cfr.org Interview on Iraq

by Patrick Lang (bio below)

The Council on Foreign Affairs folks talked to me today about the present inter-communal violence in Iraq.

Pat Lang

Lang: Political Process Will Move Forward in Iraq, Despite Sectarian Violence

Introduction & First Question:

Interviewee: W. Patrick Lang
Interviewer: Lionel Beehner, Staff Writer

February 24, 2006
“Save this country,” U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad pleaded with Iraqi leaders on February 24. The bombing of a golden-domed shrine in Samarra sacred to Shiites set off a fury of reprisal attacks that left at least 138 people dead, including several prominent Sunni clerics. A curfew was called to restore order. Shiite leaders urged restraint, as Iraq descended to a level of anarchy and sectarian violence unprecedented in the postwar period. Headlines around the globe warned of civil war. The New York Times claimed “political talks are in ruins.” Yet W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Affairs and Counterterrorism at the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, disagrees with these pronouncements. He doesn’t believe the attack on the Askariya Shrine will scuttle the political process, nor does he think it will impede the insurgency. In an interview with cfr.org, Lang discusses the looming threat of a general civil war, the role of Shiite militias in stoking violence, and what this all means for U.S. forces in Iraq.

What should the U.S. response be to this latest round of violence in Iraq?

LANG: There’s really nothing we can do about it. We lit a fuse on this by the kind of political process we’ve been sponsoring, which is clearly reversing the social order in Iraq to the unhappiness of the Sunnis. The Shiites have been pretty quiet because the electoral process has clearly been going in the direction of handing power over to them. Leaders have urged [Shiites] to be quiet, and not carry out reprisals. But this [latest attack against the shrine] is such an outrage from their point of view. This is like blowing up St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. … Read all

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 MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann (interview), CNN and Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room (interview), PBS’s Newshour, NPR’s “All Things Considered,” (interview), and more .

Personal Blog: Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005 || Bio || CV
Recommended Books || More BooTrib 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

4 Comments

Arminius on February 25, 2006 at 2:02 am

Col. Lang, who do you think was behind the professional attack on the mosque in Samarra? Do you have any evidence for your belief?

Your remarks are interesting, but I don’t give them much weight. For what it’s worth, usually I give a lot more credit to your comments, and I’m very grateful to have a chance to read them on this blog! I speak as a lawyer with many clients from the middle east.

Dean Pajevic on February 25, 2006 at 2:28 am

Arminius, it’s past 2 a.m. Pat’s time, so I sent him an e-mail to make sure he sees your Qs.
idredit on February 25, 2006 at 9:11 am

I agree with you Arminius that it’s unlikely the political process can go forward. While I respect Mr Lang’s expertise, I think events have overtaken his positions as stated in the CFR piece.

In NPR’s Weekend Edition this AM, the reporting out of Iraq confirms the Shias accusing US Ambassador Khalilzad as siding with the Sunnis and that the daytime curfew is being ignored.

Two months forward after the elections, and a government has yet to be seated. The Sunnis have pulled out of negotiations.

The current Iraq situation is closer to the analysis of Prof. Juan Cole, given in an interview with Jim Lobe, IPS News here in

“US Holds Its Breath in Aftermath of Mosque Bombimg”

excerpt

[..]

Khalilzad has been pressing the main Shiite coalition, which is currently six votes short of an absolute majority in the new parliament, to accommodate several key Sunni demands in order to create a government of national unity.

[..]
Over the past two weeks, Khalilzad had become increasingly outspoken on these issues, particularly on the importance of purging the police, which has been accused of shielding “death squads” tied to Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (SCIRI) and the Mahdi Army, of sectarian influences.

Indeed, on the eve of the bombing of the Golden Mosque, Khalilzad suggested publicly that Washington was prepared withdraw its “billions of dollars” in support to Iraq’s security forces, declaring, “We are not going to invest the resources of the American people to build forces run by people who are sectarian.”

That warning, in particular, provoked bitter reactions among Shiite leaders after the bombing. SCIRI’s powerful leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who has long complained about U.S. efforts to curb the Badr Brigade, charged that Khalilzad had “contributed to greater pressure (on the Shiites) and gave a green light to terrorist groups, and he therefore bears a part of the responsibility.”

Looks more like we’re either fanning the flames, sending mix signals or, as occupiers, have lost our influence and “that we are weak”. Not a good omen. We’ve become isolated in the midst of a civil war.

philinmaine on February 25, 2006 at 6:41 am

If we’re posting questions…Is there a US military solution for stability in Iraq and if so, what

If the US cannot reduce troop levels by 50-60,000 by October will that affect US elections

If troop levels cannot safely be reduced how long can we maintain the current level and still have an effective military

Is there unanimity of purpose and mission within the chain of command or will there be a public break before long (will one of the generals make a public comment)

Arminius on February 25, 2006 at 2:02 am

Col. Lang, who do you think was behind the professional attack on the mosque in Samarra? Do you have any evidence for your belief?

Your remarks are interesting, but I don’t give them much weight. For what it’s worth, usually I give a lot more credit to your comments, and I’m very grateful to have a chance to read them on this blog! I speak as a lawyer with many clients from the middle east.
- Dean Pajevic on February 25, 2006 at 2:28 am
  
  Arminius, it’s past 2 a.m. Pat’s time, so I sent him an e-mail to make sure he sees your Qs.
- idredit on February 25, 2006 at 9:11 am
  
  I agree with you Arminius that it’s unlikely the political process can go forward. While I respect Mr Lang’s expertise, I think events have overtaken his positions as stated in the CFR piece.
  
  In NPR’s Weekend Edition this AM, the reporting out of Iraq confirms the Shias accusing US Ambassador Khalilzad as siding with the Sunnis and that the daytime curfew is being ignored.
  
  Two months forward after the elections, and a government has yet to be seated. The Sunnis have pulled out of negotiations.
  
  The current Iraq situation is closer to the analysis of Prof. Juan Cole, given in an interview with Jim Lobe, IPS News here in
  
  “US Holds Its Breath in Aftermath of Mosque Bombimg”
  
  excerpt
  
  [..]
  
  Khalilzad has been pressing the main Shiite coalition, which is currently six votes short of an absolute majority in the new parliament, to accommodate several key Sunni demands in order to create a government of national unity.
  
  [..]
  Over the past two weeks, Khalilzad had become increasingly outspoken on these issues, particularly on the importance of purging the police, which has been accused of shielding “death squads” tied to Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (SCIRI) and the Mahdi Army, of sectarian influences.
  
  Indeed, on the eve of the bombing of the Golden Mosque, Khalilzad suggested publicly that Washington was prepared withdraw its “billions of dollars” in support to Iraq’s security forces, declaring, “We are not going to invest the resources of the American people to build forces run by people who are sectarian.”
  
  That warning, in particular, provoked bitter reactions among Shiite leaders after the bombing. SCIRI’s powerful leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who has long complained about U.S. efforts to curb the Badr Brigade, charged that Khalilzad had “contributed to greater pressure (on the Shiites) and gave a green light to terrorist groups, and he therefore bears a part of the responsibility.”
  
  Looks more like we’re either fanning the flames, sending mix signals or, as occupiers, have lost our influence and “that we are weak”. Not a good omen. We’ve become isolated in the midst of a civil war.
philinmaine on February 25, 2006 at 6:41 am

If we’re posting questions…Is there a US military solution for stability in Iraq and if so, what

If the US cannot reduce troop levels by 50-60,000 by October will that affect US elections

If troop levels cannot safely be reduced how long can we maintain the current level and still have an effective military

Is there unanimity of purpose and mission within the chain of command or will there be a public break before long (will one of the generals make a public comment)

cfr.org Interview on Iraq

About The Author

Patrick Lang

4 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments