Showing posts with label Hadley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hadley. Show all posts

Monday, February 5, 2007

No Way Out: MAUREEN DOWD - Iraq: " We’re Cooked"

REPOSTED

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE

The New York Times

OP-ED COLUMNIST

No Way Out

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: February 3, 2007

We’re in a cycle of violence in Iraq that is so complex and awful that withdrawing American troops will make it worse and keeping American troops there may also make it worse.

Everything you've heard and read is true. And I am deeply sorry about that." Who said it?

(a) George Bush, about the chilling new intelligence report on Iraq.

(b) Joe Biden, about his self-imploding prolixity.

(c) Condi Rice, on her ability to understand Peyton Manning's vulnerabilities better than Nuri Kamal al-Malaki's.

(d) Silvio Berlusconi, on his wife's Junoesque lightning bolt after his public flirting.

(e) Jacques Chirac, after giving a Gallic shrug at the prospect of Iran getting un or deux nuclear weapons.

(f) Hillary Clinton, on enabling the president to invade Iraq.

(g) Barack Obama, for the ultimate sin of not being black enough or white enough.

(h) Mary Cheney, on her decision to work on her terrifying dad's homophobic campaign because the thought of John Kerry was "terrifying."

(i) Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, about his affair with his campaign manager's wife.

The answer is Gavin Newsom.

It's rare to get a simple apology when a complex obfuscation will do.

Even after releasing parts of an intelligence report so pessimistic that it may as well have been titled "Iraq: We're Cooked," Bush officials clung to their alternate reality, using nonsensical logic and cherry-picking whatever phrases they could find in the report that they could use to sell the Surge.

In the 2004 National Intelligence Estimate, civil war was a worst-case scenario. In the 2007 one, Iraq has zoomed past civil war to hell: "The Intelligence Community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence."

As John McLaughlin, the former acting director of central intelligence, told The Times's Mark Mazzetti: "Civil war is checkers. This is chess." ....

--MORE--


Sunday, February 4, 2007

No Way Out: MAUREEN DOWD - Iraq: " We can try or we can leave, but either way, it seems, we’re cooked"

REPOSTED

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE

The New York Times

OP-ED COLUMNIST

No Way Out

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: February 3, 2007

We’re in a cycle of violence in Iraq that is so complex and awful that withdrawing American troops will make it worse and keeping American troops there may also make it worse.

Everything you've heard and read is true. And I am deeply sorry about that." Who said it?

(a) George Bush, about the chilling new intelligence report on Iraq.

(b) Joe Biden, about his self-imploding prolixity.

(c) Condi Rice, on her ability to understand Peyton Manning's vulnerabilities better than Nuri Kamal al-Malaki's.

(d) Silvio Berlusconi, on his wife's Junoesque lightning bolt after his public flirting.

(e) Jacques Chirac, after giving a Gallic shrug at the prospect of Iran getting un or deux nuclear weapons.

(f) Hillary Clinton, on enabling the president to invade Iraq.

(g) Barack Obama, for the ultimate sin of not being black enough or white enough.

(h) Mary Cheney, on her decision to work on her terrifying dad's homophobic campaign because the thought of John Kerry was "terrifying."

(i) Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, about his affair with his campaign manager's wife.

The answer is Gavin Newsom.

It's rare to get a simple apology when a complex obfuscation will do.

Even after releasing parts of an intelligence report so pessimistic that it may as well have been titled "Iraq: We're Cooked," Bush officials clung to their alternate reality, using nonsensical logic and cherry-picking whatever phrases they could find in the report that they could use to sell the Surge.

In the 2004 National Intelligence Estimate, civil war was a worst-case scenario. In the 2007 one, Iraq has zoomed past civil war to hell: "The Intelligence Community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence."

As John McLaughlin, the former acting director of central intelligence, told The Times's Mark Mazzetti: "Civil war is checkers. This is chess." ....

--MORE--

Saturday, February 3, 2007

No Way Out: MAUREEN DOWD - Iraq: " We can try or we can leave, but either way, it seems, we’re cooked"

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST

No Way Out

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: February 3, 2007

We’re in a cycle of violence in Iraq that is so complex and awful that withdrawing American troops will make it worse and keeping American troops there may also make it worse.

Everything you've heard and read is true. And I am deeply sorry about that." Who said it?

(a) George Bush, about the chilling new intelligence report on Iraq.

(b) Joe Biden, about his self-imploding prolixity.

(c) Condi Rice, on her ability to understand Peyton Manning's vulnerabilities better than Nuri Kamal al-Malaki's.

(d) Silvio Berlusconi, on his wife's Junoesque lightning bolt after his public flirting.

(e) Jacques Chirac, after giving a Gallic shrug at the prospect of Iran getting un or deux nuclear weapons.

(f) Hillary Clinton, on enabling the president to invade Iraq.

(g) Barack Obama, for the ultimate sin of not being black enough or white enough.

(h) Mary Cheney, on her decision to work on her terrifying dad's homophobic campaign because the thought of John Kerry was "terrifying."

(i) Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, about his affair with his campaign manager's wife.

The answer is Gavin Newsom.

It's rare to get a simple apology when a complex obfuscation will do.

Even after releasing parts of an intelligence report so pessimistic that it may as well have been titled "Iraq: We're Cooked," Bush officials clung to their alternate reality, using nonsensical logic and cherry-picking whatever phrases they could find in the report that they could use to sell the Surge.

In the 2004 National Intelligence Estimate, civil war was a worst-case scenario. In the 2007 one, Iraq has zoomed past civil war to hell: "The Intelligence Community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence."

As John McLaughlin, the former acting director of central intelligence, told The Times's Mark Mazzetti: "Civil war is checkers. This is chess." ....

--MORE--

Monday, January 29, 2007

Analysis: U.S. National Security Advisor's Lying Oped in Today's Washington Post

And in a most Orwellian way...

---

Jan 29, 2006

Grasping at straws: *Now* they like the Iraq Study Group

In this morning's Washington Post, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley writes an op/ed where he argues for the Surge!, and as part of his argument claims the support of the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group.

So, what did Hadley say? This:

As Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of our forces in Iraq, explained in hearings before Congress last week, reinforcing U.S. troops is necessary for this new plan to succeed. Any plan that limits our ability to reinforce our troops in the field is a plan for failure -- and could hand Baghdad to terrorists and extremists before legitimate Iraqi forces are ready to take over the fight. That is an outcome the president simply could not accept.

The Baker-Hamilton report supports this conclusion. It said: "We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad . . . if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." Our military commanders, and the president, have determined just that.

Which is awfully funny, because I seem to remember that the ISG report said something a tad different:

Mr Baker said "staying the course was no longer viable" and called "for a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own".

The report said the US could not achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it dealt with the Israeli-Arab conflict and regional instability, adding that talks should include Israel, Lebanon and Palestinian leaders who recognised Israel's right to exist.

To improve the political climate for its diplomatic efforts internationally and within Iraq, the study said Mr Bush should state publicly that the US does not seek to control Iraq's oil
[...]
The report's recommendation for a prompt start to withdrawal goes against Mr Bush's insistence that the US will stay in Iraq until the job is done.

So, in other words, Hadley is cherry-picking one or two sentences from the report, taking them way out of context (the context being "how best to get us the hell out of this mess ASAP"), and using them to support a diametrically opposite viewpoint ("we're staying until Hell freezes over or until Bush grows a functional brain, whichever comes first") (nb: my money is on the new NHL franchise, the Infernals)

Now, remember also that this is the report that Bush and his circle went out of their way to ignore, marginalize, and eventually shelve in favor of the Surge! augmentation escalation of the war. So, now that only 1 in 4 Americans think that Bush is doing a good job, they're looking for a lifeline, any lifeline, to get them out of the mess that they've created. And, for better or for worse, the Baker-Hamilton Commission had a fair amount of prestige associated with it, so the administration is now trying to associate themselves with that report, even while ignoring or actively opposing its substantive recommendations.

Monday, December 4, 2006

Amid Hints Bush Will Change Policy, Clues He Won’t

We'll see superficial changes like Bolton's firing but no shft in Iraq policy.
---
December 4, 2006
News Analysis
Amid Hints Bush Will Change Policy, Clues He Won’t
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — The debate that will engulf Washington and much of the country this week centers on a question that lurks at the intersection of war strategy and the personality of the commander in chief: after three and a half years, is President Bush ready to abandon his declaration that American forces cannot begin to leave Iraq until the Iraqis demonstrate that they are capable of defending themselves?

As administration officials tried to prepare the ground over the weekend for the release of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group’s long-awaited report on Wednesday, the president’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, repeatedly sidestepped questions about how the administration would react to the panel’s recommendations.
--MORE--

Aide Says Bush Plans Changes in Approach to Iraq

December 3, 2006

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — President Bush plans “significant changes” in his approach to Iraq after he reviews options drafted by an outside panel of experts and suggestions from others in the administration and Congress, Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, said today.

Mr. Hadley, whose own internal memo expressing doubts about the Iraqi leadership stirred a debate when it was disclosed last week, said Mr. Bush would announce “a new way forward” in Iraq in the coming weeks, once he goes through the recommendations from various groups.

Among the options to be examined are those expected to be released on Wednesday from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Representative Lee H. Hamilton. The group has spent most of the last year studying Iraq strategy.

“The president has said that what is going on in Iraq is not going well enough or fast enough,” Mr. Hadley said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press.” “The president said we need to make changes. Some of those changes are going to be significant changes.”
--MORE--

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Experts: U.S. National Security Adviser Clueless

Posted on Wed, Nov. 29, 2006

Experts question proposals in leaked Iraq memo


McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement most of the key ideas for quelling the Iraqi civil war that are outlined in a classified Nov. 8 memo to President Bush from National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, experts said Wednesday.

Trying to push anti-U.S. Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr out of the ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as the memo suggests, would be throwing gasoline on a fire, they said.

Sadr's party is the largest in parliament, with 32 seats, and Maliki became prime minister only with his support. Sadr's Mahdi Army militia controls large parts of Baghdad and southern Iraq, and many Iraqi Shiites hail him as their only protection from attacks by rival Sunni Muslims, which American and Iraqi forces have failed to stop.

"Sadr is aware of the considerable extent to which his forces ... constitute a significant part of the power in the streets, and there is no reason why he would simply want to surrender that leverage," said Paul Pillar, the former top U.S. intelligence analyst on the Middle East.

In what appeared to be a warning from Sadr to Maliki, Sadr followers suspended their participation in the government and parliament to protest Maliki's plan to meet Bush on Wednesday in Jordan. Within an hour of the statement, Jordanian officials announced that the meeting had been postponed.

Hadley's memo was leaked to The New York Times on the eve of the Bush-Maliki talks. He wrote the five-page classified document after meeting with Maliki on Oct. 30 in Baghdad.

Since then, the violence in Iraq has surged to its worst level since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. It's been especially fierce in the capital since bombings last Thursday killed more than 200 people in Sadr City, a Shiite slum in Baghdad that the Mahdi Army controls.

In the memo, Hadley expressed doubts about Maliki's ability or willingness to go beyond the Shiite sectarian agenda and forge a unity government.

Hadley recommended steps that Maliki could take to curb the violence and measures that the United States could implement to strengthen him, including sending more forces into Baghdad.

Hadley's central suggestion was to bring Maliki's political reliance on Sadr "to closure" and pursue Mahdi Army members who "do not eschew violence."

Trying to force Sadr out of the government - in which his followers control some of the key ministries - and crack down on his militia almost certainly would lead to the government's collapse.

It also would ignite a wave of violence by his militia and supporters in Baghdad and the Shiite-dominated south, much of it probably aimed at the U.S.-led multinational force.

"Sadr is not going to rein in the Mahdi Army," said Vali Nasr of the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, Calif., and the author of a new book on modern political Shiism.

Hadley suggested that Maliki overhaul his Cabinet by replacing key members of Shiite and Sunni religious parties with "nonsectarian, capable technocrats."

But the Iraqi Constitution requires that new ministers be approved by two-thirds of parliament, a vote that Sadr could block. A Cabinet shakeup also would unravel the power-sharing deal on controlling the ministries that took the religious parties months to negotiate.

"The ministries are run like fiefdoms," Nasr said. "Most ministers don't even come to Cabinet meetings."

Experts also were skeptical of a Hadley proposal that the United States provide "monetary support" for forming a new coalition of moderate Shiite, Sunni and ethnic Kurdish parliamentarians to keep Maliki in power if he's unable to cut loose from Sadr.

Several experts wondered what moderates Hadley was referring to.

Moreover, such an alliance would require Maliki to forge stronger bonds with Sadr's chief rival, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim. He's the head of another Shiite party that belongs to the ruling coalition and whose militia maintains even closer ties to the Islamic regime of neighboring Iran than the Mahdi Army does.

Finding Sunnis to join such a grouping would be impossible, because Hakim has been a leading proponent of purging members of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from the bureaucracy and the military, Nasr said.

Hakim met with Jordan's King Abdullah hours before Bush arrived in Amman, and was scheduled to travel to Washington, where he was expected to visit the White House.

Maliki already has tried unsuccessfully to implement some of Hadley's ideas, several experts noted. These include attempts to purge the police and Interior Ministry of sectarian death squads and to disarm militias.

Phebe Marr, a leading U.S. expert on Iraq, said that some of the more modest ideas that Hadley proposed in the memo - such as appointing technocrats to the government and cleaning up the Interior Ministry - were achievable.

"I think these small steps can be done. I think Maliki is doing them. But we have very different perceptions of time and timetable," Marr said, referring to growing political pressure in the United States to withdraw troops.

As for a "spectacular breakthrough" from the Iraqi government in the near future, "forget it," she said.

Youssef reported from Amman, Jordan. Warren P. Strobel in Washington contributed to this report.

---

In public, top Bush administration officials have taken a very different view of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki than the one expressed in a classified National Security Council memo:

Sept. 30. Army Gen. George W. Casey in Baghdad: Maliki is "a determined, courageous leader taking on some very difficult issues. ... He has an awful lot of challenges facing him, and I do believe he is very much up to the task."

Oct. 5. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Baghdad: "I do think he has the strength. I think he's a very good and strong prime minister."

Oct. 24. Marine Gen. Pete Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "I do know that Prime Minister Maliki is working very hard right now in his five-month-old government - he's working very hard to try to find those political agreements that would reconcile the needs of Sunni, Shia and Kurds so he can get on about being the unifying leader that he's trying to be."

Oct. 25. President Bush: "I do believe Prime Minister Maliki is the right man to achieve the goal in Iraq."

Nov. 8. Memo prepared by National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and his aides after a visit to Baghdad: "Do we and Prime Minister Maliki share the same vision for Iraq? If so, is he able to curb those who seek Shia hegemony or the reassertion of Sunni power?

"... Despite Maliki's reassuring words, repeated reports from our commanders on the ground contributed to our concerns about Maliki's government. Reports of nondelivery of services to Sunni areas, intervention by the prime minister's office to stop military action against Shia targets and to encourage them against Sunni ones, removal of Iraq's most effective commanders on a sectarian basis and efforts to ensure Shia majorities in all ministries - when combined with the escalation of Jaish al-Mahdi's (JAM) (the Mahdi Army militia of militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr) killings - all suggest a campaign to consolidate Shia power in Baghdad.

"... His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change. But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."

Nov. 28. Rice in Riga, Latvia: "I think that if you meet these leaders of the central government, you recognize the challenges that they have, you will be quite impressed with what they have achieved and continue to achieve."

-Compiled by researcher Tish Wells


http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/jonathan_s_landay/16125320.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_jonathan_s_landay