Iraq policy 'spawned new terror'

Related
Oxford Research Group - building bridges for global security
---

The British and US policy towards Iraq has "spawned new terror in the region", a think tank report has said.

The countries had tried to "keep the lid on" problems by military force and had failed to address the root causes, the Oxford Research Group warned.

It said Iran, Syria and North Korea had become "emboldened", while the Taleban was on the rise in Afghanistan.

The UK government said the past decade of foreign policy had been effective and action in Iraq was "justified".

Global instability

It comes as a separate report from Oxfam said the Iraq invasion had "seriously undermined" Britain's reputation.

However, the charity warns Britain must not be reluctant to send in troops to deal with future humanitarian crises.

We are looking at a highly unstable global system by the middle years of the century unless urgent action is taken now Chris Abbott Oxford Research Group

In a report a year ago, the Oxford Research Group (ORG) highlighted four areas that it said were contributing to world instability.

Climate change, competition for increasingly scarce resources, marginalisation of the majority of the world's population as socio-economic divisions widen, and the increasing use of military force and the further spread of military technologies were all threats.

Its latest report said these issues were still the greatest threats, but added that the ongoing war on terror and the war in Iraq were increasing the risk of future terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11.

"Treating Iraq as part of the war on terror... created a combat training zone for jihadists," it says.

Lead study author Chris Abbott said: "There is a clear and present danger - an increasingly marginalised majority living in an environmentally constrained world, where military force is more likely to be used to control the consequences of these dangerous divisions.

"Add to this the disastrous effects of climate change, and we are looking at a highly unstable global system by the middle years of the century unless urgent action is taken now."

Iran's nuclear plan

The report, Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World, said any military intervention in Iran would be "disastrous". However, it warned that Iran should not be allowed to develop civil nuclear power.

"This would involve the development of facilities that are potential terrorist targets, as well as encourage the spread of technology and materials that could be used in the development of nuclear weapons," the report said.

It also added that the British government's decision to replace its nuclear submarine system Trident could "substantially encourage" other states to develop nuclear weapons.

A Foreign Office spokesman said the past decade of foreign policy had been effective and that the military action in Iraq was "justified".

"We have rightly focused on 'hard' security issues such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone as well as 'softer' issues such as climate change and poverty eradication," he added.

Rand Corporation's new recipe to handle the Muslim World

By Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Al-Jazeerah, April 2, 2007

The semi-official U.S. think tank, Rand Corporation, suggests creation of networks of the so-called moderate Muslims to promote US policy objectives in the Muslim World.

In its latest report, titled “Building Moderate Muslim Networks” the Rand Corp advocates that the building of moderate Muslim networks needs to become an explicit goal of the U.S. government policy, with an international database of partners and a well-designed plan.

Just as it fought the spread of Communism during the Cold War, the United States must do more to develop and support networks of moderate Muslims who are too often silenced by violent radical Islamists, according to the Rand Corporation report issued on March 26, 2007. Lead writer of the report Angel Rabasa says that the United States has a critical role to play in aiding moderate Muslims, and can learn much from the way it addressed the spread of Communism during the Cold War. “The efforts of the United States and its allies to build free and democratic networks and institutions provided an organizational and ideological counter force to Communist groups seeking to come to power through political groups, labor unions, youth and student organizations and other groups.”

The report defines a moderate as a Muslim who supports democracy, gender equality, freedom of worship and opposition to terrorism. This looks an amplification on its two previous reports - “Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies” (March 2004) and “US strategy in the Muslim World after 9/11” (December 2004) - which also suggested supporting moderate Muslims and exploitation of inter-Muslim religious differences. Interestingly, a novelist turned research scholar, Cheryl Benard is the author of “Civil Democratic Islam” and co-author of Dec. 2004 and March 2007 reports.

In the December 2004 study Rabasa had suggested to exploit Sunni, Shiite and Arab, non-Arab divides to promote the US policy objectives in the Muslim world. Echoing this theme, the latest report recommends reaching out to Muslim activists, leaders and intellectuals in non-Arab countries such as Turkey as well as in Southeast Asia and Europe. The report recommends targeting five groups as potential building blocks for networks: liberal and secular Muslim academics and intellectuals; young moderate religious scholars; community activists; women’s groups engaged in gender equality campaigns; and moderate journalists and scholars.

The report warned that moderate groups can lose credibility – and therefore, effectiveness – if U.S. support is too obvious. Effective tactics that worked during the Cold War include having the groups led by credible individuals and having the United States maintain some distance from the organizations it supports. “This was done by not micro-managing the groups, but by giving them enough autonomy,” Rabasa said. “As long as certain guidelines were met, they were free to pursue their own activities.”

To help start this initiative, the report recommends working toward an international conference modeled in the Cold War-era Congress of Cultural Freedom, and then developing a standing organization to combat what it called radical Islamism.

The recent summit of "Secular Islam Conference" in St. Petersburg, Florida, almost coincided with the release of the latest Rand Report. A small group of self-proclaimed secular Muslims from North America and elsewhere gathered in St. Petersburg for what they billed as a new global movement to correct the assumed wrongs of Islam and call for an “Islamic Reformation.”

The St. Petersburg conference, held on the sideline of the Intelligence Summit, was carried live on (Islamophobe) Glenn Beck's CNN show. Some of the organizers and speakers at the convention were well known thanks to the media spotlight: Irshad Manji, author of "The Trouble With Islam," and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch parliamentarian and author of "Infidel," were but a few there claiming to have suffered personally at the hands of "radical" Islam. One participant, Wafa Sultan, declared on Glenn Beck's show that she doesn't "see any difference between radical Islam and regular Islam." Other participants were the now public ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq and self-proclaimed ex-terrorist Tawfiq Hamid.

Surely, the “moderate” Muslim agenda is promoted because these ideas reflect a Western vision for the future of Islam. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, everyone from high-ranking officials in the Bush administration to anti-Islam authors have prescribed a preferred remedy for Islam: Reform the faith.

The Rand Reports about Islam appear to be part of a grand strategy to “change the face of Islam” as revealed by the US News and World Report on April 15, 2005. The report entitled - Hearts, Minds, and Dollars: In an Unseen Front in the War on Terrorism, America is Spending Millions...To Change the Very Face of Islam - reads: “From military psychological-operations teams and CIA covert operatives to openly funded media and think tanks, Washington is plowing tens of millions of dollars into a campaign to influence not only Muslim societies but Islam itself.”

According to the well planned leaks to the US News and World Report, this strategy for the first time stated that the United States has a national security interest in influencing what happens within Islam. The report also confirmed that it is, in fact, the US which has been funding an American version of Islam, called “Moderate Islam.”

The Rand reports try to create a fictitious vision of Muslims and of Islam, where it is antihuman, uncreative, authoritarian, and intrinsically against Western societies. It is an ethnocentric view of Islam that dominates current representations of Islam that are reductive, predominantly negative, and encouraging a culture of Islamophobia.

The complexities of the so-called fundamentalism and extremism in the past 100 years or so, whether it be Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim, need to be understood in the context of modernization, the process of secularization, the changing nature of religious institutions, the post-colonial experience in developing countries, globalization, the divide between wealthy and poor, contesting political power, and the impact of totalitarian regimes on civil society.

What is not mentioned in the RAND reports is that the reason for the alienation of Muslims from the West, is the issue of "double standards" the West so brazenly practices when dealing with Muslim nations. America already has a very tarnished image in the Islamic world. It has already alienated a great majority of Muslims throughout the world through its misguided foreign policy. Who in the right mind will believe that this asinine assault on Islam and Muslims will win America friends in the Islamic world?

Now a word about the Washington-based semi-official think tank – the RAND Corporation. Among other government departments, the Rand Corp conducts studies for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Commands, the defense agencies, the Department of the Navy and the U.S. intelligence community. Obviously, writers of the three under discussion reports on Islam may be considered as neo-Orientalists with clear intention to belittle Islam.

When the European nations began their long campaign to colonize and conquer the rest of the world for their own benefit, they brought their academic and missionary resources to help them with their task. Orientalists and missionaries, whose ranks often overlapped, were the servants of an imperialist government who was using their services as a way to subdue or weaken an enemy. The academic study of the Oriental East by the Occidental West was often motivated and often co-operated hand-in-hand with the imperialistic aims of the European colonial powers. The foundations of Orientalism were in the maxim "Know thy enemy". This equally applies to the modern day Orientalists of such semi-official think tanks as the Rand Corporation.

Iraq & Washington's Systemic Failure

consortiumnews.com

By Robert Parry
March 19, 2007

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney may deserve the most blame for the Iraq War, but a core reality shouldn’t be missed: the four-year-old conflict resulted from a systemic failure in Washington – from the White House, to congressional Republicans and Democrats, to an insular national news media, to Inside-the-Beltway think tanks.

It was a perfect storm that had been building for more than a quarter century, a collision of mutually reinforcing elements: aggressive Republicans, triangulating Democrats, careerist journalists, bullying cable-TV and talk-radio pundits, hard-hitting and well-funded think tanks on the Right versus ineffectual and marginalized groups on the Left.

“Tough-guy-ism” from Washington's armchair Rambos had become the capital's controlling ideology, especially after the 9/11 terror attacks. In part, the Iraq War could be viewed as a macho parlor game of one-upmanship gone mad, with very few daring to be called unmanly or un-American.

The war that has killed some 3,200 U.S. soldiers and possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also can be traced to conflicting self-interests, pitting what makes sense for Washington insiders against what’s best for the broader American public and especially military families.

For the politicians and the think-tankers who wanted the invasion, the war was a win-win-win. They amassed greater power and influence; they had the vicarious thrill of dispatching armies into battle; their friends lined up for the gravy train of war profits and the chance to buy up lucrative oil fields.

While cashing in politically and financially, the insiders knew, too, that the human price would be paid by other people’s children and the dollar costs would be passed to future generations. In Washington, a pro-war stance in 2002 and early 2003 was nearly all upside, almost no downside.

However, for those who were sent to fight and for their families, the balance sheet was different. They suffered the casualties, the fear, the uncertainty, the heartbreak. But these two groups – the war’s architects and the troops – rarely crossed paths, representing two disparate social classes.

While American soldiers and their loved ones worried about actual death, what mattered most in Washington was political self-preservation.

Even though many in Washington understood the grave risks behind Bush’s invasion, it made more sense to join the pro-war herd. Even if the war went badly, there would be very little danger of career-threatening recriminations because too many important people were in the same position. There was safety in numbers.

The worst that might happen is that you’d have to make a muted mea culpa a few years later while shifting the blame away from yourself onto someone – say, Donald Rumsfeld – for his incompetent execution of the plan.

Ugly Names

By contrast, there was a risk if you stood up to Bush’s pro-war juggernaut in 2002 and early 2003. You’d get called ugly names; your career would suffer; you’d be treated like a pariah. Just ask the Dixie Chicks, former weapons inspector Scott Ritter and Al Gore.

Though fear of ostracism didn’t compare with the dangers faced by the troops, it’s noteworthy on this fourth anniversary of the war how few Washington insiders dared ask tough questions – and how few of those who helped mislead the nation into this foreign policy catastrophe paid any serious price.

President Bush may be a lot less popular but he’s still in the White House as is Vice President Cheney. Bush’s national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was elevated to Secretary of State. Other war architects, such as Elliott Abrams and Stephen Hadley, got promotions within the National Security Council.

Even the most notorious Iraq War screw-ups – former CIA director George Tenet, Gen. Tommy Franks and pro-consul Paul Bremer – got Medals of Freedom, the highest civilian honor that can be bestowed by the President.

Most pink slips went to officials who were not sufficiently enthusiastic about the Iraq War, from early skeptics like Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill to later doubters like Secretary of State Colin Powell. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld did get fired, but only after he sent the President a memo on Nov. 6, 2006, suggesting a phased military withdrawal. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Gates's Hearing Has New Urgency."]

The most significant accountability exacted on Washington insiders was Election 2006 when voters booted the Republicans from control of the House and Senate and replaced them with Democrats, who have restored some semblance of checks and balances. But even there, it’s not yet clear whether the change will be meaningful or just cosmetic.

The future may still be dominated by Iraq War supporters. All announced Republican presidential candidates, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, are backers, and Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq and still doesn’t favor a complete U.S. military withdrawal.

Clinton personifies the Democratic Party’s instinct for “triangulation,” the avoidance of principled stands in favor of nuanced positions that are calculated to be least offensive to the greatest number of people.

Whatever the Democrats who supported Bush’s war resolution say now, the most powerful motive behind their decision was the consultant-driven advice that a yes vote was the safest political choice. Indeed, a no vote was viewed by many Democratic consultants as political suicide for their clients.

In a way, Washington can be compared to a dysfunctional family with the Republicans playing the abusive husband and the Democrats the abused wife, who only recently has begun to speak up for herself.

Unaccountable Media

Yet, while Washington’s political hierarchy has changed only marginally in the past four years, the national news media has experienced even less accountability.

With the exception of New York Times reporter Judith Miller whose career imploded over her WMD credulity and Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly who died in a vehicle accident in Iraq, the disastrous Iraq War has caused little shake-up in the line-up of national pundits and top journalists.

One could even argue that the wrongheaded Washington pundits are more deeply entrenched today than they were when the invasion was launched on March 19, 2003. Today’s “smart” pundit position on Iraq is to have supported the invasion four years ago but to now complain about poor follow-through.

The few journalists and pundits who were skeptical about the invasion have gotten little reward for their foresight and courage. Washington’s powerful insider crowd generally regards them as “ideologues” or “partisans” who were only correct because their irrational hatred of Bush brought them to the right conclusion by accident.

In the up-is-down world of Washington, it was considered an act of courage to join the pro-war herd; conformity was independence; limited second thoughts about the war are now a sign of wisdom.

The national news media also has undergone very little structural change in the past four years. The Right continues to pour hundreds of millions – even billions – of dollars into building media outlets and creating content, from print to radio to TV to the Internet. This investment gives the Right a huge advantage in defining issues and setting the agenda.

Meanwhile, American liberals and progressives have yet to make anything close to that kind of commitment in terms of media infrastructure. [For more on this phenomenon, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

One of the few liberal broadcast initiatives, Air America Radio, already has undergone bankruptcy reorganization, and progressive Internet sites are mostly expected to somehow fend for themselves.

Yet, while it may be true that only limited progress has been made in reinvigorating the U.S. political/media structure, it can’t be denied that a significant change has occurred in public awareness of the problem.

Perhaps the most hopeful sign is that many Americans now understand how little the Washington insiders – whether in political office or in the news media – deserve to be trusted. That skepticism, if it is combined with serious demands for change, could be the start of a rebirth for the American Republic.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. To comment to us by e-mail, click here.

Military action against Iran would backfire on Israel, report warns

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 12 March 2007

Military action against Iran would backfire against Israel, which in turn would face "dire and far-reaching" consequences, a leading British foreign policy think-tank believes.

Chatham House says in a report that it is "widely assumed" that preparations are "well under way" in both America and Israel for military action against targets related to Iran's nuclear programme. The report by Yossi Mekelberg examines the possible responses by Iran, which may retaliate with massive ballistic missile attacks on Israeli cities such as Tel Aviv or Haifa, resulting in "substantial loss of life".

Israel's relations with moderate Arab states would also be harmed, as any military attack would be seen as an offensive against the Muslim world and would fuel Islamic extremism.

"An Israeli military operation against Iran would hurt Israel's long-term interests. It would be detrimental to Israel's overall security and the political and economic consequences would be dire and far-reaching," the report warns.

Israel says the issue of curbing Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme is a problem for the international community. But it has been made clear by the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, that if the international community failed to prevent Iran from obtaining a weapon, Israel would take the steps to do so.

While the report describes such a possibility as remote, it says that if diplomatic efforts fail, "the US and Israel would feel that force is justified and might act militarily either together or separately, regardless of international consent. This could have disastrous consequences."

Mr Mekelberg concurs with other analysts who have warned that military action against Iran could provoke fallout against US forces in Iraq. And like previous studies, the report points out that any attack would be unlikely to halt Iran's nuclear programme, and would only delay it "for a while."

The report concludes that international efforts should continue to focus on diplomatic and economic sanctions that could persuade the Iranian authorities to comply with UN demands. The report argues that Israel could consider open deterrence by coming clean on its nuclear arsenal as an alternative to military action, an option the Israelis are unlikely to contemplate.

The UN Security Council is calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment - which can produce fuel for a nuclear weapon - in return for negotiations. But Iran, which says its intentions are peaceful, defied a deadline which passed last month, exposing Tehran to expanded sanctions.

Iranian state-run television said that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted to brief the UN Security Council about his country's nuclear plans, but did not give further details.

Attacking Iran could speed up nuclear programme: think tank

by Phil Hazlewood 1 hour, 34 minutes ago

Pre-emptive military strikes on Iran could accelerate rather than hinder Tehran's production of atomic weapons, a report by a British global security think-tank warned Monday.

Backed by the former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, the Oxford Research Group said Iran could respond to an attack by launching a "crash programme" to develop a crude nuclear device within months.

"If Iran is moving towards a nuclear weapons capacity it is doing it relatively slowly, most estimates put it at least five years away," said one of the report's authors, leading British nuclear scientist Frank Barnaby.

"However attacking Iran -- far from setting back their progress towards a bomb -- would almost certainly lead to a fast-track programme to develop a small number of nuclear devices as quickly as possible.

"It would be a bit like deciding to build a car from spare parts instead of building the entire car factory. Put simply, military attacks could speed Iran's progress to a nuclear bomb."

The report suggests air strikes, like those reportedly being considered by the United States and Israel, would harden Iranian attitudes and political resistance to outside pressure to stop uranium enrichment.

The Islamic republic would then focus on manufacturing one or two nuclear devices, leading to a nuclear-armed Iran within one or two years, it added.

Blix, who headed the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) in Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), backs the report's assessment.

He wrote in the report's foreword: "Armed attacks on Iran would very likely lead to the result they were meant to avoid -- the building of nuclear weapons within a few years."

The report argued that military action would probably result in a high number of civilian casualties, as a surprise attack would inevitably catch many people unawares and unprotected.

Air strikes would have to hit many well-protected targets across Iran, including the Kalaye Electric Company, which produces components for gas centrifuges used in uranium enrichment.

Other targets would include the Bushehr nuclear reactor, the Arak heavy water reactor and heavy water production plant, uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz, uranium mines at Saghand and the research reactors at Isfahan.

But the report said there was a "real possibility" Iran had built secret facilities elsewhere as well as "false targets" in anticipation of air strikes.

"With inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that it would be possible to identify and subsequently destroy the number of targets needed to set back Iran's nuclear programme for a significant period," it said.

The report suggested that Iran could salvage enough material for a bomb from the reactor at Bushehr after any attack, or turn to the black market, where small amounts of uranium or plutonium would be easy to smuggle.

Alternatively, the Iranians may already have set up clandestine facilities with centrifuges that could escape an attack.

"It is a mistake to believe that Iran can be deterred from attaining a nuclear weapons capability by bombing its facilities," the report said.

"In the aftermath of a military strike, if Iran devoted maximum effort and resources to building one nuclear bomb, it could achieve this in a relatively short amount of time: some months rather than years."

The group's executive director, John Sloboda, said: "This report doesn't get into the rights and wrongs of military strikes. It asks whether they will achieve their objectives...

"The conclusions should be food for thought for even the most hawkish: military strikes against Iran will simply not work. Indeed they could even bring a nuclear-armed Iran closer."

Crazier than Bush! Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns

IRAN

Iran and U.S. National Security

A Conversation on Iran and U.S. National Security R. Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs > Watch (wmv) > Listen (mp3) U.S. military officials have sought to link Iran to Iraq's Shiite militias, displaying recent evidence such as deadly armor-piercing explosives and other weapons as a direct link of their support. As questions continue regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions and involvement in Iraq, Brookings hosted R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, who discussed the future of U.S.–Iran relations as they relate to peace and security in the region. transcript forthcoming

On the Qods:

I'll resist the temptation to draw an organizational chart, for obvious reasons. They're part of the Iranian defense and intelligence establishment. They're a major part of the Iranian government. Therefore, the actions of that force are the responsibility of that government. If that force is supplying technology for Shiite militants, that government is responsible.

US think tank urges retreat from Iraq

by Dave Clark 2 hours, 2 minutes ago

An independent think tank warned that the situation in Iraq was beyond repair and urged that US forces should be pulled out whatever the result of the current "surge" of troops into Baghdad.

A report from Washington's Council on Foreign Relations concluded that a US military victory was impossible in Iraq, where "amateurish" post-invasion rule by American officials had seen Iraq collapse into civil war.

The respected institute's stark assessment comes at a time of collapsing public support for the war in the United States and mounting opposition to President George W. Bush's strategy within Congress.

"The United States has already achieved all that it is likely to achieve in Iraq... Staying in Iraq can only drive up the price of those gains in blood, treasure and strategic position," wrote Steven Simon, author of the report.

"The time has come to acknowledge that the United States must fundamentally recast its commitment to Iraq. It must do so without any illusions that there are unexplored or magic fixes, whether diplomatic or military," he warned.

"Some disasters are irretrievable," he continued, calling for troops to be pulled out by the end of 2008.

Simon, in a paper entitled "After the Surge: The Case for US Military Disengagement from Iraq," said troop levels are still too low to quell the fighting but more reinforcements would make little difference in any case.

The US invasion "plunged the country into a civil war that brought about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, wrecked the country's already debilitated infrastructure, and spurred violent sectarian rivalries."

"The crisis has now moved beyond the capacity of Washington to control on its own... The United States lacks the military resources and the domestic and international political support to master the situation," Simon warned.

Bush and his commanders have pinned the success of his Iraq strategy on sending 21,500 additional US troops to secure Baghdad and allow the embattled Iraqi government and US reconstruction teams to rebuild the country.

But Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's so-called unity government is wracked by sectarian rivalry and much of the country is prey to illegal Shiite militias and roving bands of Sunni anti-US insurgents.

In addition, Simon warns, Washington has been unable to contribute enough personnel for a sustained counterinsurgency and nation building effort.

He notes that the US civilian agencies have been only able to find 116 staff to fill a planned 167 positions on "provincial reconstruction teams," compared to the 1,700 who were thrown into a similar failed effort in Vietnam.

And even accounting for the extra troops in the ongoing "surge," the new US commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General David Petraeus, has only half the number of soldiers he would need to follow his own counterinsurgency doctrine.

In addition to destroying the Iraqi state and plunging the country into crisis, the US invasion has strengthened the hand of Washington's enemies in Iran and tied down troops that could be more usefully used elsewhere.

"By siphoning resources and political attention away from Afghanistan, a continuing military commitment to Iraq may lead to US losses in southwest Asia," Simon warned starkly of NATO's ongoing operation against the Taliban.

American failures since the March 2003 invasion had cost Bush public support at home, making military disengagement inevitable, the report warns.

"It is now just a matter of time," Simon wrote. "Better to withdraw as a coherent and somewhat volitional act than withdraw later in hectic response to public opposition to the war in the United States."

The Iran Option That Isn't on the Table

By Vali Nasr and Ray Takeyh

Thursday, February 8, 2007; A21

As Iran crosses successive nuclear demarcations and mischievously intervenes in Iraq, the question of how to address the Islamic republic is once more preoccupying Washington. Economic sanctions, international ostracism, military strikes and even support for hopeless exiles are all contemplated with vigor and seriousness. One option, however, is rarely assessed: engagement as a means of achieving a more pluralistic and responsible government in Tehran.

The all-encompassing nuclear debate comes as Iran's political landscape is changing once again. As America became reconciled to a monolithic Iran, represented by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his brand of rambunctious politics, the results from December's local elections suggest Iranians were doing otherwise. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric and populist posturing did not impress the Iranians who turned out in large numbers to elect city councils and members of the Assembly of Experts. Voters favored pragmatic conservatives and reformers who oppose their president's policies abroad and his economic programs at home. Despite this show of dissent, though, it would be a mistake to assume that Iran's regime is about to fall or that a democratic spring is looming.

Iran has long appeared ready for democracy. It has a literate, youthful population that is immersed in world culture, is at home on the Internet, is keen to engage the West and is above the anti-American anger that dominates the Arab street. No other Middle Eastern country has as much civic activism or a population that has voted as often in elections at various levels. But positive social and cultural indices have so far not translated into a political opening. Iranian society may be ready to embrace democracy, but Iranian politics is not ready to accommodate it.

Iran does not have an organized pro-democracy movement. The reformers who were swept to power in 1997 never coalesced around a coherent platform, nor did they produce a political party. Their movement inspired activism and student protests, and it changed the style and language of politics, but its lack of organization ultimately cost it the presidency in 2005. Reformism was popular but politically ineffective.

The clerical regime has also proved to be enterprising in facing demands for reform, particularly by using elections to manage opposition within the bounds of the Islamic republic. Economic isolation, supported by international sanctions, has kept the private sector weak, which has in turn denied supporters of change levers they could use to pry open the regime. The public sector accounts for more than 80 percent of the Iranian economy, and the constitution gives the clerical leadership most of the power. The problem facing democracy is not so much the state's theocratic nature as it is the enormous domination it enjoys over the economy, society and politics. For democracy to succeed, the state's domination of the economy and society must be reduced.

For too long, Washington has thought that a policy of coercion and sanctions applied to Iran would eventually yield a responsible and representative regime. Events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe suggest that containment eventually generates sufficient pressure to force autocratic elites to accommodate both international mandates and the aspirations of their restless constituents. Ironically, though, U.S. policy has buttressed the Iranian regime, which has justified its monopoly of power as a means of fending off external enemies and managing an economy under international duress.

More than sanctions or threats of military retribution, Iran's integration into the global economy would impose standards and discipline on the recalcitrant theocracy. International investors and institutions such as the World Trade Organization are far more subversive, as they would demand the prerequisites of a democratic society -- transparency, the rule of law and decentralization -- as a price for their commerce.

Paradoxically, to liberalize the theocratic state, the United States would do better to shelve its containment strategy and embark on a policy of unconditional dialogue and sanctions relief. A reduced American threat would deprive the hard-liners of the conflict they need to justify their concentration of power. In the meantime, as Iran became assimilated into the global economy, the regime's influence would inevitably yield to the private sector, with its demands for accountability and reform.

It is important to appreciate that Iran has a political system without precedent or parallel in modern history. The struggle there is not just between reactionaries and reformers, conservatives and liberals, but fundamentally between the state and society. A subtle means of diminishing the state and empowering the society is, in the end, the best manner of promoting not only democracy but also nuclear disarmament.

Vali Nasr is a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and the author of "The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future." Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of "Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic."

Attacking Iran would be disaster, report says(with full text)

Matthew Tempest and agencies
Monday February 5, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Photograph: AP.

Tony Blair was under pressure today to open direct talks with Tehran over its alleged nuclear weapons programme, as a coalition of UK charities, religious bodies and thinktanks warned that an attack on Iran would be a "disaster".

As the prime minister dropped a broad hint that he would work on the Middle East peace process after retiring this year, a report warned that an attack on Iran would expose British troops to attack, civilians to terrorism and release radiation in Iran.

---

---

The report by 15 organisations - backed by Britain's former ambassador to Iran - comes as the US appears to be upping the ante in an increasingly hostile war of words with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

The previous foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has said that military action against Iran would be "inconceivable". Margaret Beckett, his successor, has also insisted that no one is planning action against Tehran.

Today's report, entitled "Time to Talk: The Case for Diplomatic Solutions on Iran", comes from the Foreign Policy Centre, backed by trade unions, Muslim and Christian groups and Oxfam.

It says that the UK could prove the vital catalyst between the EU and US on reopening talks with Iran.

Launching the document, Sir Richard Dalton, the British ambassador to Iran until last year, said that a pre-emptive strike on Iran would be "a disaster for Iran, the region and quite possibly the world".

He said that patience and diplomacy were key to securing a successful outcome.

"But both sides should work for a resumption. It is vital that the US becomes fully involved in creative diplomacy," he told the BBC.

The former Labour minister Stephen Twigg, director of the Foreign Policy Centre, said: "The consequences of military action against Iran are not only unpalatable, they are unthinkable.

"Even according to the worst estimates, Iran is still years away from having a nuclear weapon."

Last May the Iranian president wrote an open letter to US president, George Bush, offering talks, but this was rejected.

In recent weeks Mr Bush has accused Iran, in addition to its nuclear ambitions, of supporting the insurgency in neighbouring Iraq.

But another former Labour MP, who is now chief executive of the British-Israel Communications and Research Centre, warned that time was running out to stop Iran become a nuclear power.

Lorna Fitzsimons told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we are talking about here is Iran reaching the ability on an industrial scale to manufacture highly-enriched uranium.

"IISS [International Institute for Strategic Studies] and many others prophesise that that is going to happen between nine to 11 months from today.

"That is the watershed. There is no return from that point. You can't get the genie back in the bottle technologically once they have sorted out the problem they currently have with their centrifuges."

The Tories urged keeping all options "on the table", while the Liberal Democrats welcomed the report's call for new talks with Tehran.

The FPC report warns that military action could further destabilise the region and provoke retaliatory attacks against British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It could also undermine the war on terror by fuelling anti-western sentiments, while strikes against nuclear facilities risk unleashing radioactive contamination.

"Military action is not likely to be a short, sharp engagement but could have a profound effect on the region, with shock waves felt far beyond," the report says.

"The UK government is well positioned to articulate objections to military action. Military action against Iran would work against the interests of the UK."

The report says that Mr Blair is among several world leaders who are keeping military force on the table.

"Opposition to military action is currently widespread, though key leaders (notably Tony Blair and Angela Merkel [the German chancellor]) have refused to rule it out, believing the threat to be an important negotiating tool," it says.

Separately, in an interview broadcast today with BBC Radio 1, Mr Blair promised to retain an interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "in the years to come".

The prime minister has already pledged, in his conference speech last year, to devote much of his remaining time in office to the problem, but today appeared to go further, suggesting that he would work on the issue after leaving No 10.

In the pre-recorded interview, Mr Blair said that world leaders were agreed that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the single most important issue for world peace.

He added: "Our obligation is to put forward a peace process that can work and try and take that forward.

"And over the next few weeks I think there will be some real movement there."

Asked whether he will continue to work in the Middle East post-Downing Street, Mr Blair said: "I will retain a huge interest in the peace process in Israel and Palestine in the years to come of course because it's so important.

"That's the reason why I've spent so long in my time in office [concentrating on the Middle East] and, incidentally, I am in the end optimistic that this thing can be done.

"But it requires a lot of hard work, a lot of commitment and it requires the international community as a whole to recognise that there is no more important issue for us to resolve than Israel-Palestine."

· Read the full report here

Attacking Iran would be disaster, report says(with full text)

Matthew Tempest and agencies
Monday February 5, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Photograph: AP.

Tony Blair was under pressure today to open direct talks with Tehran over its alleged nuclear weapons programme, as a coalition of UK charities, religious bodies and thinktanks warned that an attack on Iran would be a "disaster".

As the prime minister dropped a broad hint that he would work on the Middle East peace process after retiring this year, a report warned that an attack on Iran would expose British troops to attack, civilians to terrorism and release radiation in Iran.

---

---

The report by 15 organisations - backed by Britain's former ambassador to Iran - comes as the US appears to be upping the ante in an increasingly hostile war of words with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

The previous foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has said that military action against Iran would be "inconceivable". Margaret Beckett, his successor, has also insisted that no one is planning action against Tehran.

Today's report, entitled "Time to Talk: The Case for Diplomatic Solutions on Iran", comes from the Foreign Policy Centre, backed by trade unions, Muslim and Christian groups and Oxfam.

It says that the UK could prove the vital catalyst between the EU and US on reopening talks with Iran.

Launching the document, Sir Richard Dalton, the British ambassador to Iran until last year, said that a pre-emptive strike on Iran would be "a disaster for Iran, the region and quite possibly the world".

He said that patience and diplomacy were key to securing a successful outcome.

"But both sides should work for a resumption. It is vital that the US becomes fully involved in creative diplomacy," he told the BBC.

The former Labour minister Stephen Twigg, director of the Foreign Policy Centre, said: "The consequences of military action against Iran are not only unpalatable, they are unthinkable.

"Even according to the worst estimates, Iran is still years away from having a nuclear weapon."

Last May the Iranian president wrote an open letter to US president, George Bush, offering talks, but this was rejected.

In recent weeks Mr Bush has accused Iran, in addition to its nuclear ambitions, of supporting the insurgency in neighbouring Iraq.

But another former Labour MP, who is now chief executive of the British-Israel Communications and Research Centre, warned that time was running out to stop Iran become a nuclear power.

Lorna Fitzsimons told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we are talking about here is Iran reaching the ability on an industrial scale to manufacture highly-enriched uranium.

"IISS [International Institute for Strategic Studies] and many others prophesise that that is going to happen between nine to 11 months from today.

"That is the watershed. There is no return from that point. You can't get the genie back in the bottle technologically once they have sorted out the problem they currently have with their centrifuges."

The Tories urged keeping all options "on the table", while the Liberal Democrats welcomed the report's call for new talks with Tehran.

The FPC report warns that military action could further destabilise the region and provoke retaliatory attacks against British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It could also undermine the war on terror by fuelling anti-western sentiments, while strikes against nuclear facilities risk unleashing radioactive contamination.

"Military action is not likely to be a short, sharp engagement but could have a profound effect on the region, with shock waves felt far beyond," the report says.

"The UK government is well positioned to articulate objections to military action. Military action against Iran would work against the interests of the UK."

The report says that Mr Blair is among several world leaders who are keeping military force on the table.

"Opposition to military action is currently widespread, though key leaders (notably Tony Blair and Angela Merkel [the German chancellor]) have refused to rule it out, believing the threat to be an important negotiating tool," it says.

Separately, in an interview broadcast today with BBC Radio 1, Mr Blair promised to retain an interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "in the years to come".

The prime minister has already pledged, in his conference speech last year, to devote much of his remaining time in office to the problem, but today appeared to go further, suggesting that he would work on the issue after leaving No 10.

In the pre-recorded interview, Mr Blair said that world leaders were agreed that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the single most important issue for world peace.

He added: "Our obligation is to put forward a peace process that can work and try and take that forward.

"And over the next few weeks I think there will be some real movement there."

Asked whether he will continue to work in the Middle East post-Downing Street, Mr Blair said: "I will retain a huge interest in the peace process in Israel and Palestine in the years to come of course because it's so important.

"That's the reason why I've spent so long in my time in office [concentrating on the Middle East] and, incidentally, I am in the end optimistic that this thing can be done.

"But it requires a lot of hard work, a lot of commitment and it requires the international community as a whole to recognise that there is no more important issue for us to resolve than Israel-Palestine."

· Read the full report here

The Green-Zoning of America: PAUL KRUGMAN - Spoils System

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST

The Green-Zoning of America

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: February 5, 2007

Under the guise of promoting a conservative agenda, the Bush administration has created a supersized version of the 19th-century spoils system.

One of the best of the many recent books about the Iraq debacle is Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.” The book tells a tale of hopes squandered in the name of politicization and privatization: key jobs in Baghdad’s Green Zone were assigned on the basis of loyalty rather than know-how, while key functions were outsourced to private contractors.

Two recent reports in The New York Times serve as a reminder that the Bush administration has brought the same corruption of governance to the home front. Call it the Green-Zoning of America.

---

Meanwhile, never mind the idea that outsourcing of government functions should be used to promote competition and save money. The Times reports that “fewer than half of all ‘contract actions’ — new contracts and payments against existing contracts — are now subject to full and open competition,” down from 79 percent in 2001. And many contractors are paid far more than it would cost to do the job with government employees: those CACI workers processing claims against other contractors cost the government $104 an hour.

--MORE--

Demagoguery Posing as Scholarship

January 29, 2007

Dinesh D’Souza, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, has raised a ruckus in his new book The Enemy at Home. In the book, he contends that the 9/11 attackers were motivated by neither U.S. foreign policy abroad nor by a hatred of U.S. freedom, as President Bush has repeatedly argued. Instead, D’Souza declares that Osama bin Laden hates the liberal U.S. culture that promotes contraception, abortion, and homosexuality. In a recent op-ed piece in the Washington Post defending the book, D’Souza says that he doesn’t “hate America.” No, he just hates liberal America and is reprehensibly trying to use the horrible 9/11 attacks to score points against the Democrats of the left.

D’Souza is not the first person to try to turn the 9/11 attacks to his advantage. President Bush disingenuously tied them to Saddam Hussein and invaded Iraq. In fact, D’Souza is not even the first person on the right to try to pin the blame for 9/11 on the left. Jerry Falwell blamed gays, pagans, and the ACLU for the attacks. Although D’Souza seems horrified to have been compared with Falwell, they both end up at the same place. Falwell argued that God was punishing the United States for the activities of these liberal groups, and D’Souza argues that bin Laden has been enraged by American liberal groups’ overseas distribution of contraceptives and lobbying of non-Western countries to liberalize laws against homosexuality and abortion. Although Falwell’s explanation is religious and D’Souza’s is more secular, they both blame the left. Because D’Souza is a fellow at the Hoover Institution, however, he claims that he is not an “unqualified right-wing hack.”

But D’Souza’s qualifications for commenting on the causes of 9/11 are suspect. D’Souza’s biography on the Hoover Institution’s website indicates no scholarship expertise in fundamentalist Islam. In fact, D’Souza’s biography indicates no expertise on terrorism, foreign affairs, or national security policy. His Hoover Institution biography lists his expertise as follows: “Social and individual responsibility, civil rights and affirmative action, economics and society, higher education.” All previous books he has authored are on domestic subjects, and he was a senior domestic policy analyst at the White House during the Reagan administration. Academically, he earned a B.A. in English. After 9/11, everyone wants to be a foreign policy expert.

As a result of minimal credentials in the fields about which he is speaking, D’Souza, unsurprisingly, gets it wrong on the causes of 9/11. D’Souza writes in the Washington Post:

Contrary to the common liberal view, I don’t believe that the 9/11 attacks were payback for U.S. foreign policy. Bin Laden isn’t upset because there are U.S. troops in Mecca, as liberals are fond of saying. (There are no U.S. troops in Mecca.) He isn’t upset because Washington is allied with despotic regimes in the region. Israel aside, what other regimes are there in the Middle East? It isn’t all about Israel. (Why hasn’t al-Qaeda launched a single attack against Israel?) The thrust of the radical Muslim critique of America is that Islam is under attack from the global forces of atheism and immorality—and that the United States is leading that attack.

To evaluate D’Souza’s view, an examination is needed of bin Laden’s original motives for undertaking his war against the United States. Most terrorism experts—not just liberals—have concluded that bin Laden’s original motive for attacking the United States was seeing non-Muslim U.S. forces in the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia when he arrived back there after fighting the “infidel” Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan. In the Islamic world, it is the duty of every Muslim to do what he or she can to help evict non-Muslim occupiers from Muslim lands. This is what fuels Muslim resistance in Chechnya, Palestine, Afghanistan (both against Soviet and American occupiers), and Iraq. In fact, exhaustive empirical research on suicide terrorism by Robert Pape, a national security expert at the University of Chicago (hardly a bastion of liberalism), indicates that suicide terrorism has much less to do with religion than it does with the “nationalist” impulse to evict foreign occupiers from the homeland. Pape’s research shows that al Qaeda’s activities fall into this category because the group wants to evict the U.S. military presence from the Persian Gulf.

In addition, bin Laden’s other original motive for attacking the United States was its support for despotic, corrupt regimes in the Middle East. Just because there are many of them there doesn’t mean that this was not one of his prime motivators. His greatest hatred is for the autocratic government in his home country—Saudi Arabia. D’Souza, however, is right that bin Laden was not originally motivated to attack the United States because of its support for Israel. This justification was added later merely to gain more support for bin Laden’s cause in the Arab world.

In addition to most expert opinion, based on bin Laden’s original writings, and Pape’s empirical research, repeated public opinion polls in the Arab/Islamic world discredit D’Souza’s unsubstantiated musings. Those polls indicate that people in Islamic countries like U.S. technology, political and economic freedom, and even culture (which polls high even in Iran). The numbers start going south only when U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world is mentioned. As D’Souza even admits, the opinions of the Islamic mainstream are important because it has been the traditional recruiting pool for Muslim extremists.

Since D’Souza has few qualifications in the field and has little empirical data or expert opinion on his side, one has to conclude that he is, in fact, a political hack in scholar’s clothing, who is exploiting 9/11 merely to pillory his political opponents. His demagogic bloviation, like that of Falwell and Bush, is dangerous because it obfuscates the demonstrated link between interventionist U.S. foreign policy and blowback terrorism and lets politicians and pundits avoid the most obvious solution: a more humble U.S. foreign policy.

---

Ivan Eland
Send email

Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute and Assistant Editor of The Independent Review. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, Evaluator-in-Charge (national security and intelligence) for the U.S. General Accounting Office, and Investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Full Biography and Recent Publications

Iran invasion costs would dwarf those in Iraq

Tuesday January 30 2007

As tension rises between the US and Iran, Econbrowser provides a useful overview of the economic fallout of any US military strike against Iran.

The blog cites a 54-page report from the US thinktank the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, written by Anthony Cordesman - one of Washington's best armchair generals - and Khali al-Rodhan.

Called Iranian Nuclear Weapons? Options for Sanctions and Military Strikes, the study indicates that discussion of a military attack against Iran well predated the Bush administration's sabre-rattling against Tehran of past weeks.

After running through various scenarios, from limited effect on oil prices (best case) to a closure of the Straits of Hormuz (worst case), Econbrowser concludes: "In sum, the expected value of the costs associated with military action in Iran would likely dwarf the direct fiscal and non-pecuniary costs that we have already incurred in Iraq."

As part of its campaign to isolate Iran, the US is putting pressure on European countries to cut economic and financial ties with Iran. But as the International Herald Tribune reports, European governments are dragging their feet in freezing Iranian assets or blocking transactions between European and Iranian banks.

David Seaton's Newslinks picks up on an agreement signed over the weekend by Royal Dutch Shell and Iran that could lead to a multi-billion dollar investment in Iran, which has not gone down well with the US.

"Europe is not willing to sacrifice strategic energy supplies to make life easier for a lame duck American president whose short hairs appear to be in the possession of the Israeli Likud... Does this gang of idiots actually have the chops to sanction European flagship, Royal Dutch Shell?"

By Mark Tran / USA 03:02pm

Some optimism on Afghanistan, none on Iraq

A Nato spokesman at a London thinktank talked up the Afghan campaign, but none of the sober suited specialists had hope for Iraq

---

When is a war a winnable one? That, it seems, can depend on your perception.

Nato, apparently, remains confident that the Western intervention in Afghanistan, short on international attention and resources since the focus turned to Iraq in 2003, can still reach a positive conclusion.

Addressing a seminar today at the Chatham House think tank in London, Jamie Shea, director of policy planning in office of Nato secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, insisted progress was being made.

"Above all, we have recognised that this is a mission that is eminently do-able," said the now white-haired Englishmen, best known for his role as chief press officer and public face of Nato during various the Balkan crises.

Success would depend on improved cooperation between nations and other organisations, and could take as long as a decade, he warned, noting: "The business of state-building is a work in progress."

His cautiously optimistic view of a sustained, global effort to stablise the Afghan state, crack down on the drugs trade and gradually train a new force of domestic police officers was far too rosy for some of the academics, policy experts and journalists listening.

One BBC reporter with experience of present day Afghanistan called Mr Shea's version "absolutely extraordinary", saying: "I couldn't recognise the country from how you described it."

But while there was someone willing to talk up the Afghan campaign, the view on Iraq, the other main subject of the morning's talk, could be summed up as such: we're all doomed.

And this, it should be remembered, was no student debate but a room full of several hundred sober-suited, overwhelmingly middle aged specialists.

While Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador in Washington when the troops first went into Iraq, could describe Afghanistan as "winnable", he made no similar predictions for the other war.

Those who could speak more bluntly did so, with some vehemence.

Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert at London University's Queen Mary College and author of several books on the modern Iraqi state spoke of a political vacuum now filled by militia groups.

"The thing to keep in mind is that the Iraqi state does not exist in a meaningful fashion," he said, warning that a rapid US troop withdrawal would make matters even worse.

It would be "morally repugnant to leave 26 million people to descend into hell - a hell that we have created," he said.

When the foreign troops eventually leave, they will leave "a collapsed state with a civil war, in one of the most important geo-political regions in the world".

By Peter Walker / World news 02:47pm

American Enterprise Institute Is Setting Policy for Iraq

January 06, 2007

Bush is Following The American Enterprise Institute - hook, line and sinker

As I predicted in my post of January 1, 2007, it is becoming very clear that President Bush has dismissed the work of the Iraq Study Group and has embraced the work of The American Enterprise Group. No need to wait until next week, just go to the American Enterprise website and download the report titled "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq". Just about everything that the President will propose next week is sitting right there.

In the Executive Summary Portion, they outline the basics of the plan. Here they are (I summarize and those items in parens are my comments):

1. Ground forces must accept longer tours of duty for several years. National Guard units will have to accept increased deployments during this period.
2. Equipment shortages must be overcome by transferring equipment from non-deploying units. The military industry must be mobilized to provide replacement equipment sets urgently (Investment opportunities?? - My comment in the parens)
3. The President must request a dramatic increase in reconstruction aid for Iraq (How about New Orleans first?)
4. The President must request a substantial increase in ground forces end-strength. The President must issue a personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight in the decisive conflict of this generation (How about his daughters first?)
5. The President and his Representatives in Iraq must forge unity of effort with the Iraqi government.

Deep in the proposal, they basically support what Thomas Ricks said in the book Fiasco. In this book, he showed how the US Military totally blew the identification of the insurgency then blew the actual fighting of the insurgency. These recommendations call for:

1. Secure Baghdad first - The US Military will be playing "policeman" in the Country's capital.
2. "Live Among the People" - This means "bye bye green zone". All the "warriors" who have been talking about the big war from the security of the Green zone and the internet cafes, gyms etc. are going to learn what real war is like. They are going to move to tents, foxholes and 24 hour vigilance because they will be out among the people.
3. Huge amounts of money going to reconstruction. Imagine, we cannot reconstruct New Orleans but we are now going to fix Baghdad.

Overall, this is nothing more than an escalation plan. A surge implies a quick hit and run type thing but even in the AI study, they call for this to be many years long. That is an escalation not a surge.

My predictions:

1. If you are an active reservist - see ya later. Good luck, you are going to Iraq for at least two years.
2. If you are active duty - move your family home because you are gone for a long time.
3. If you are IRR (Individual ready reservist) - Get your finances and family care in order. You are either going to Iraq or you are going to backfill current active troops on bases in the US and Germany.
4. There will be a "surge" in US deaths and combat injuries.
5. The only way a true escalation would work is to send in at least 100,000 troops. 10,000 to 20,000 are what we call "speed bumps"

No need to wait. Go read it now!!

--cptkevin@mac.com

Technorati Tags: AEI, army, escalation, iraq war, irr, military, surge

January 06, 2007 in Army, Military, Politics, War in Iraq | Permalink ,

Think tank: Israel could attack Iran's nukes program on its own

Last update - 17:21 02/01/2007

By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent and The Associated Press

The Institute for National Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University said in its annual report, released Tuesday, that Iran will possess nuclear weapons unless military action is taken against it, and Israel would be capable of carrying out such an attack

"Time is working in Iran's favor, and barring military action, Iran's
possession of nuclear weapons is only a matter of time," the institute said in a statement distributed at a news conference where it released its annual assessment of the Middle East's strategic balance.

Israel considers Iran to be its most serious threat. It dismisses Tehran's claims that its nuclear program is designed solely to produce energy and is worried by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated calls to wipe the Jewish state off the map.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has not ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, but has said he hoped other ways could be found to keep Tehran from becoming a nuclear power. In 1981, Israel destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor in a surprise air attack.

The INSS think tank stopped short of calling for an Israeli military strike to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Although experts elsewhere have questioned Israel's ability to cripple the Iranian program, which is scattered and built in part in underground bunkers, analysts at INSS said Israel would be capable of carrying it off.

A member of the institute's board, Brigadier General (res.) Giora Eiland said there would not be a military strike without a full "strategic and military" understanding with the U.S.

"Even if, at the end of the day, Israeli jets are going to carry out, or execute, this attack, it might be perceived - and rightly - as an understanding between the United States and Israel," Eiland said.

INSS head Zvi Shtauber, a retired general who also served as Israel's ambassador in London and senior policy adviser to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, said Israel was "technically" capable of striking alone and would have to do so if it takes action, because no other country would agree to work openly with Israel.

Taking issue with Eiland's assessment that the U.S. must sign off on such an attack, he said, "There are certain things that it's better the U.S. not know about."

Institute analysts, while doubtful that international sanctions would sway Iran from its nuclear ambitions, said the time had not yet come to decide on military action.

"We should do it only when it's clear we've exhausted all other means," Shtauber said.

'Worth exploring Assad overture'
The institute also said in its report that although it was skeptical about the Syrian president's recent peace overtures, it was worth exploring.

The report expressed doubts that Assad could "come up with the goods" during negotiations with Israel, in terms of both his ability and his readiness to go through with talks.

Eiland, told reporters at a Tel Aviv press conference Tuesday that the summer war in Lebanon will have serious and far-reaching repercussions on Israel's power of deterrence.

He said that both Israel's neighbors and the United States have taken note of the failures during the war.

"From the perspective of our friends in the U.S., we failed to come up with the goods in an embarrassing way," he said.

Key Israeli think tank calls for military action against Iran

'Only military action can stop Iran'

Yaakov Katz, THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 21, 2006

In a dramatic conclusion concerning the future of the state of Israel, the latest edition of the Middle East Strategic Balance, compiled by the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies (JCSS) and released to the public on Thursday, calls for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program.

Prepared annually by JCSS at Tel Aviv University, the Middle East Strategic Balance provides an authoritative and indispensable guide to strategic developments and military capabilities in the Middle East by offering a comprehensive, insightful assessment of the complex strategic environment of the Middle East. The report is considered something of a bible for military analysts who follow developments in the region.

The 2005-2006 edition was compiled by former IAF Intelligence officer Yiftah Shapir and Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Zvi Shatuber. Shatuber is a former ambassador to the United Kingdom and was a member of Israeli delegations to peace talks with Syria and the Palestinians. ['Peace' talks, 'ambassador', surrre, just looking for oppurtunities to kill.]

"Our conclusion is that without military action you won't be able to stop Iran," Shtauber told The Jerusalem Post Thursday.

The United Nations Security Council is set to vote Friday on a sanctions resolution against Iran, which has been revised in response to Russian objections. The latest draft, if approved, would order all countries to ban the supply of specified materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear and missile programs. The proposed sanctions would also include freezing the assets of a list of companies and individuals involved in the country's nuclear and missile programs.

Despite the impending vote and increased diplomatic action, Shtauber said he believed it was too late for sanctions. "There is no longer a possibility for effective sanctions to stop Iran," he said.

Shapir recently told the Post that Israel has the military capability to destroy at least part of Iran's nuclear installations to the point that it would be possible to delay Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Earlier in the week, Mossad chief Meir Dagan said that Iran had recently increased efforts to enrich nuclear fuel. Dagan estimated that Iran would be able to begin building a nuclear bomb by 2009.

The other Iraq report

Eye on Iraq
By MARTIN SIEFF
UPI Senior News Analyst

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 (UPI) -- A new report published Monday documents grim confirmation of the most pessimistic assessments we have made in these columns over the rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq during the past 10 months.

Ever since Shiite militias across Iraq erupted into a frenzy of retaliatory random killings of Sunnis following the bombing of the al-Askariya, or Golden Mosque in Samara -- a cherished Shiite shrine -- on Feb. 22, 2006, we have charted and predicted in these columns the California-sized nation of 28 million people's rapid descent into a state of violent chaos. In the words of the great 17th century English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, life in Iraq has become nasty, brutish and short."

The new report, entitled "Iraq's Sectarian and Ethnic Violence and Evolving Insurgency: Developments through mid-December 2006" is by Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke chair in strategy at the center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

The 92-page report was released to none of the media hoopla and obsession that greeted the Iraq Study Group report chaired by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton. But it is even more frank and harsh in its assessments of the current chaos in Iraq than the ISG document.

The CSIS report acknowledged what we predicted and then saw confirmed in the fall: that the ill-fated U.S.-led Operation Together Forward II in Baghdad had only made "slow progress in clearing the volatile neighborhoods, and the initiative lacked sufficient forces to maintain peace in cleared areas"

"Baghdad was the center of the sectarian conflict, but violence spread to surrounding towns -- particularly Baquba, Balad, and Amara -- as the civil war threatened to engulf the entire country," the report said.

Cordesman noted that the United Nations had concluded that by mid-December, sectarian violence was killing 120 Iraqis a day. Back in the spring, we warned that the escalating violence by that point was on schedule to kill more than 30,000 people a year in Iraq., even if things did not get any worse.

Cordesman has now confirmed things have gotten worse than that. The U.N. figures he cites mean that even if the current levels of violence in Iraq do not deteriorate further (in fact they show every sign of doing so) 43,800 people will die next year there at the current rates of carnage.

Cordesman also confirmed our repeated warnings in these columns that the violence in Iraq was not divided along simple, clear-cut Sunni versus Shiite or "Sunni insurgent versus U.S. and Iraqi armed forces" lines, but that it reflected a splintered country where every neighborhood or district had its own different groups at odds with their geographical neighbors as well as their immediate ethnic rivals

"Sectarian fighting, led by the growth of some 23 militias around Baghdad, formed the foundation of the civil war," Cordesman wrote.

Among the Shiite militias, the Badr Brigades and the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr are locked in what promises to be an extremely bloody struggle for supremacy within the Shiite camp. But plenty of smaller allied and independent Shiite militias are vying for power and survival too.

And even the biggest militias are not monolithic or well-disciplined, coherent entities. Instead, they are full of violent, semi-independent factions endlessly vying for supremacy over each other as well as their wider enemies.

Cordesman confirmed this development too. "Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army developed rogue components that acted outside of his command. Sunnis formed loosely organized neighborhood death squads in the urban areas, some with ties to al-Qaida or ex-Baathist groups," he wrote.

Cordesman also confirmed the prediction we made back in April that the U.S armed forces, the Department of Defense and the Bush administration had yet to recognize the fundamental truth that what we called "Belfast Rules" or Beirut Rules" now operated across Iraq, especially in Baghdad.

"Baghdad and other major cities were almost completely divided into sectarian strongholds as both Sunnis and Shia fled neighborhoods in which they were a minority," Cordesman wrote. "Soft ethnic cleansing forced upwards of 400,000 Iraqis to relocate within Iraq since the February Samara mosque bombing."

Cordesman also noted that the Sunni Arab insurgency "remained focused in the western Anbar Province and benefited from the relocation of U.S. troops to quell sectarian violence in Baghdad."
And finally, Cordesman confirmed our conclusion in these columns that, far from creating a stable political basis for an effective democratic government in Iraq, the genuinely free democratic elections and the cumbersome parliamentary system that was created by them have made sectarian tensions far worse, not better.

By mid-December, "Tensions between Sunni and Shiite legislators reached an all time high as both sects accused each other of propagating sectarian killings by supporting death squads," he wrote.

Cordesman is no alarmist, defeatist, or amateur. He is one of the most respected, traditionally cautious and respected military analysts in Washington. His assessment reflects a sober, new mainstream consensus in the U.S. capital. The new secretary of defense, Robert Gates, who was sworn in on Monday, appears to privately share it. About the last person who doesn't is the president of the United States.

Think-tank warns Iraq on brink of collapse

AFP
Iraq on brink of collapse: report

by Dave Clark 21 minutes ago

Iraq is on the brink of total disintegration and could drag its neighbors into a regional war, a leading think-tank said, after the Pentagon confirmed violence was at an all-time high.
The warning from the International Crisis Group came amid lawless chaos in Baghdad, where police were hunting for 16 kidnapped aid workers and a former minister who escaped from jail, allegedly with the help of US hired guns.

The ICG's report called on Washington to distance itself from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's beleaguered government, which has failed to tackle sectarian militias, and reach out to the United States' arch-foes Iran and Syria.

The permanent members of the UN Security Council and Iraq's six neighbours should engage with all the parties to Iraq's spiralling conflict, it urged, while nevertheless holding out little prospect of success.

"Implementation of the various measures mapped out in this report is one last opportunity. It is at best a feeble hope," the ICG paper said.

"But it is the only hope to spare Iraq from an all-out disintegration, with catastrophic and devastating repercussions for all," it warned.

The interior ministry's head of operations, Brigadier General Abdel Karim Khalaf, told AFP that a high-level investigation had been launched into the capture of Red Crescent staff, the latest in a series of mass kidnaps.

"It was repeated, and might be repeated again," he said, linking Sunday's raid on a Red Crescent office in Baghdad to another last Thursday in which several dozen shopkeepers were taken.
In both assaults, a large group of gunmen using security force uniforms, weapons and SUV trucks sealed off a central area of the capital and hauled off dozens of civilians, unchallenged by local law enforcement.

Iraqi Red Crescent secretary general Mazen Abdullah said that 10 more of the hostages had been released on Tuesday, but revised upwards the number known to have been taken, leaving 16 still unaccounted for.

Mass kidnappings have become the latest signature crime of the vicious turf war underway between Baghdad's criminal and sectarian factions, denting public confidence in the police and sowing paranoia.

Meanwhile, bomb and gun attacks killed three people in Baquba, north of Baghdad, and the bodies of eight more shooting victims were found, police said. An army officer was killed in Diwaniyah.

US troops shot dead one insurgent in Baghdad, and found and cleared at least eight roadside bombs, according to statements from the US military.

Khalaf also said police were investigating the case of a politician who escaped from a police station in the heavily fortified Green Zone where he was being held for a 2.5 billion dollar (1.8 billion euro) fraud.
Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, head of Iraq's Public Integrity Commission, told AFP that former electricity minister Ayham al-Samarrai -- who has joint US and Iraqi citizenship -- had been sprung on Sunday and was on the run.

"As he has American citizenship, it had been agreed that guards from a private US security company would be allowed to protect him and to be posted around the police station in which he was being held," the judge said.

"They took advantage of the absence of many of the police from the station, who were called away to another mission, and entered the building to remove Samarrai," he added.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon's quarterly report into the US military mission in Iraq said violence has soared to the highest level on record, with an average of 959 attacks per week over the past four months, up 22 percent.

Even this figure is likely to be a gross underestimate of the bloodshed because, as was noted in a highly critical bi-partisan review of US policy released earlier this month, the Defence Department's figures exclude most attacks.

"There is significant under-reporting of the violence in Iraq," said the report by the Iraq Study Group chaired by former Republican secretary of state James Baker.

The panel complained that most attacks that fail to hurt US troops are simply left out of the Pentagon's calculations, meaning that on any given day there could be 10 times more violent acts than noted by the military.

The Pentagon report was released just hours after former intelligence chief Robert Gates took up his post as the new US defence secretary and warned that the United States must battle on despite mounting casualties.

"Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come," the 63-year-old Washington insider said at the swearing-in ceremony.

The US military announced Tuesday that another marine had died in troubled western Iraq, bringing the number of US fatalities in the country since the 2003 invasion to 2,948 according to an AFP count based on Pentagon figures.

One War We Can Still Win?

Center Strategic & Int’l Studies: One War We Can Still Win

AUTHOR: Anthony H. Cordesman - SourceWatch is employed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

SOME KEY POINTS

NO one can return from visiting the front in Afghanistan without realizing there is a very real risk that the United States and NATO will lose this war. Popular support for the United States and NATO teams has been strong and can be rebuilt.

The United States’ and NATO’s focus on democracy and the political process in Kabul — rather than on the quality of governance and on services — has left many areas angry and open to hostile influence. As one Afghan deputy minister put it to me during my trip: “Now we are all corrupt. Until we change and serve the people, we will fail.”

At one police unit, policemen were sometimes not paid at all, leaving them no choice but to extort a living.

The United States has grossly underfinanced such economic aid efforts and left far too much of the country without visible aid activity. The maps of actual and proposed projects covers only a small part of the country. Even a short visit to some of the districts in the southeast, near the border with Pakistan, suggests that most areas have not seen any progress.

State Department plans call for a $2.3 billion program, but unless at least $1.1 billion comes immediately, aid will lag far behind need next year. The United States team has made an urgent request for $5.9 billion in extra money this fiscal year, which probably underestimates immediate need.

At least such programs are cheap by the standards of aid to Iraq. The projects needed are simple ones that Afghans can largely carry out themselves: roads and water, and to a lesser degree schools and medical services. They need emergency aid to meet local needs and win hearts and minds.

And United States military forces are too small to do the job - it needs at least two more infantry battalions, and increases in Special Forces.

NATO must exercise effective central command; it cannot win with politically constrained forces, and it must pressure the stand-aside countries to join the fight.

The good news is that there is a new realism in the United States and NATO effort.

--------------------------------------------

One War We Can Still Win

NO one can return from visiting the front in Afghanistan without realizing there is a very real risk that the United States and NATO will lose their war with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the other Islamist movements fighting the Afghan government.

STATE OF SECURITY

Declassified intelligence made available during my recent trip there showed that major Al Qaeda, Taliban, Haqqani Network and Hezb-i-Islami sanctuaries exist in Pakistan, and that the areas they operate in, within Afghanistan have increased fourfold over the last year.

Indeed, a great many unhappy trends have picked up speed lately (the first 11 months of 2005 to 116 in the first 11 months of 2006.):

suicide attacks: rose from 18 to 116

direct fire attacks: rose from 1,347 to 3,824

IED attackss: from 530 to 1,297

other attacks: from 269 to 479.

attacks on Afghan forces: from 713 to 2,892,

attacks on coalition forces: from 919 to 2,496 and

attacks on Afghan officials: rose 2.5 times

Only the extensive use of American air power and intelligence assets has allowed the United States to win this year’s battles in the east.

In the south, Britain has been unable to prevent a major increase in the Taliban’s presence.

STATE OF POPULAR OPINION

The challenges in Afghanistan, however, are very different from those in Iraq. Popular support for the United States and NATO teams has been strong and can be rebuilt. The present United States aid efforts are largely sound and well managed, and they can make immediate and effective use of more money. [SEE: US Inspector General: Afghan Police Corrupt and Dysfunctional (NY Times)]

The Islamist threat is weak, but it is growing in strength — political as well as military. The Afghan government will take years to become effective, reduce corruption to acceptable levels and replace a narcotics-based economy. As one Afghan deputy minister put it to me during my trip: “Now we are all corrupt. Until we change and serve the people, we will fail.” [SEE: Taliban fill void left by Kabul corruption (Houston Chronicle) ]

STATE OF DEVELOPMENT

No matter what the outside world does, Afghans, the United States team and NATO representatives all agree that change will take time. The present central government is at least two or three years away from providing the presence and services Afghans desperately need. The United States’ and NATO’s focus on democracy and the political process in Kabul — rather than on the quality of governance and on services — has left many areas angry and open to hostile influence. Afghanistan is going to need large amounts of military and economic aid, much of it managed from the outside in ways that ensure it actually gets to Afghans, particularly in the areas where the threat is greatest. [SEE: Action Against Hunger: 5 yrs after the Taliban – what about Afghanis? ]

This means the United States needs to make major increases in its economic aid, as do its NATO allies. These increases need to be made immediately if new projects and meaningful actions are to begin in the field by the end of winter, when the Islamists typically launch new offensives. [SEE: UN Racing to Supply Food Before Snowfall ]

At least such programs are cheap by the standards of aid to Iraq. The projects needed are simple ones that Afghans can largely carry out themselves. People need roads and water, and to a lesser degree schools and medical services. They need emergency aid to meet local needs and win hearts and minds.

The maps of actual and proposed projects make it clear that while progress is real, it covers only a small part of the country. Even a short visit to some of the districts in the southeast, near the border with Pakistan, suggests that most areas have not seen any progress.

Drought adds to the problem, much of the old irrigation system has collapsed, and roads are little more than paths. The central government cannot offer hope, and local officials and the police cannot compete with drug loans and income.

The United States has grossly underfinanced such economic aid efforts and left far too much of the country without visible aid activity. State Department plans call for a $2.3 billion program, but unless at least $1.1 billion comes immediately, aid will lag far behind need next year.

Additionally, a generous five-year aid plan from both the United States and its NATO allies is needed for continuity and effectiveness. The United States is carrying far too much of the burden, and NATO allies, particularly France, Germany, Italy and Spain, are falling short: major aid increases are needed from each.

HUMPTY-DUMPTY SYNDROME: MORE GUNS & MORE BOOTS

And United States military forces are too small to do the job. Competing demands in Iraq have led to a military climate where American troops plan for what they can get, not what they need. The 10th Mountain Division, which is responsible for eastern Afghanistan, has asked for one more infantry brigade. This badly understates need, even if new Polish forces help in the east. The United States must be able to hold and build as well as win — it needs at least two more infantry battalions, and increases in Special Forces. These increases are tiny by comparison with American forces in Iraq, but they can make all the difference.

The NATO allies must provide stronger and better-equipped forces that will join the fight and go where they are most needed. The British fight well but have only 50 to 75 percent of the forces they need. Canadians, Danes, Estonians, Dutch and Romanians are in the fight. The Poles lack adequate equipment but are willing to fight. France, Italy, Germany, Spain and Turkey are not allowed to fight because of political constraints and rules of engagement. Only French Special Forces have played any role in combat and they depart in January. NATO must exercise effective central command; it cannot win with politically constrained forces, and it must pressure the stand-aside countries to join the fight. [SEE: NATO Summit – EU Suspends US Dreams ]

Finally, the United States and NATO have repeated the same mistakes that were made in Iraq in developing effective Afghan Army and police forces, rushing unready forces into combat. The manning of key Afghan army battalions is sometimes below 25 percent and the police units are often unpaid. Corruption and pay problems are still endemic, equipment and facilities inadequate. Overall financing has been about 20 percent of the real-world requirement, and talks with Afghan and NATO officials made it brutally clear that the Germans wasted years trying to create a conventional police force rather than the mix of paramilitary and local police forces Afghanistan really needs.

A PROGNOSIS

The good news is that there is a new realism in the United States and NATO effort. The planning, training and much of the necessary base has been built up during the last year. There are effective plans in place, along with the NATO and American staffs to help put them into effect. [SEE: UK Military Chiefs: CIA is undermining British war effort ]

The bad news is the same crippling lack of resources that affect every part of the United States and NATO efforts also affect the development of the Afghan Army and police. [SEE: US Inspector General: Afghan Police Corrupt and Dysfunctional (NY Times)]

It was obvious during a visit to one older Afghan Army battalion that it had less than a quarter of its authorized manpower, and only one man in five was expected to re-enlist. At one police unit, although policemen were supposed to be paid quarterly, they were sometimes not paid at all, leaving them no choice but to extort a living. (In one case, the officer in charge of pay didn’t even fill out forms because he had been passed over for promotion because of his ethnicity.)

The United States team has made an urgent request for $5.9 billion in extra money this fiscal year, which probably underestimates immediate need and in any event must be followed by an integrated long-term economic aid plan. There is no time for the administration and Congress to quibble or play budget games.

And, once again, the NATO countries must make major increases in aid as well.

In Iraq, the failure of the United States and the allies to honestly assess problems in the field, be realistic about needs, create effective long-term aid and force-development plans, and emphasize governance over services may well have brought defeat.

The United States and its allies cannot afford to lose two wars. If they do not act now, they will.