A Welcoming Community
|
Yawn suppressors are by the nap time mats
|
Please recommend (and unrecommend the Cafe/Lounge from earlier)
|
PINR, the acronym for Power and Interest News Report, an international intellegince/strategic forecasting agency that provides priceless analysis of all parts of the world, has just released its first report on Iraq in since late December and its first since last week’s mosque bombing. (for early analysis of the Iraqi elections, see here) I have been waiting for PINR to weigh in, and this report puts the dots together for in a way I had not been able to do on my own. The upshot of the report is that the US’s goals main goals are now largely unachievable and that the political/military conflicts in the country are now, for all intents and purposes, outside the United States’s hands.
So what, you ask. Why should I care what this PINR thinks? Well, this isn’t just some newspaper columnist or academic pontificating, even a good one. This is a serious organization with a long list of important and powerful global clients. They aren’t paid to make idle guesses. According to their website,
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader.
Services
PINR releases, free to the public, three types of analysis. The primary type of analysis is our in-depth reports, usually released on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The goal of this type of analysis is to provide readers an understanding of a conflict using the methods of power and interest political science; these analyses flesh out the historical basis and current state of a conflict and offer long-term guidance on the issues involved.
The second type of analysis is the Intelligence Brief, released on Tuesdays and Thursdays. These analyses are brief in length and do not provide as many details as the in-depth reports. They do, however, often contain links to past in-depth reports in case the reader needs more information on a particular point. The purpose of the Intelligence Brief is to provide the latest information on a particular conflict and to provide “actionable intelligence” to readers who are affected by that conflict.
The third type of analysis is the Economic Brief. This new service offers brief analyses on conflicts over strategic markets and products, the power relationships behind multilateral deals and agreements, instances of economic nationalism and its effects on corporate competition and geopolitics, and competition among currencies and its geopolitical significance. Other economic subjects that relate to these subject areas may also be covered in the Economic Brief.
Organizations that have utilized PINR’s analyses include, but are not limited to:
United States Army
United States Air Force
United States Defense Intelligence Agency
United States Agency for International Development
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Voice of America
Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center
Australian Department of Defense
Government Information Office, Republic of China on Taiwan
Taiwan Institute of Economic Research
Center for Security Studies at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Eurasia Foundation
WGN Radio 720 Chicago
Southwest Florida Public Radio
Chicago Public Radio
Boston Public Radio
Monterey Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council
American Enterprise Institute
Asia Times
Times of Central Asia
Tufts University
Australian National University
Global Policy Forum
World Security Network
So in other words, as you can see, these folks are serious. Now on to the meat of their latest report. The whole thing is quite long, and I encourage you to read it all, as it goes into a great deal of depth about recent political, social, and economic developments within the country.
Rather than extensively summarize this background, the upshot is that each of the three major groups within the states borders of Iraq have “red lines” upon which they are unwilling to compromise. Zalmay Khalizad’s recent public “pressure,” is, in this context not so much a bargaining device as it is a sign of frustration and, perhaps, resignation at the intractability of this process.
Beyond this, however, the report highlighted several major developments that have completely flown under the radar of the western media which I’d like to highlight:
According to a study conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs which was released in January
As to the Sunni population, a survery conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and reported in the Washington Times in February 1 found that:
A final interesting tidbit is some of the stuff the report provides about the Kurds, who have been largely silent in the recent Sunni-Shi’ite standoff. Indeed, a telling interview given by Massoud Barzani (leader of the PDK, one of the two major Kurdish Parties) to Al-Arabiya television on February 10:
Barzani said that Kurdistan would secede from Iraq if a Sunni-Shi’a civil war broke out and forthrightly declared that the Kurds had a right to their own independent state, although “we are aware of the international and internal circumstances” standing in the way of one.
Also on the Kurdish front, US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad recently published an opinion piece (the report doesn’t say where, I found this link to the article in question at Kurd Media stressing the need for a national unity government, which to Iraqi Shi’ite and Kurdish eyes, appears (as does much of Khalilzad’s rhetoric) as arguing the Sunni position foursquare. Indeed, as the PINR report argues, Khalilzad, usually lauded in the western press as a diplomatic miracle worker (certainly an exaggeration, although he is a very good and experienced diplomat) is see as having “incorporated the entire Sunni position into his list of demands,” and thus is no longer seen as a credible broker by either the Kurds or Shi’ites.
In this vein, in a response article by Kurdish political advisor Rebwah Fatah, also appearing in Kurdish media sources (which I have also traced to the same Kurdish Media website, argued the following, which actually kind of shocked me:
Khalilzad’s blueprint for Iraqi national unity will be as successful as the British Iraq. The difference is that in the early 20th century, imposing superficial nation-states over ethnic and religious groups was possible by bloodshed, but in the 21st century, the mission of Iraqi national unity shall remain a myth.
To sum up the importance of this, an advisor/political scientist to the US’s principal ally within the Iraqi state is comparing the US’s role presently to that of the British in the aftermath of WWI , . .
To conclude, the report puts the dots together:
The moment of reckoning has arrived in post-Ba’athist Iraq and none of the major players shows a trace of the will to compromise that would be necessary to construct a genuine nation-state, in which diverse social groups have an overriding commitment to live together.
Even if civil war is averted in the short term and a government is formed, that government will not be a genuine national-unity administration, but an arena of conflict between contending power groups. In one of the most astute observations on the situation by an Iraqi politician, Abdul-Mahdi — the S.C.I.R.I.-backed candidate in the U.I.A.’s election for the prospective prime minister — shrugged off his loss, saying that any new government would not be popular and would not be likely to serve out a four-year term.
A weak central government, which seems to be inevitable, will be starved for funds and will have trouble enforcing security given the preponderant slide toward confederal regionalism. Ministerial portfolios will be allocated according to ethnic-religious groups, and ministries will tend to coalesce into self-enclosed fiefdoms — as they already have in the transitional government — that effectively resist coordinated direction from high political officials. With each major bloc demanding positions with real power, there will not be enough to go around and dissatisfaction will build among those who feel they have been slighted.
Most importantly, the red lines that the contending players have drawn are not preliminary negotiating positions, but reflect deeply embedded perceptions of vital interests that are resistant to reconciliation.
Washington has neither the trust nor the credibility nor the resources to impose its blueprint and will have to watch its efforts unravel. Fatah, the Kurdish analyst, perceptively observed that “the frustration that Khalilzad demonstrates in his article could be interpreted as some degree of a resignation.” Increasingly resigned to the collapse of all its plans for Iraq, Washington has been placed in a no-win situation. It has no prospect of a graceful exit and seems fated to preside helplessly over Iraq’s disintegration.
The Bush administration is now officially in a state of collapse, and they are now looking for someone to blame. I suggest that given Cheney’s record-low standing in the polls that Bush and Rove may be planning to throw Cheney to the wolves after the midterm elections. I suggest this possibility because there has been a rash of anti-Cheney stories that are currently posted on Insight, the magazine of the Washington Times.
The most recent of the articles is an article suggesting that Cheney will retire after the mid-term elections. This, after a couple of articles suggested that Cheney, based on “anonymous sources” was taken out of the loop on Bush’s foreign policy decisions. We know that Karl Rove is a master of whisper campaigns. I suggest that he is planning to save his own skin. We know that Bush and Rove had a rift after Plamegate broke out. I suggest that they have patched up their differences the best they could and are now working together to tag team Cheney.
However, I suggest the rift between Bush and Cheney is even bigger than that between Bush and Rove. This rift, despite Bush’s protestations that he was fine with Rove telling him Cheney had pulled the trigger, could not have been helped by the fact that it was Rove and not Cheney who told Bush.
For Rove, his loyalties lie not with Cheney, but with Bush. Bush was the man who gave Rove a second chance after he had been fired by Bush’s father. Furthermore, Rove’s focus is totally on the PR and spin aspects of the Bush administration; as such, he has near absolute power in the White House. When the ship is sinking, it is not surprising that Rove would turn on Cheney due to the fact that Cheney is now politically radioactive.
Furthermore, the Constitution provides for the simultaneous removal from office of both the President and Vice President. If the Democrats get elected and somehow generate a 2/3’s majority in the Senate with Republicans anxious to save their own hides in advance of the 2008 election, and they also took control of the House, then Nancy Pelsoi would become the 44th President of the United States, as the House Speaker is the 3rd person in line to succeed the President and the Vice President.
This is a risk that the Bush administration cannot afford to take. Therefore, they are engaging in a whisper campaign against Cheney in order to isolate him and force him to step aside. As for who might replace him, I suggest that given the increasing access that Condolezza Rice has to the President, I suggest that Bush may be grooming Rice to take Cheney’s place.
We know that Rove’s goal is to build a permanent Republican majority. Therefore, throwing Cheney to the wolves would accomplish that by putting Rice in position to take over the White House should Bush be impeached and removed from office. This would give Rice time to charm the socks off of people and take advantage of the incumbency of the White House.
We also know that Rove and McCain do not get along, given the nasty and racist whisper campaign that Rove engaged in against McCain in the 2000 primary. I suggest that McCain has never forgiven Rove for that; people remarked that McCain was visibly uncomfortable around Bush and Rove during the 2004 election campaign. Elevating Rice to Vice President or President would not only scuttle any Democratic hopes of Pelsoi taking over as the 44th President, it would also cut the feet out from under John McCain and what could be his last attempt to take the White House; he would be 72 in 2008. It would also scuttle Giuliani’s candidacy; he has fallen out of favor with the Bush administration after his crony Bernard Kerik’s nomination failed.
Bush is also throwing other former neocons to the wolves as well. Bush is also plotting to get rid of Rumsfeld after the war ends either when Bush proclaims victory and goes home or our own troops force us out of Iraq by refusing to reenlist in droves. Bush has already cut Rumsfeld’s access to him, instead, relying on Rice and other sources outside the Pentagon for his briefing. And Bush has given Rumsfeld the Kiss of Death – he told him he was doing a “heck of a job” at one of the few public appearances the two men had together within the past year. That means it is only a matter of time before Rumsfeld leaves as well.
Bush is also throwing Elliot Abrams to the wolves as well – he has
completely shut him and the rest of the National Security Council out of the White House:
The ascent of Mr. Burns has come at the expense of the National Security Council, officials said. They said Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams has lost virtually all of his influence over U.S. policy. Mr. Abrams, who has been linked to the Bush family, has been an ardent supporter of Middle East democracy and Israel. He has urged an aggressive U.S. policy against Iran.
The neocons are rapidly losing influence at the White House, as Bush is blaming them for the failure of the Iraq War. This is evidenced by the rise of Nicholas Burns – an Arabist and an internationalist; Burns opposes regime change in Iran and Syria and has succeeded in getting Bush to distance himself from Israel as well. From the same link as above:
As a result, Mr. Burns, formally No. 3 in the State Department, has become the de facto director of U.S. foreign policy. Officials said his access to the president has sharply increased over the last four months and Mr. Burns has become a leading adviser to Mr. Bush on Europe and the Middle East.
Mr. Burns was U.S. ambassador to Greece, as well as to NATO in Belgium. He helped end the virtual U.S. boycott of France in 2004. The undersecretary also persuaded the president to adopt the European Union’s policy of dialogue with Iran to end its uranium enrichment program.
“The United States and Europe are natural allies–not identical twins,” Mr. Burns told the European Institute last month. “You’re more statist–we’re more free market. You think of the EU first–we think NATO. We’re convinced that the U.S. can win the World Cup–you probably think England or the Czech Republic or Spain will win.”
Still, Mr. Burns’ agenda is said to sharply differ from that of Mr. Bush’s first term. Officials said Mr. Burns has managed to sideline the president’s policy to introduce democracy and reform in the Middle East. The undersecretary persuaded Mr. Bush to waive human rights sanctions on a range of Arab and Islamic countries, including Indonesia, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.
“Condi has very little interest in the Middle East and regards her meetings with some leaders in the area with disdain,” an official said. “In contrast, Burns relishes his contacts with Arab leaders.”
Mr. Burns has also encouraged Mr. Bush to increase pressure on Israel in an effort to win Arab support for U.S. policy in the Middle East. Officials said the undersecretary has also helped reduce the president’s ardor to enact regime change in Iran and Syria.
Unlike the neocons who once dominated the Bush foreign policy, Burns is totally in the mold of Bush’s father. This suggests that Bush I is undermining the Bush II presidency and trying to control the presidency from behind the scenes. We know, from Brent Scowcroft’s piece, that there is a major rift between Bush and his father over the Iraq War. We know that Bush I is furious over the massive loss of respect other countries have for this country. We also know that Bush I is deeply hurt because of the fact that he considered himself first and foremost a statesman.
This suggests that Bush I is undermining the White House through blackmail – Bush I is one of the few people who knows the whole secret of Bush II’s sordid past and could be totally willing to spill the beans in some way if Bush II does not comply with father’s orders. It could involve some kind of whisper campaign – the same kind that Rove is so good at orchestrating. And Bush II and Rove are extremely paranoid about any details about Bush II’s past leaking out – witness their vicious attacks against CBS when the TANG story broke out. I suggest that Bush I is blackmailing his son to put his people in charge of foreign policy – or else.
This theory would explain why Bush I was so tolerant of his son’s failures and worked to cover up for them – it is a form of power that he could use. After he left office, his son could easily run for President with his father’s resources and win. Bush I would hold all the real power because he knows about his son’s moral failures more than anybody. Anytime Bush II were to fail, Bush I could blackmail him by demanding that he appoint his people to positions of power and give them access. And I suggest Bush II is the same way with his daughters – they can play around as much as they want, and then use their family’s resources to gain elective office – and fall under the Bush blackmail trap. It is a vicious power structure designed to perpetuate power and get around the Constitutional prohibition against more than two terms.