It looks obvious

Warfare and Caring about the environment, are they really mutually exclusive?

In The Know: How Can We Make The War In Iraq More Eco-Friendly? 

Few months ago I listen to a radio interview with the author of “Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power”. In the interview the author described how Nixon and Kissinger, although realizing its failure, kept the same strategy in Vietnam because they thought that admitting failure will damage Nixon re-elections chances. In the interview Robert Dallek described how Nixon and Kissinger had a very clear and realistic assessment of the reality in Vietnam but how publicly the kept arguing in defense of keeping the same policy - which caused the death and suffering of thousands of people.

I can only wonder if the current administration insistence on maintaining its Iraq strategy has similar motives. I’m pretty sure that would these 10 good questions had been asked, we would not get honest answers:

5. Let’s see if we have this right: We’re arming the minority Sunnis, and, even though we routinely denounce Iranian influence, we’re nevertheless arming the Iranian-backed Shiite Maliki government, which in turn is fighting al-Sadr as well as other Iranian-backed Shiite warlords. Given all these complexities, general, what constitutes “victory” in Iraq?

[...]

8. General, one of your staunchest supporters is Senator John McCain. After he returned from his most recent trip to Iraq, McCain said, “We’re succeeding. I don’t care what anybody says.” Could you please provide a more nuanced assessment? For instance, the State Department has determined that Iraq this month is providing less electricity to its citizens (58 percent of demand) that it did during the same month one year ago (66 percent of demand). President Bush originally intended to make Iraq safe more democracy. Would it be more realistic, as a measurement of success, to strive to at least make Iraq safe for electricity?

I just finish reading the testimony of General William E. Odom, a retired 3-star general and former Director of the NSA, given yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relation Committe. In the testimony General Odom refute some of the more ridiculous, and yet very popular, arguments that favor continuing the war in Iraq. He provides a fascinating analysis of the current situation and the reasons we should withdrawal as soon as possible. I strongly recommend reading the entire testimony ,it isn’t that long and it is worth your time.

The only surprising part of this report on the unavoidable failing of the surge in Iraq is the fact that the Washington Post decided to burry it in page 10:

The surge didn’t fail because of military incompetence, it failed because the army was asked to provide something it is incapable to provide - a political solution. It is often easy to mistake the ability of an army to use violence effectively with the effectiveness of such means to deliver political outcomes. Armies are in fact a very limited organizations that can, at best, be used to capture area, defend it and damage enemy forces. Using the military forces to achieve more than that is more often than not end up as failure.

And despite the facts, and long history to learn from, the temptation to use the army for exactly the wrong mission is still very strong. Don’t let the facts, and the simple realization that the surge is failing to achieve its strategic gaol, it will be used by McCain to attack his democratic rivals…

Lets assume for argument sake that the reason we invaded Iraq was to spread democracy. We will have the leap of fate that the administration’s doctrine was that the tyranny and lack of hope in the Middle-East are one of the major reason for the radical islamic terrorism and the best strategy to address it is by changing the conditions in the Middle-East. This is by the way isn’t cynical approach rather than a well argued and very influential concept advocated by scholars, such as Fouad Ajami.

We should expect that the American policies would aimed at increasing freedom, and ensuring that the horrifying methods used by Sadam Hussein - such as his secret police and their interrogations methods. Doing the opposite is a sign that either we never really intended to change the Middle East, or that their is no real connection between our strategic goals and the tactic we are using to achieve them: 

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s government has been quietly bringing back into service Saddam-era intelligence agents who have experience spying on Iranians.

The effort is aimed at improving Iraq’s ability to gather intelligence about Iranian-supported networks operating in Iraq, said Dan Maguire, the top U.S. adviser on intelligence.

[...]

U.S. officials have approved of the practice of bringing back some former agents. Maguire said the hiring of former agents had "a lot of logic to it." He said he did not know how many agents would be affected by the ban on Baath Party members nor how many Saddam-era agents have been brought back.

Iraq’s Interior Ministry intelligence department has been seeking "former regime intelligence officers, primarily ones that worked against the Iranian target," Maguire said.

Bringing agents back to work is fraught with risk, said Wayne White, a former deputy director of the State Department’s Middle East intelligence office.

Because their "business was human rights violations," White said, those "who functioned in that environment must be to some degree morally warped."

One the other hand, with the assaults on Human Rights back at home one might argue that we are spreading the American democracy….

I’m reading the book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror , and it is a fascinating reading. The writer, Michael Scheuer, served as the chief of the Bin Laden issue station and is an expert on issues of radical islam, Al-Aqeda and Bin Laden. His point of view, the one that when repeated by certain politicians is considered crazy, is very simple: Radical islam react to America’s actions, not to its values. The book provides interesting analysis how the US imperial policies are being used by Bin Laden to increase the popular support for his cause, and how these policies prolonging the “War on Terror”.

When I’ll finish reading the book I’ll try to write a longer review and some personal thoughts, But don’t wait you should read it your self.

Colbert is right - it would be funny if it wouldn’t be so sad…