleful to justify their invasion.
But there is a second reason.
The invasion of Iraq created a win-win situation for the neo-cons. If we succeeded in quickly pacifying the country, we would get all the contracts to rebuild their armed forces (a project probably bigger than we had for the Shah’s Iran), we would get the oil/gas/construction contracts, etc. Plus, they would be victorious warriors pushing for democracy in the middle east.
But if we encountered an intractable insurgency, it would cost billions to fight them, and money would pour into defense contractor’s coffers. It would also give us an excuse to stay in the region militarily and apply pressure to the Syrians and Iranians.
So, no matter what happened the right people would get rich. But, obviously the first scenario would have been preferable.
There are several reasons the Bush administration took actions that assured the second scenario. Believing their own propaganda (chocolates and flowers) is part of it. Being duped by the Iranians (disbanding the army and purging the Ba’athists) is a part of it.
But there is more. Rumsfeld used too few troops for at least two reasons. One, it was part of his theory on light mobile forces. Two, it was a lot easier to convince Congress with the reduced committment and associated cost.
And then there is the ideological blindness of the Fukuyama group, that thinks we have reached the end of history, and all peoples are prepared for democracy.
It’s a mix of myopia, wishful thinking, greed, and incompetence. But it is not an orchestrated plan to fail.
Here’s where I see things differently.
Let’s say the Iraq invasion did result in the creation of a stable, violence free self-determinant Iraqi government that served the best interests of the population. Let’s say the western world became convinced that this was an excellent start on the road to spreading democracy to the entire MidEast region.
What would the be the reason why the US public would support keeping the majority of our troops there? And if there was pressure from home to withdraw our troops in the face of a peaceful environment in Iraq, what would be the leverage we’d have for advancing the supposed goal of spreading democracy throughout the region? What would be the incentive for any of the other countries in the region to embrace democracy if the threat of military aggression was pulled off the table?
Even if I were to believe that BushCo wanted to spread Democracy in the region, I don’t see how they’d possibly do it without military aggression and without the constant threat of military aggression.
For me, whether they want to keep instability going or whether they want to establish stability through some form of faux democracy, the US has no functional leverage in the region except through military force. This is the “Catch-22” in the whole crackpot scheme. Peace and security in Iraq would lead to the withdrawl of US troops andonce the troops are withdrawn the US has no more power to force the Arabs to do anything unless we invade somewhere else.
are wrong about this. We have a massive military relationship with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and formerly the biggest of all time with the Shah.
That was the goal for Iraq. Another client state that our military supplied and trained, with our intelligence services providing the praetorian guard and intelligence.
What we are witnessing is the back-up plan.
I would point out that our military relationship with Saudi Arabia is the smallest now that it’s ever been. Same with Egypt. Our relationship with Iran is now as an adversary, without even the illusion of the client-state status once enjoyed by Shah Pahlavi.
You say;
That was the game when Reagan sent Rumsfeld to Baghdad to connive with Saddam. That’s when the Reagan administration was arming Saddam against Iran. That was the James Baker, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft game of letting the Arabs do what they wanted as long as they’d deal with us on the oil. These guys were focused on maintaining the oil supply and making lots of money. But that game has been over since 1990, and the new arbiters of US policy, the neocon maniacs who’ve hijacked the executive branch of our government, aren’t interested in playing that kind of game anymore.
The Cheney gang has a different game, and that’s the one being played now. It’s not about client states anymore, and it’s not about letting the Arabs do what they want vis a vis their own societies as long as they keep the oil spigot open for the US. No.
Now there’s far too much competition for the available oil, and the quantity of oil being pumped out of the ground is almost at the point of inevitable decline. Additionally, the US is no longer the “singular” preferred economy in the world. So where it was formerly true that the petro Arab states once saw an overwhelming advantage to following US “guidance” in return for favorable treatment with both huge amounts of money and cutting edge technology, now the US no longer retains this exclusive status in the global economy. (China, for instance, gets most of it’s oil from Iran and Rusia is working on quite a few partnershipagreements with Iran on oil and natural gas and nuclear collaboration.) Cheney and Co. know this and so their agenda is not to pussyfoot around but to rather start the conflagration that will destabilize the entire region in order to make it more possible for the US to not only gain exclusive control of the petroleum reserves for their own use in the US, but to use the control of that valuable resource to destroy the economic strength of those nations, (the EU and China, most notably), who threaten American dominance in the global economy.
I don’t know how much you may know or remember about the drug wars between the Mafia and the Columbians. There were no good guys on either side of this gangland conflict, but the wanton and indiscriminate brutality of the Columbian gangsters made the Mafia guys look like choir boys by comparison,(not exactly of course, but you get the idea). I liken the Scowcroft, Baker, Powell, Carlyle Group types to the Mafia and the Cheney, Perle, Ledeen, Feith gang to the Columbians. Powell, Scowcroft, et. al. lost the battle for control of the White House and Pentagon to the neocons, and that’s why the game is different now.
what shifted was the power within the GOP. In order to get elected Bush had to fashion himself a born-again allied with Israel, rather than an oil-man allied with Arabs, like his father. It’s a schtick, in my opinion, but it doesn’t change the fact that real power has shifted from the former Bush sources of income to a new source.
Cheney orchestrated the privatization of military services when he was Defense Secretary. Halliburton scooped up many of the contracts and made Cheney CEO as a reward.
While Bush pere was setting up to benefit off military equipment through Carlyle, others like Cheney were looking to benefit off Pentagon contracts and subcontracts for meals, cargo, mercenaries, etc.
Where we differ is that I don’t take Bush’s ravings seriously. By which I mean, they are seriously dangerous, but they are not genuine.
Bush is still the father’s son, but to gain power and hold it he has had to make a different coalition rich. He also has had to pander to a different base (primarily christian zionists, rather than xenophobic shopkeepers).
What Bush would like is big contracts. He will get them either way, but he will get them with the least hassle by arming Iraq, not blowing Iraq to bits.
Like I said, we are seeing the back-up plan.
I’m deeply appreciative of your reference to the “Bush Crime Family”, because that is what they are; a gang of criminals going back to the days before WWII.
But while I agree that the Bush Crime Family, as an entity, plays a role in this current debacle, I don’t believe they play the lead role anymore.
Are they still making money hand over fist through Carlyle? Sure they are. But it is not the Bush Family, nor the hapless George W. Bush himself calling the shots anymore. The architecture of US policy in the MidEast and elsewhere originates in the Vice President’s office, not the oval office. Cheney has the ultimate control over the Pentagon and the Intel services, (especially now with the installation of GOP wingnut Porter Goss at CIA). Pere Bush has no real influence over policy or events, and in the end neither do Baker, Scowcroft or any of their Defense Policy board pals. Even the criminal Frank Carlucci, head of Carlyle, has seen his personal influence on behalf of Carlyle’s bottom line diminish in the face of the ascendancy of the neocons in the executive branch.
We may not be able to persuade each other of our perspectives in this thread, but time will tell. In the meantime, I’ll continue to watch for even one scintilla of evidence that indicates to me that the Bush regime really is seeking stbility in Iraq and that’ it’s just incompetence that’s prevented them from achieving it. So far I haven’t seen any.
I agree with much of what you are saying and if you read carefully, I said as much.
Two things changed. The GOP changed, and the areas ripe for looting changed. Cheney is in charge and looting accordingly, which makes his coalition richer than the old Poppy Bush coalition.
But Dubya has his feet in both worlds.
Again, they stand to make more money with less risk by simply pacifying Iraq, rearming it, and sticking around to advise, train, and run their intelligence agencies and praetorian guard.
No one needed this headache. But they are stilling getting rich.
I agree with you too on most of what you’re saying, but the fundamental difference is that where you say;
I would say that they’re not interested in spending the time and effort to set up a new client state. They want to go from one provocation to the next leaving chaos in their wake as they widen the grip of their militaristic tyranny.
I agree they certainly miscalculated about how easy they thought it’d be for them to run through first Iraq and then Syria and then Iran, but their plan is to still do those things regardless of the cost in blood and money to the US. And, most importantly such a plan for serial invasions cannot be implemented if their are islands of civil stability that might cause the population here at home to demand bringing the troops home. This is why the conflict needs to be unceasing. This is why they had plans from the outset to build the 14 huge permanent military bases in Iraq. There was never any intention to bring the troops home and they knew the only way they’d have a chance to keep them in the field was if the violence continued. This is why in the immediate aftermath of the invasion no effort was spent to secure the ammo dumps. they knew they needed to weaponize their opponents in order to keep the excuse for staying there alive.
I’d be willing to bet that if our soldiers had been allowed to secure all the munitions in the immediate time period following the assault, that there’d be virtually no effective insurgency today. (For me, this is a perfect example of what I meant previously characterizing the difference between the “Mafia”types and the “Columbian drug gang” types.) The George Sr., Scowcroft, Baker regime would never have allowed this kind of thing to happen in their invasion. But the Cheney gang marches to the beat of a much more bloodthirsty and traitorous drummer.
In any case, let’s see what happens. I hope I live long enough to see the end of this catastrophe.
P.S. Watch for a significant ratcheting up of the nuclear rhetoric over the next several months. The neocons will try to reignite this fear in advance of the ’06 elections because they’re afraid of losing votes to approve their funding. Such a propaganda plan on their part will fail I think, but not for lack of trying.
Watch also for spreading conflict in Lebanon, another victim of US policy.
Not buying it.
They are greedy and evil but they are not as evil as you assume. The bases in Iraq were intended to replace bases lost in Arabia and we assumed they would be integrated into the rebuilding project. A few would be for the air force training centers, for example. We were just creating Florida in Mesopotamia. We’ve done this before in Iran and Egypt. It’s not as insidious as you assume.
As long as we were welcome as we are in Jordan for example, we don’t need huge forces. And if they are mainly F-16 mechanics and armored combat instructors it is no different than our deployments in several other countries.
As for plans to smash Syria and Iran, that would have been done after consolidating Iraq and would have involved a political, economic, and military component. Above all, we want to rebuild their militaries, oil is a second, third or fourth consideration.
In my opinion.
I hope I’m wrong and you are right.
if the neocons are going to keep on “winning”, (i.e. profiting), they must keep a large troop presence in the region, and the only way to do that is to keep the levels of violence in Iraq high.
If the constitution isn’t ratified, what happens then?
There is an election in December to choose a new government, that will write a new Constitution. Basically back up a year and start the farce all over again.
Death Squads and Diplomacy
The main, and well-deserved, target of Saud’s ire was the increasingly authoritarian and brutal rule of the main Iraqi Shiite parties, especially the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), whose Badr Brigade militia are terrorizing Iraq’s secular, urban Shiite population and carrying out death-squad attacks against Sunnis. The attacks against the Sunnis are aimed not only at the Iraqi armed resistance but at secular, nationalist Sunni leaders and activists.
…
Countless atrocities, too, have been perpetrated by Sunni gangs and by terrorists associated with Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. But the killings by the Shiite militias are far more chilling because they have an entirely different quality: They are carried out by gunmen tied to the U.S.-supported regime in Baghdad. They don’t draw criticism from U.S. officials, and most American media reports continue to portray the Shiites as victims and the Sunnis as aggressors.
Still, it is the ferocity of the Shiite fanaticism governing Iraq today, and the ruling circle’s ever-closer ties to Iran, that prompted Prince Saud to warn of a regional civil war sparked by the Shiites. He brought that message to Washington last week, talking to senators and to the Washington press corps.
…
The secretary-general of the Arab League is going to Baghdad on a mission to find common ground among Iraq’s warring factions, including the Iraqi Sunni-led resistance. And the League is putting together a plan to convene a conference led by Iraq’s Arab neighbors along with all Iraqi factions, in an effort to prevent civil war and stabilize the country. It’s a very important step, one that probably does not have much more than token support from the Bush administration, which is stuck on its stay-the-course fantasy of a victory strategy.
there’s more…
Obviously, this is far from over…
I think unless there is some electoral cheating on a scale larger than Ohio, the constitution will not be ratified. I would guess that at least 4 provinces and maybe even Baghdad itself will vote no.
The cheating will mostly be in Ninevah where there is 1.7 million Sunnis and only about 200,00 Kurds and other minorites. The US army was helping the Kurds with electoral cheating in the purple finger election in that province.
It is always very welcome (and inspiring) to have input from experts in any field.
We all have opinions, but we are not experts (just angry). Real independent knowledge, such as Patrick’s, is the best counteraction to official lies and spin.