by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)
John Murtha’s courageous call for American troops to leave Iraq is the right policy at the right time. The Bush chickenhawks already are impugning Murtha’s patriotism, but when you have a purple heart and a silver star compared to a President with a spotty attendance record with the National Guard and a Vice President with five deferments, that dog don’t hunt.
The situation in Iraq is clear. The United States does not have enough troops on the ground to contain and destroy the insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency consists of at least 26 different groups and draws upon as many as 250,000 supporters. These groups represent a spectrum of beliefs ranging from secular nationalists to hard core jihadists. The only thing they agree on is that they hate the invader; which is us.
To defeat the insurgency we will need at least 400,000 troops on the ground. At the present time, the United States does not have sufficient troop strength to ramp up to that level. Our choice is simple–either we come up with the additional forces and commit ourselves to an effort that will stretch on for at least five years with 400,000 plus soldiers and marines in theatre or we withdraw.
How do we get 400,000 troops on the ground? That will require a draft or a commitment by NATO forces and other countries to provide forces. Even if we start a draft tomorrow, we will not be able to field combat capable divisions for at least two years. Basic training requires 10 weeks. Advance infantry training adds an additional six months. Once the troops are trained they need to train as units. The unit training, starting with companies and working up to division level exercises, will require at least 18 months (and that is an optomistic scenario).
In the interim we would need to call upon NATO forces to deploy to Iraq and conduct a coordinated counter insurgency effort. This effort, over the next two years, will likely produce at least 10,000 fatalities and 80,000 wounded. Are we willing as a country to pay that price? I don’t think so.
Meanwhile, our efforts on the ground are succeeding in killing and capturing a large number of suspected insurgents. But our kill capture effort is producing a blowback–Iraqis who are incarcerated and the surviving relatives of those killed respond to our effort by joining the insurgents. Instead of reducing the insurgency our efforts are providing a catalyst that recruits new insurgents faster than we can kill them.
There also is no doubt that our efforts are providing a recruiting poster for jihadists. Last year, for example, the number of terrorist attacks that resulted in people being killed and wounded was the highest number ever recorded since the CIA started keeping statistics in 1968. The Al Qaeda groups have reduced the planning time required for mass casualty attacks. Prior to 9-11, Al Qaeda carried out such attacks every 18 months. Now, they are able to mount operations in only three or four months. The trend line is going in the wrong direction
I see no political will on the part of the American public to accept a draft and to accept 90,000 casualties during the next four years. The elections in December will not produce a political outcome that will persuade the various insurgents to lay down their weapons and focus their energies on political debate in a legislature and in newspapers.
Our best alternative is to withdraw from Iraq and establish covert relations with the secular insurgents. Over the long run our interest as a nation is to prevent the religious jihadists from consolidating their control over Iraq and forging a closer relationship with Iran. The question is not, will there be a civil war? A civil war is already underway. Rather, the proper question is what can we do as a nation to protect our longterm interests?
We have two key long term strategic interests. First, we want to promote a secular society. The current Iraqi constiturion enshrines the Quran as the law of the land and encourages sectarian strife. Second, we must enlist the support of Russia, China, Europe, and the Muslim nations in rooting out and destroying the jihadists. Most of that effort can be handled with intelligence and law enforcement work rather than military operations. The Beatles had it right–we can get by with some help from our friends.
Given these facts, John Murtha is right. We must withdraw, sooner rather than later, from Iraq. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in a quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam. Only this time, the jihadists who are carrying out urban combat operations will be equipped and trained through their experience to carry out future attacks against our interests around the world. John Murtha and Chuck Hagel are patriots who understand this dilemma. We have lit a fuze on the next generation of jihadist terrorism. We must douse the fuse with water, and put it out sooner rather than later.
(bio below)
……………………………………………………..
Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm that helps corporations and governments manage threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism (as a Deputy Director), is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC’s Nightline, NBC’s Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world. Further bio details.
Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts
C-posted at DKos.
i been saying this for a year
we need a draft to do this right
this is the way the dems should frame it
we cant do it right so we have to leave now
we supported the president because we didnt believe he would lie us into a war and we were sure he and his men would competently run the war.
but he is not competent, he and rumsfeld ignored their generals and war experts on what it would take to be successful in iraq
they had no plan or the wring plan
they didnt provide the right equipment to the troops they sent
they havent taken care of the troops who have come back harmed
THEY lost the war thru incompetence
there are only 2 choices
A) a draft, long term presence, and many more casualties
B) immediate withdrawal to save american lives and protect this country in the face of an INCREASED terror threat as a result of bush’s failure and incompetence
the pussy footing kerry and biden and clnton are doing on this thing is ridiculous…dean too….saying we cant come up with a plan because we arent the president is stupid.
we need a big penis response and a plan that allows america to keep from feeling castrated….and a scapegoat to blame it all on so we can say it wasnt because we suck is a good idea too…which is where bush comes in….america will accept him now as the scapegoat because someone else with a big penis is stepping up to the plate to lead.
the pussy footing kerry and biden and clnton are doing on this thing is ridiculous…dean too….saying we cant come up with a plan because we arent the president is stupid.
I am disgusted.
I haven’t read the story yet — at Democracy Now!’s headlines — but I saw that the Dems are backing off from Murtha’s courageous statements.
Some of the hallmarks of the Gulf War were the extensive debate and scrutiny … and the careful diplomacy worldwide by the 1st Bush administration … the extensive Congressional hearings.
Hell, John Kerry voted against the Gulf War! Then he votes willy niilly for the Iraq War …. and we know it’s because he wants to run for president and he doesn’t want to be accused of being unpatriotic.
These Democrats do not represent the Democratic party or any of us.
They weren’t fooled by the administration’s lies or bad intelligence. They were fooled by their own self-interests.
I emailed my senators, Clinton and Schumer, this AM to say that their cowardice on Iraq is shameful and an embarrassment to the entire state of New York.
they being congresspersons who have the balls and brains to frame this right, they should link the pullout/they lied us into a war/they lost the war/they didnt support the troops on the ground and they arent supporting them now as they come home/they are incompetent frame to impeachment hearings
if that isnt worthy of impeachment hearings then nothing is
the american people will go for this now
bush has lost his mojo
But much higher taxes. That large, new army will be expensive.
Don’t forget to include that in the equation.
BTW, this post is one of the sanest, most realistic assessments of the mess in which we find ourselves. Thank you, LJ.
Harry Reid should line up the caucus to support Murtha.
Surely Kerry learned enough about his own Swift-boating victimization not to run away this time.
The attacks have started. The Democrats can’t go all wobbly on this marine.
Since the Administration won’t serve, or listen to, be guided by, or take the advice of those who HAVE, somebody explain it to them, won’t ya, Larry?
Murtha has a plan. Sounds reasonable to me. Can’t the Democrats and veterans sit down and work their way through this?
I think your anaysis of the situation is hum drum and dumb dumb.
Like a true CIA agent that you once were you want to meddle in the affairs of Iraq. You say by supporting a covert realtionship with the insurgents ….who are now fighting the United States ….but who were once supported by the United States as Sadaam’s Army….we can defeat the Fundamentalist government that the Uniited States now supports in Iraq but not in Iran…. uh…uh.
Did it ever occur to you when you realize you don’t know what your doing you should JUST STOP DOING IT! You are clearly incompetent in your thinking and are an accurate representative of the inane fools who make up the CIA. The worst organization if inept, violent hillbilly fools ever to authorized by anyone.
I larry, support the insurgents now. I am against American involvement in Iraq. I want the US OUT. It’s none of our business.
You are absolutedly right though. The US will switch sides and support the people they are now fighting. I predicted this back in February. This is just too stupid.
http://bushplanet.blogspot.com/2005/02/us-to-switch-sides-in-iraq.html
Just get out and walk away. The United States has raped Iraq, it doesn’t want the nation that raped it to stick and around and have a smoke before it leaves. It doesn’t want to have a relationship with you.
What the f are you talking about? You “support” the insurgents? This is unbelievable.
A guy with a handle like “Stu Piddy” has no business calling anybody else a fool.
I’ve followed your comments here, “Stu,” and I am beginning to wonder what your motives really are. Honest discussion and debate don’t seem to be among them.
This guy is so anti American he belongs in Freeperland.
I don’t like a nation that accuses Sadaam Hussein of torture, gassing, dissapearing people, mass murder and fomenting war and then does all of that.
I feel the freedom to be Anti American. I am not bound by this culture as much as it would like.
This nation is a total disgrace. It needs therapy. It is a fascist nation, kidnapping people and taking them to detention centers where they are tortured, using phosoprhous gas and melting people, Napalm in a nation they invaded that they had to just cause to go to. And some people still think we should send more troops and or support the insurgents.
I don’t think the United States should support anyone in Iraq. It should just leave. It doesn’t understand what it is doing and is incompetent.
Other Lisa, I think you’ve got it about right. I’ve begun to stop responding to Stu Piddy. I did listen to some of Stu’s cautionary posts, including those warning us about putting too much hope in what Patrick Fitzgerald will accomplish … but Stu, you’re becoming unreasonable. We HAVE to have SOME plan. We can’t let Iraq descend into a Jihadist or extremist state.
Why can’t you? It’s not any of your business what another country decides to do.
Can I say to you….Susan….I really think you need to excercize more or eat more or whatever because it’s in my interests that you do so?
It would never have been an issue if they hadn’t gone theire in the first place….
And if you don’t want it to descend into a “jihadist state” (which it wont’t because many of the insurgents are fighting for a secualr government…this isn’t afghanistand)) as Larry said you should support those elements who we are now fighting…the secualr insurgents. Don’t you see that?
Partick Fitzgerald. I saw him on TV he looked terrific. My warnings were wrong. He is a republican but he’s straight. So I was wrong. I don’t have any claim on being right all the time. I am not afraid of being wrong. So that begs the question if I am wrong about Larry article and all other things. So be it.
Wait a second….. Larry Johnson just said he thinks we should support the insurgents. So….whats’s so crazy about my saying that? Answer me that please!
Really I don’t support anything that has to do with war. But I sympathize with those people who want the US out in Iraq. I am just so goddamn mad that people allow some one with a “bio” to fool them into thinking they have knowledge just because they appear to be on “your” side.
Where the hell did he say he supports the insurgents? That is what YOU said.
Here: Larry said in bold type:
“Our best alternative is to withdraw from Iraq and establish covert relations with the secular insurgents. “
So he is saying we should support secular insurgents against the government we are now supporting. He didn’t say all insurgents but he ought to be implying Baathists who were the supporters of Saddaam…you know the people we invaded Iraq to …uh…get rid of…uh…
This is true CIA thinking. We once supported Bin Laden in Afgrhanistan and the list goes on and on. There was Mossadegh democtatically elected in Iran, we ousted him for the Shah, then we got tired of the Shah, then they had a revolution. There was democratically elected gov in Iraq, we helped Sadaam get in …….
Later Larry says
“Over the long run our interest as a nation is to prevent the religious jihadists from consolidating their control over Iraq and forging a closer relationship with Iran. The question is not, will there be a civil war? A civil war is already underway. Rather, the proper question is what can we do as a nation to protect our longterm interests?”
The government in Iraq is supported by Iran. The Iraqi government secretly wants the US out to be replaced by IRanian money and arms. Talabani and Jaafari have signed an agreement with Iran to train Iraqi troops (later denied). If the US leaves, they feel the insurgency will be more manageable and they can use the Badr group to fight the insurgents with.
Recently you read about a totture center discovered by Americans and run by the Badr group. The reason it was discovered is that the Badr group is the enemy of the United States, these militias were trainied in Iran. This discovery is bullshit. It’s just propganda used to tmake the US look like it’s aghast that the government is torturiing people. …..I don’t have time to explain….do you get it….?
I dont do spellcheck…sorry
I made the same point below, but didn’t resort to calling him a fool…
He will survive. I am not bothered by it and he shouldn’t be.
I’m sure he will… lol.
But the point I think people are making is that to resort to name calling to make a point (vs. snark which I love so much) is a tactic of the right and not necessary on this site. But then again, it’s a free country (kinda).
In interests of full disclosure, it was I who boldfaced that section because I thought it led into a must-read section of his essay. — Susan, the editor
I guess we just didn’t read it the same way. What I interpreted Larry was saying was that we need to work with the “insurgents” that have turned to being insurgents because of what “we” have done to them. Take for instance the woman inJordon who became a suicide bomber because of what was done to her family in Falluja. Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists.
You know the bombing in Jordan stinks. The bombs came from the ceiling according to eyewitnesses. They killed the Palestinian intelligence chief and the some Chinese who were negotiating with him on …I don’t know what…perhaps as a counter balance to Israel. That’s a coinkidink. The wedding party was a SUNNI wedding party and they parade this women around who says her suicide bomber husband escorted her out when he bomb did not go off so he could uh…save her life. It’s bullshit. This is a presentation to get us to believe that these bombings are an example of how the war in Iraq is spreading and we cant pull out. They had something on the women and made her do this, is my bet.
British forces were caught recently with bombs in their cars getting ready apparently to blow up some Iraqi and blame it on other Iraqis. There a lot of stupid stuff Mossad and CIA do all the time. It’s horrible.
Declaratives like this one do nothing to further discussion unless your intention is to piss people off completely…you could have said you absolutely and completely disagreed with LJ’s whole diary-you could have even said you thought it utter rubbish but to personally attack someone and not what they’ve said certainly violates boos number one rule of ‘Don’t Be a Prick’.
All right. I apolotgize for calling him a fool. I am the fool.
Now….did you read the post….where he says we should support the secualr insurgents against the government we currently installed?
How about that? We should withdraw from Iraq but support an insurgency against the government we installed or that was supposedly elected.
In other words we should continue trying to manage Iraq as we did before the war with sanction, during the war and now after the war.
My point is….the United States is not competent to do any managing of IRaq. It should just leave. It is destroying lives for no reason.
Please read the article by Larry as if he had no bio and was never a CIA agent. I am not impressed with his credentials. Credentialed people are the one’s who have convinced this country to go to war.
Just read his words
No need to call yourself a fool(I’m sure there are plenty of other people to do that)..I’ve never thought you a fool. I just don’t always agree with the way post as it’s divisive and detracts from points you are trying to make.
And of course I read his diary-or I wouldn’t be posting here…did you read my post where I’ve probably stated basically what you seem to be getting at..that war was wrong from the start and we should get out now.
Who said I agreed with everything in diary anyway-and I am very aware of Larry’s credentials-and I happen to like that fact as it gives me an insight I would not otherwise get into the workings of the government.
I think it would be a rare day if I agreed with everything everyone said here but then there wouldn’t be any room for discussion would there-operative word is discussion.
I don’t think larry has any in sight. Sorry.
The war or our invasion of Iraq was lost almost from day one starting with not winning the hearts and minds of the rest of the world with our disgustingly titled ‘Shock and Awe’ terror that rained down on the Iraqi people. Breathlessly broadcast by our media as if it was some video game for our bloodthirsty amusement.
Then to barrel through Iraq without securing one goddam town, city or village in the rush to Bagdad was absolute and complete folly. By securing I mean we should have secured each town, help the Iraqi’s there set up their own city government and when they had all that in place move on to the next town while moving slowly to Bagdad and ringing it with a free and working society in each town.
With all the missteps I believed that Fallujah and Abu Grabe(sp) sealed the fate of any kind of military win for us-if we were ever the good guys that pretty much disabused the Iraqi people of helping us. Then again I thought that our military taking over all SH’s palaces instead of turning them over to the Iraqi people to turn them into hospitals, schools, libraries, whatever out of them was also incredibly stupid.
People keep saying to ‘win’ we’d have to send in at least 300,000 or more troops…not bloody likely. Does anyone really think if we sent that many more troops over there when we’re so hated already that this would be any kind of a good thing. I’d say we’d really see foreign fighters pouring into Iraq if did that.
Someone has to come up with a political solution for negotiated pullout right now..Murtha is on the right track for sure and I hope to hell the democrats get behind him with no mealy mouthed pussy footing around on this. We need to get our of Iraq but to prove to the Arab world, the Iraqi’s and the rest of the world that we are the good guys. We can’t abandon Iraq after what we’ve done there. We should give them the money to rebuild their infrastructures, everything we’ve bombed and destroyed and not have any American companies involved in any rebuilding. We help with humanitarian aid, peace core workers, building for peace not war. What the Iraqi’s do with their country has to be up to them.
It is not the “nation” it is the corrupt leadership….period…end of sentence.
with this statement…
Yeah, I just love the CIA running around the world doing covert actions with our supposed “allies”.
Hey, I have an idea, I think Osama has some time on his hands lately and already has all that wonderful CIA training… so give him a shout.
Oh wait, you said “secular”… ummm… kinda like SADDAM was before the US unleashed the jihadists in Iraq? Nice. Let’s just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again and hope for a different outcome… Larry, I’m sure you’ve heard of “blowback” right…
Perhaps you could take care of the non-secular US gov’t before you go meddling in others affairs? The President himself gets his orders from on high and uses that to inflict terror around the world, but you’re okay with that and think the jihadists are the US’s biggest problem?
Let’s ask the Latin American’s what they think of “covert support” for “insurgents”…
(It’s a given that Iraq would be better off if Saddam were still in power — or if one of his secular generals or other government officials had taken over — and that the Jihadists wouldn’t exist in Iraq.)
Now for the rest:
#1: Every government in the world has intelligence operations.
#2: From reading Bob Baer’s book, and reading a lot of other materials from the best who’ve come out of the intelligence world — including Larry, Pat Lang, and others — it is CLEAR that none of them agree with past CIA actions that involved bloodshed and torture.
The best and the brightest in the intel world are vehemently opposed to those past actions.
But they do see a need — as does every other nation on the planet — to build intelligence programs that aid in gaining critical information and in influencing, positively — and not through force or torture, which regimes gain power.
Since we now have this huge mess in Iraq, a magnet for Jihadists and extremists from around the world, we need to counter that.
I agree that we need intelligence, but unfortunately, as the history of the CIA has shown, it’s not people like Larry and Pat making policy… and unfortunately I think the “bad guys” are so entrenched right now that “covert support” will soon turn into OBL and the mujahadeen.
So… I suggest using diplomacy and the UN vs. the CIA… but that’s just me.
We need intelligence agencies? For what?
911…they got calls from the air plane instructor saying he though he was training people to fly into buildings.
Then they invade Iraq based on the “best intelligence availabel These agencies are a sham. They are buffons. Made up of very paranoid people who go around bothering ordinary people who just want to live.
The world is not a dangerous place. America is a dangerous place. We lead the world in domestic violence, then we export to people who have no idea why we are attacking them .
It’s hard to respond to a comment like this in a brief way because it is based on solid reasoning and historical awareness. But I still think that your position is wrong Spider.
I will try to simplify this even though a lot will get lost in the process.
There are two schools of thought on the left/center:
The first option has a lot more appeal on the surface. But it is actually a far riskier option for the United States, and for the whole Middle East, and for the world economy (by which I mean not just corporate interests but jobs, interest rates, health care, quality of life, and security).
As you know, any disorganized retreat can quickly turn into a rout. But our enemies are not organized states, but rather bringers of chaos that thrive off failed states and that intend to destabilize several regimes around the world.
Once we agree that the next step is to draw down our troops in Iraq, we still want to prevent Iraq from being taken over by either Ba’athists or by jihadists. And we want to try to prevent the spread of the conflict into neighboring states. Personally, the secular aspect is not as important as the dual goal of stability and rule by a majority faction (in this case, a Shi’a/Kurd coalition). That is the reason that Larry recommends covert aid to one side of the conflict. And I agree.
But the side must be the side that opposes a return to 8th-Century Islam, and opposes another Sunni tyranny. Basically, we want the Iraqis to win the war we have been fighting up to now. We don’t want to undermine elections. We don’t want to overthrow elected officials. We want to prevent others from doing that.
I would rather do that covertly than with 150,000 troops in the region, and I would rather do it with the cooperation of China, Russia, and the other regional players.
There is a lot of complication involved that I am leaving out. But we will not benefit either economically or from a security standpoint by abandoning Iraq to chaos, abandoning the Kurds to a third slaughter in 25 years brought on by our broken promises.
Boo, this is the stuff of a front-page story. Go for it.
(I’m leaving in a few so will have to hope that all of you continue this incredibly important discussion … I agree with Spiderleaf’s logic too, and am sorry I didn’t say so in my reply … and I also agree that we have to do all we can to staunch this nasty wound that Bush et al. have opened up. An unstable Iraq could destroy the peace of the entire Middle East … and soon thereafter the rest of the world.)
I see where you are coming from Boo and for the most part I agree with you. It is crucial that the ME not descend into theocracy and anarchy. I just don’t see how, as I said to Susan above, we can have faith in an organization who has inflicted terror on so many around the world and is largely responsible for training “Public Enemy #1” aka OBL and who supported Saddam before the war.
I don’t know that there are enough Larry’s or Pat’s or Richard Clarke’s running things these days to not see blowback right around the corner.
Which is why I think the only tenable solution is for the US to leave, the UN to come in (with large contingents of Arab countries participating).
In terms of the whole Kurdish alliance, that’s another can of worms right there… Turkey is not going to support their independence, nor be too happy if the US/CIA is providing them with support, covert or not.
Do I think they deserve independence? For sure, but I don’t trust these guys in power right now to diplomatically handle the Turkey situation properly.
The Kurds have a well trained army of 100,000 men, so they say.
The danger to them is from Turkey not primarily Sunnis insurgents.
Look this country has to stop calling itself the policeman of the world and then acting like the Gestapo of the world.
Live and let live.
I think your fears of world destruction and an unstable middle east by withdrawing are just what the administration thinks and wants you to think. People are not so dangerous as you think in other countries and can take of themselves and settle their own differences. Let them be. Leave them alone. All we do is harm and no good.
American INeterests are business interests-they have a lot to do with our continued presence and entrance. To hell with them. So what if we pay more for gas. That’s the price you pay for invasion.
The House GOP may bring a floor vote on Murtha’s proposal … to humiliate him, they hope.
They’ll either do it before or just after the Thanksgiving holiday.
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if it passed? Talk about overspending your “political capital”…
Fat chance…. but it would be the bee’s knees!
However, it’ll put Pelosi et al. in an untenable position … and I wouldn’t mind seeing them squirm a bit, and see what they’re really made of.
From Chad in Seattle:
of the corporations or their spokesfolk.
A covert crusade will be covert only to some Americans, kind of like the DynCorp guys in Jordan.
It does not matter to the victims whether US changes the name of their “operations,” or outsources the wetwork, or how often the Pentagon announces their kills for the day, or whether US corporate media reports on their torture camps or not.
Lipstick just slides right off some pigs.
As distasteful as it may seem, I support the notion put forward by Larry to establish some sort of covert connection with the various insurgencies in Iraq and elsewhere in the region, (like Lebanon, where a critical mass of explosive violence is rapidly building up even as the MSM ignores it completely). I support such an idea, however, in tandem with an unequivocal pullout of all our forces at a pace which might allow dialog between “us” and the insurgencies to proceed along a path that might lead to the diminishment of the violence in a way that would be preferable to what might happen if we just up and withdrew completely all at once.
I’ve anguished about this idea for some time now, because basically the longer we’re there the worse we’re making things. But I think there’s something to be said for seeking ways to minimize the possible explosiveness that might occur in the wake of a quick and total departure. It would be an improvement, for instance, if our forces would cease taking aggressive action in country, and instead perform other constructive duties; repairing doors and homes rather than kicking them down and terrorizing and killing the inhabitants.
I say “distasteful” for this reason. This invasion should never have happened in the first place, and yet now we may have to come to terms with people, many of whom are criminally minded murderers just like our own leadership in the Bush regime, and we shouldn’t have to do this except for the fact that the Bush gang has made a completely honorable solution to this mess impossible.
IMHO, there was never the intent by the Bush regime to establish stability, security or true functional democracy in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East. This is the foundational lie upon which all the other regime lies are based upon. So, for me, the fact that it might be the lesser of 2 evils
Again, IMHO, the goal of the Cheney/Bush monsters has always been, right from the start to perpetuate conflict in the region by any means necessary until the entire area is destabilized. They have always intended to keep the huge number of troops we have in Iraq in the region for the forseeable future. All the talk abo0ut incompetence and bad planning and such seems very sensible considering the size and intensity of the debacle there, but I submit that ultimately, this is for the most part by design. That is to say, many of those idiotic and incredibly destructive policy decisions made by these maniacs that we see as examples of incompetence are actually deliberate; they’re faux blunders designed to insure we will have a large and well armed enemy opposing us so we can use that return violence as the pretext for stayingin the region longer.
Not one of the neocons would pass a lie detector test on this point.
I would venture to guess that Larry Johnson recognizes that the Bush regime’s actions in Iraq are for purely destructive purposes. As such, his proposals to estasblish dialog with those who might be fighting us there makes sense as a way to change the dynamic of the fight in a way where the Bush gang will have a much harder time deliberately inciting more and more violence with their provocations.
Sadly, there’s about as much chance of this insane bunch of maniacs adopting Johnson’s or Murtha’s ideas for addressinjg the problems in a way designed to stop the insanity as there is of getting prominent Democrats to stand up for what they claim to believe in.
I would remind you that Saddam himself was a protoge of the CIA, even being spirited out of the country by them after a failed asssasination attemt. While the policy of contacts with insuregents is superficially attractive, the CIA has a notable record of lack of success in its contacts. Virtually all have either turned out to be tyrannical dicators or have turned on the USA like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam al Tikriti.
The excuse for the previous batches was that they had the same philosophy of “fighting Communism”. What is proposed now is that the CIA and the USA should support those who “oppose terror” in the form of “Jihadists”, without understaning that the concept of Jihad is being subverted to political ends, whether it be to oppose the corruption in the House of Saud or the military oppression of the regimes in Pakistan or Indonesia.
Now this sort of laxy black-and-white view of the world is typical of much past thinking in the CIA, It is after all what got the US into Baghdad in the first place when the son of a CIA chief became President. Just like W’s willful blindnes to any intelligence that contradicted his view of Saddam, Johnson does not seem to like the facts getting in the way of his assumptions. Let’s take his assertion:
Now this is incredibly lazy. Is he trying to invoke the impression that the Iraqi Constitution enshrines Sharia law? If so, this is very different. Sharia is an interpretation of the Quran by applying certain quotations into current law. But let’s see what the constitution (/pdf) actually says about Islam:
The only reason Johnson could have come up with his interpretation is to deceive the reader into thinking that the intent of the Constitution is to turn Iraq into a legal copy of Iran. Now that might be the intent of a few of the Shia groups but it is certainly not what the document actually says.
My sense of the current situation has been pooh poohed by some in recent months, but I am really concerned about the state of our armed forces. Trying to read in between the lines, I have felt for some time that the military is/has exhausted itself in Iraq. Many troops there are working on their third shift! Many are in their 40’s! Recruitment is down! The congressional elections loom! The insurgency appears to be gaining strength! The current situation is NOT SUSTAINABLE! That is what Murtha is saying, and I think he is spot on.