Archive for June, 2003
25.06.03
I’m again inclined to waive our policy of not posting particularly opinionated, biased, or mean-spirited material, due to the excellent content in the rest of the following article. The only real “offense” is that the author begins by saying President Bush is acting with “commendable stupidty”, which I think is an appraisal that goes beyond the author’s field of expertise. The rest of the article is much more suited to the purpose of foreign policy analysis, and provides some essential context to the simmering situation developing in Iran, albeit from a definitely judgmental viewpoint. Two more-journalistic appraisals follow it.
US wages war from within Iran
By Richard M Bennett
Jun 20, 2003
With commendable stupidity usually only reserved for the most powerful and isolated from reality, President George W Bush has managed to go some way towards repeating the catastrophic mistakes of Lyndon Johnson and ensnare the United States in an increasingly unpopular and probably unwinnable foreign military involvement. Just two months after the sudden collapse of organized Iraqi resistance to the US-led invasion, US troops are back in a Vietnam-scenario with the ambushing of military convoys, the regular use of grenades and rocket launchers against isolated American targets and indeed suicide bombers.
It has always been a truism that if you cannot avoid wars, then at least learn the lessons of previous conflicts. This, however, the US has signally failed to do. Not content with the ultimate failures of the campaigns in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, of Somalia, and indeed even Afghanistan, to achieve the stated aims and the supposed improvement in the state of the inhabitants of those nations, the US has blindly embarked on a dangerous and unsound course of action. US forces are already launching operations suspiciously similar to the “search-and-destroy” tactics of 40 years ago and with a similar response from an increasingly hostile civilian population.
Using a marked degree of devious propaganda about the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction and largely in the dark about the true allegiance and likely response of the majority of Iraqis, the US has now succeeded in alienating much of both the developed and Third World, and indeed signaled to both Russia and China that Washington’s new-found military belligerence and diplomatic toughness are a profound threat to their influence and future powerbase. Not content with expending much of America’s wealth and the lives of its young service personnel in largely fruitless campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington is now clearly preparing the ground for an attack on Iran.
Full Article…
And here is a more surface-level look at the situation in Iran:
Bush warns Iran on nuclear weapons, urges Tehran to treat pro-reform protesters with ‘respect’
June 18th - 9:19 pm ET
SCOTT LINDLAW
Associated Press Writer
President Bush said Wednesday that he and other world leaders would not tolerate nuclear weapons in Iran, and administration officials expressed concern to the U.N. nuclear agency about the country’s atomic program.
Bush also urged Iranian leaders to treat protesters with “the utmost of respect” as they seek the ouster of the Islamic government.
Though Bush’s words of warning were strong, he gave no indication that Iran, which he has characterized as part of an “axis of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea, might face military action under his policy allowing pre-emptive attacks where he sees threats.
Iran is thought by U.S. officials to be developing nuclear weapons, though the Iranian government denies it. Iran’s chief representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, rejected allegations that his government failed to honor promises made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which aims to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
“Iran considers the acquiring, development and use of nuclear weapons inhuman, immoral, illegal and against its very principles,” he said. “They have no place in Iran’s defensive doctrine.”
Bush suggested he did not believe such denials.
Full Article…
And here’s another:
Setbacks Dog U.S. Iran Policy
By Michael Moran
MSNBC
Friday 20 June 2003
The United States began to show its teeth to Iran this week after a series of diplomatic setbacks dashed optimistic predictions of administration officials that an international consensus had formed about taking concrete steps to curb Iran’s nuclear program. The souring of the administration’s outlook was on display Friday as John Bolton, the hawkish undersecretary of state for arms control issues, said that military action against Iran is an option the U.S. is studying should diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal fail.
“The President has repeatedly said that all options are on the table, but that is not only not our preference, it is far, far from our minds,” Bolton told the British Broadcasting Corp. On Thursday, President Bush also toughened his public stance, saying that the U.S. would “not tolerate” a nuclear weapons program in Iran.
The speedy decline of the U.S. effort to win broader support illustrates an important fact: Iran is viewed quite differently from Iraq or even North Korea by most of the world’s nations. In spite of its record as a supporter of terrorist groups and its repressive Islamic leadership, it is more democratic than many states that the United States regards as allies, and its strong oil and energy industries make it an attractive investment opportunity.
Downhill Fast
As recently as a week ago, administration officials were citing support from Russia, the Group of Eight industrialized nations and the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as proof of the progress being made by the U.S.-led effort to curb nuclear proliferation, which Bush has described as “topping the agenda” now that Saddam Hussein has been toppled.
But since then, across the board, actions the U.S. had hoped would lead to a strong condemnation of Iran for refusing to allow open inspections of all suspect nuclear facilities have fallen short.
Full Article…
24.06.03
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the stories about the U.S.’s failure to “win the peace” in Iraq is that the PNAC proponents have been pushing for this war for many years. One might think that with a solid 5 years of time to plan and prepare (the PNAC first urged a second war with Iraq in 1998), and with over a decade of close observation, and decades of involvement with the country, that some of these issues could have been better anticipated.
US General Condemns Iraq Failures
By Ed Vulliamy
The Observer
Sunday 22 June 2003
One of the most experienced and respected figures in a generation of American warfare and peacekeeping yesterday accused the US administration of ‘failing to prepare for the consequences of victory’ in Iraq.
At the end of a week that saw a war of attrition develop against the US military, General William Nash told The Observer that the US had ‘lost its window of opportunity’ after felling Saddam Hussein’s regime and was embarking on a long-term expenditure of people and dollars for which it had not planned.
‘It is an endeavour which was not understood by the administration to begin with,’ he said.
Now retired, Nash served in the Vietnam war and in Operation Desert Storm (the first Gulf War) before becoming commander of US forces in Bosnia and then an acclaimed UN Civil Affairs administrator in Kosovo.
He is currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, specialising in conflict prevention.
In one of the most outspoken critiques from a man of his standing, Nash said the US had ‘failed to understand the mindset and attitudes of the Iraqi people and the depth of hostility towards the US in much of the country’.
Full Story…
23.06.03
Jim Lobe has been on the tail of the neoconservatives since before the word “neocon” was widely used or known. His articles typically appear in the Asia Times, as well as on the website of Foreign Policy in Focus. He has also been a correspondent for Inter Press Service (IPS) for some 23 years.
IPS has just recently compiled all of Lobe’s stories on the neoconservative movement on one handy webpage. It is an invaluable resource, and worth browsing in order to get a handle on how the movement has evolved over recent years.
Check out the the IPS archive on “The Neo-Conservative Ascendancy in the Bush Administration.”
23.06.03
This article has to much of import to excerpt it effectively. It’s very much worth reading in full, and in concert with our previous entry on unrest in Iraq.
US losing the peace in Afghanistan
By Jim Lobe
Asia Times
WASHINGTON - Just as the United States is struggling to deal with major postwar headaches in Iraq, its efforts to pacify Afghanistan appear to be unraveling, according to a new report by a key group of experts sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Asia Society.
Titled “Afghanistan: Are We Losing the Peace?”, the 24-page document, authored by, among others, three retired senior US government policymakers who specialize in South Asian affairs, answers that question very much in the affirmative and argues that Washington must do far more, and urgently, to save the situation.
“Without greater support for the transitional government of President Hamid Karzai, security in Afghanistan will deteriorate further, prospects for economic reconstruction will dim, and Afghanistan will revert to warlord-dominated anarchy,” the task force concluded.
“This failure could gravely erode America’s credibility around the globe and mark a major defeat in the US-led war on terrorism,” added the report, which was written by the co-chairs of the independent CFR-Asia Society task force that has been following Afghanistan since before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon.
…
In addition to devoting increasing energy to get Iraq under firm control, the administration is also increasingly preoccupied internationally with implementing the “roadmap” for Israeli-Palestinian peace and coping with the diplomatic fallout from both the Iraq war and its failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in that country. The alleged production and deployment of WMD by former president Saddam Hussein was cited by Bush and his allies as the main justification for going to war.
Continuing challenges to the US military occupation in Iraq, as well as the general insecurity there, has forced the Pentagon to deploy at least 140,000 troops there - twice as many as it had planned before the invasion…
…
In addition, tensions with Iran have been rising steadily over the past six weeks as the administration appears increasingly inclined to adopt a policy of “regime change”, which could include covert paramilitary action and even military strikes in a country whose population is roughly twice that of Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
“This is what is called ‘imperial over-stretch’,” noted one congressional aide whose boss has long warned that Bush’s post-September 11 strategic ambitions would stretch US forces impossibly thin within a very short time.
…
“If the administration fails to take the lead in providing more security and extending the authority of the central government,” said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University and a member of the CFR-Asia Society Task Force, “our policy in Afghanistan is definitely on track to fail.”
Full Story…
23.06.03
The PNAC strategy calls for a lasting presence and influence over places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and the like. But the scene on the ground in the first two of those experiments must inspire serious doubts about whether or not such a plan is feasible — whether nations in the Middle East will accept such a presence.
It’s worthwhile, as always, to look at history when trying to understand the events of the present. Here is an excerpt from HistoryChannel.com’s entry under “Iraq”:
In World War I the British invaded Iraq in their war against the Ottoman Empire; Britain declared then that it intended to return to Iraq some control of its own affairs. Nationalist elements, impatient over delay in gaining independence, revolted in 1920 but were suppressed by the British. Late that year the Treaty of Sčvres established Iraq as a mandate of the League of Nations under British administration, and in 1921 the country was made a kingdom headed by Faisal I. With strong reluctance an elected Iraqi assembly agreed in 1924 to a treaty with Great Britain providing for the maintenance of British military bases and for a British right of veto over legislation. By 1926 an Iraqi parliament and administration were governing the country. The treaty of 1930 provided for a 25-year alliance with Britain. The British mandate was terminated in 1932, and Iraq was admitted to the League of Nations.
In 1933 the small Christian Assyrian community revolted, culminating in a governmental military crackdown and loss of life and setting a precedent for internal minority uprisings in Iraq. Meanwhile, the first oil concession had been granted in 1925, and in 1934 the export of oil began. Domestic politics were turbulent, with many factions contending for power. Late in 1936, the country experienced the first of seven military coups that were to take place in the next five years.
That’s 21 years of tumult described there. A little over 20 years of further tumult later, the Ba’ath Party and Saddam Hussein began their rise to power.
The theory of the PNAC believers and neoconservatives must be that somehow, this time will be different. But the story on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t seem to be bearing that theory out:
Smashed US Memorial Points to Deepening Iraqi Anger
By Scott Peterson
The Christian Science Monitor
Friday 20 June 2003
BAGHDAD – With tears in his eyes, US Army paratrooper Richard Bohr knelt down in the Iraqi dust and kissed a handmade memorial stone, bidding farewell to a brother in the US Marine Corps who was killed in action on the spot April 10, the day after Baghdad fell to invading American troops.
Draped with a necklace and pendant imploring, “St. Michael Protect Us,” the concrete memorial put in place by a US unit Friday morning measured two-by-three feet, and had been painted with a bright American flag, the Marine Corps shield, and the words “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
But within 30 minutes of the American troops leaving, this tribute to a brother was no more - a casualty of the deepening resentment toward US troops here, at the hands of Iraqis who increasingly see those troops not as liberating friends, but as an occupying enemy.
…
Ms. Fadhel says that as much as she disliked the regime of Saddam Hussein, she could safely be out past 9:00 pm. Now, she says, any time after 6:00 pm is unsafe. Delays by the Washington-appointed administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer, to create a new Iraqi government, adds to the resentment among Iraqis.
“If they don’t establish a new Iraqi government by August, Iraqi people everywhere will attack them. They must know that it will result in a civil war,” Fadhel says. “You will see bodies of Americans in the streets. They think we are silent, but we are agitated inside.”
That agitation is increasingly boiling to the surface. Signs are sprouting that US troops - and the ineffective new US-led authority they have ushered in - are wearing out their welcome. Graffiti sprayed across one highway overpass reads: “Go home Americans.” Spray-painted in red inside a downtown bus stop: “Go away, U.S.A.”
…
“The US has proved to the Iraqi people that it is an occupation force that wants oil, to protect Israel, and to build big military bases in Iraq,” says Mr. Hussein, who also worked in the Iraqi military. “Of course we wanted a change of regime, but not in this way, because we have gone from bad to worse. Then there was safety, and we knew when we would get our salary.”
Full Story…
(A story about the troubles in Afgahnistan is forthcoming.)
18.06.03
A key element of the PNAC’s plan for a “unipolar” world is the idea that nations can be fundamentally changed, through force, by other nations. If that premise doesn’t hold true, then most of the PNAC strategy would be deemed unreliable, since it relies heavily on the U.S.’s ability to achieve fundamental changes in many nations and regions around the globe.
America’s Rebuilding of Iraq is in Chaos, Say British
By Peter Foster
The Telegraph
Tuesday 17 June 2003
The American-led reconstruction effort in Iraq is “in chaos” and suffering from “a complete absence of strategic direction”, a very senior British official in Baghdad has told The Telegraph.
The comments paint a grim picture of American incompetence and mismanagement as the Coalition Provisional Authority struggles to run post-Saddam Iraq.
“This is the single most chaotic organisation I have ever worked for,” the official said yesterday.
The source revealed that Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq, had “fewer than 600″ staff under his control to run a country the size of France in which the civil infrastructure was on the point of collapse.
“The operation is chronically under-resourced and suffers from an almost complete absence of strategic direction,” he added.
Similar frustrations have been voiced privately in London, where British ministers are said to be fed up with being “taken for granted”.
Full article…
18.06.03
The following article, to the extent that it’s correct, is a refreshing ray of hope for those concerned about the growing influence of the PNAC adherents. Conservative movement veteran Pat Buchanan believes there are many signs that the “neocons” have seen their peak in influence. However, Justin Raimondo from Antiwar.com makes the case that there are plenty of reasons to stay vigilant, and that the neoconservatives will continue to try and advance their goals for a long time to come.
Is the Neoconservative Moment Over?
by Pat Buchanan
June 16, 2003 issue
The American Conservative
The salad days of the neoconservatives, which began with the president’s Axis-of-Evil address in January 2002 and lasted until the fall of Baghdad may be coming to an end. Indeed, it is likely the neoconservatives will never again enjoy the celebrity and cachet in which they reveled in their romp to war on Iraq.
While this is, admittedly, a prediction, it rests on reasonable assumptions. But why should neoconservatism, at the apparent apex of its influence, be on the edge of eclipse?
Answer: the high tide of neoconservatism may have passed because the high tide of American empire may have passed. “World War IV,” the empire project, the great cause of the neocons, seems to have been suspended by the President of the United States.
While we still hear talk of “regime change” in Iran and North Korea, U.S. forces not tied down in occupation duties by the anarchy and chaos in Iraq, are returning home.
The first signal that the apogee of American hegemony in the Middle East has been reached came as U.S. soldiers and marines were completing their triumphant march into Baghdad. Suddenly, all the bellicosity toward Syria from neoconservatives and the Pentagon, stopped, apparently on the orders of the Commander in Chief.
Full Article…
16.06.03
This is an excellent Newsweek article about the PNAC adherents, and where they stand in the post-war atmosphere. It’s a thorough overall summary of the neoconservative movement and what it means in terms of current and recent U.S. foreign policy.
The Mideast: Neocons on the Line
A growing number of critics on Capitol Hill and around the world are questioning the Bush administration’s credibility—and its assumptions—as never before.
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
Monday 23 June 2003
IT WAS WOLFOWITZ, the gentlemanly superhawk, who within days of 9-11 prodded the Bush administration into a radical new strategy: forcefully confronting states that sponsor terrorism. It was Wolfowitz—the ex math whiz who fell in love with the idea of “national greatness” as a youth and is now seen as the Bush administration’s chief intellectual—who pressed Bush hardest to transform the war on terror into a campaign for regime change and democracy in rogue nations, especially in Iraq and the Islamic world.
Now the deputy defense secretary and his fellow neoconservatives are on the defensive. They are battling a growing crowd of critics on Capitol Hill and around the world as the Bush administration’s credibility—and its assumptions—are tested as never before. In Iraq, after another week in which U.S. troops died and got into fierce fire fights, elements of more than half of America’s Army divisions are tied down. Some U.S. officials have begun muttering the dreaded Q word—quagmire, a term Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had mocked on a visit to Baghdad in the days just after the three-week war. In the Mideast, the hard-liners’ move to replace Yasir Arafat with the moderate Mahmoud Abbas—and to ignore the conflict until after the Iraq war—has touched off a new cycle of violence that stunned even the White House in its savagery. It seems increasingly difficult to argue that “the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad.” In the face of a possible congressional probe into why Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction have not been found, two Pentagon neocons, Doug Feith and Bill Luti, sought earlier this month to identify themselves with, of all people, Bill Clinton. In a fumbling news conference, they insisted that their intel squared with the previous administration’s.
QUESTIONS ON U.S. CREDIBILITY
Fairly or not, Paul Wolfowitz has become a lightning rod for much of this criticism, and to “cry Wolfowitz” has already become a catchphrase for the pressing questions about U.S. credibility. At a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Wolfowitz—always a striking presence with his thick black hair, vaguely lupine looks and air of tense repose—was rocked by hostile questioning. Wolfowitz not long ago dismissed Army chief Eric Shinseki’s call for a large peacekeeping force as “wildly off the mark.” Now he indicated that Iraq looked more complicated than Bosnia. “We’ve been in Bosnia for eight years,” Sen. Joseph Biden snapped back. “That would seem to compute that we’re likely to be in Iraq for a long time—a long time.”
Wolfowitz himself never thought that his long-sought goal of democratic transformation would be easy.
14.06.03
After World War I, the British tried to “civilize” the Arab world, and bring democracy there. The result, in Iraq at least, was a long chain of quite undemocratic arrangements, culminating, after decades of forced monarchy, in the coup that began Saddam Hussein’s rise to power.
In other words, history repeats itself.
Ex-Army Boss: Pentagon Won’t Admit Reality in Iraq
By Dave Moniz
USA Today
Tuesday 03 June 2003
WASHINGTON — The former civilian head of the Army said Monday it is time for the Pentagon to admit that the military is in for a long occupation of Iraq that will require a major commitment of American troops.
Former Army secretary Thomas White said in an interview that senior Defense officials “are unwilling to come to grips” with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq and recently announced that the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division’s stay there has been extended indefinitely.
“This is not what they were selling (before the war),” White said, describing how senior Defense officials downplayed the need for a large occupation force. “It’s almost a question of people not wanting to ‘fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term.”
The interview was White’s first since leaving the Pentagon in May after a series of public feuds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led to his firing.
Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require “several hundred thousand troops.” Wolfowitz called Shinseki’s estimate “wildly off the mark.”
Full Article…
Chafing at Authority in Iraq
Firing of Council In Basra Upsets Middle Class
By William Booth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 30, 2003; Page A01
BASRA, Iraq, May 29 — In the first weeks after the war, British and U.S. occupation forces hailed their appointment of a city council here in Iraq’s second-largest city as an important first step toward self-rule for the country. In the past week, however, they have dumped the mayor and his council, concluding that the interim government was composed mostly of unpopular tribal sheiks with ties to former president Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party.
Occupation authorities have thus decided that Iraqis here are not yet ready to govern themselves — at all. Instead, Basra leaders will serve as appointed technocrats and advisers with no executive authority.
The move has alienated many educated Iraqis from the middle-class professions, who say they are being treated like children by the occupation forces and denied true liberation. They say the Americans and British have spoken often of freedom and democracy, but have failed to find a way to meaningfully integrate Iraqis into decision-making positions.
Full Article…
14.06.03
More in the series of commentary on the administration’s case for the war.
Bad Iraq Data From Start to Finish
Americans were duped: Evidence of Administration manipulation and mendacity just keeps rolling in.
Ever since the tragedy of Sept. 11, the Bush Administration has relied on selective and distorted intelligence data to make the case for invading Iraq. But the truth will out, and the White House is now scrambling to explain away its mendacity.
On Sunday, Condoleezza Rice admitted that President Bush had used a forged document in his State of the Union speech to prove Iraq represented a nuclear threat: “We did not know at the time–maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency–but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken.”
rest of the article at
http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030623&s=scheer20030610
Welcome
Welcome to PNAC.info-- a site dedicated to drawing attention to the neoconservative foreign policy approach, and its consequences for America and the world.
Useful Links
Category: Outside Analysis
Category: News Articles
|
RSS Feed
