Iraq -shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning

See story below. I’m wondering what our next move is in Iraq. Just leave?

washingtonpost.com
U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq - Administration Is Shedding ‘Unreality’ That Dominated Invasion, Official Says

By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer - Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 14, 2005

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

“What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground,” said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. “We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we’re in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning.”

Administration officials still emphasize how much they have achieved despite the chaos that followed the invasion and the escalating insurgency. “Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we’re helping Iraqis succeed,” President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.

Iraqi officials yesterday struggled to agree on a draft constitution by a deadline of tomorrow so the document can be submitted to a vote in October. The political transition would be completed in December by elections for a permanent government.

But the realities of daily life are a constant reminder of how the initial U.S. ambitions have not been fulfilled in ways that Americans and Iraqis once anticipated. Many of Baghdad’s 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors.

Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent.

U.S. officials say no turning point forced a reassessment. “It happened rather gradually,” said the senior official, triggered by everything from the insurgency to shifting budgets to U.S. personnel changes in Baghdad.

The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and the realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities.

But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq’s future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women’s rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.

“We set out to establish a democracy, but we’re slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic,” said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. “That process is being repeated all over.”

U.S. officials now acknowledge that they misread the strength of the sentiment among Kurds and Shiites to create a special status. The Shiites’ request this month for autonomy to be guaranteed in the constitution stunned the Bush administration, even after more than two years of intense intervention in Iraq’s political process, they said.

“We didn’t calculate the depths of feeling in both the Kurdish and Shiite communities for a winner-take-all attitude,” said Judith S. Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst at the National Defense University.

In the race to meet a sequence of fall deadlines, the process of forging national unity behind the constitution is largely being scrapped, current and former officials involved in the transition said.

“We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building,” said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert who worked with the U.S. occupation government and wrote the book “Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq.”

“Under pressure to get a constitution done, they’ve lowered their own ambitions in terms of getting a document that is going to be very far-reaching and democratic. We also don’t have the time to go through the process we envisioned when we wrote the interim constitution – to build a democratic culture and consensus through debate over a permanent constitution,” he said.

The goal now is to ensure a constitution that can be easily amended later so Iraq can grow into a democracy, U.S. officials say.

On security, the administration originally expected the U.S.-led coalition to be welcomed with rice and rosewater, traditional Arab greetings, with only a limited reaction from loyalists of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. The surprising scope of the insurgency and influx of foreign fighters has forced Washington to repeatedly lower expectations – about the time-frame for quelling the insurgency and creating an effective and cohesive Iraqi force capable of stepping in, U.S. officials said.

Killings of members of the Iraqi security force have tripled since January. Iraq’s ministry of health estimates that bombings and other attacks have killed 4,000 civilians in Baghdad since Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari’s interim government took office April 28.

Last week was the fourth-worst week of the whole war for U.S. military deaths in combat, and August already is the worst month for deaths of members of the National Guard and Reserve.

Attacks on U.S. convoys by insurgents using roadside bombs have doubled over the past year, Army Brig. Gen. Yves Fontaine said Friday. Convoys ferrying food, fuel, water, arms and equipment from Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey are attacked about 30 times a week, Fontaine said.

“There has been a realistic reassessment of what it is possible to achieve in the short term and fashion a partial exit strategy,” Yaphe said. “This change is dictated not just by events on the ground but by unrealistic expectations at the start.”

Washington now does not expect to fully defeat the insurgency before departing, but instead to diminish it, officials and analysts said. There is also growing talk of turning over security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces even if they are not fully up to original U.S. expectations, in part because they have local legitimacy that U.S. troops often do not.

“We’ve said we won’t leave a day before it’s necessary. But necessary is the key word – necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us,” a U.S. official said.

Pressed by the cost of fighting an escalating insurgency, U.S. expectations for rebuilding Iraq – and its $20 billion investment – have fallen the farthest, current and former officials say.

Pentagon officials originally envisioned Iraq’s oil revenue paying many post-invasion expenses. But Iraq, ranked among world leaders behind Saudi Arabia in proven oil reserves, is incapable of producing enough refined fuel amid a car-buying boom that has put an estimated 1 million more vehicles on the road after the invasion. Lines for subsidized cheap gas stretch for miles every day in Baghdad.

Oil production is estimated at 2.22 million barrels a day, short of the goal of 2.5 million. Iraq’s pre-war high was 2.67 million barrels a day.

The United States had high hopes of quick, big-budget fixes for the electrical power system that would show Iraqis tangible benefits from the ouster of Hussein. But inadequate training for Iraqi staff, regional rivalries restricting the power flow to Baghdad, inadequate fuel for electrical generators and attacks on the infrastructure have contributed to the worst summer of electrical shortages in the capital.

Water is also a “tough, tough” situation in a desert country, said a U.S. official in Baghdad familiar with reconstruction issues. Pumping stations depend on electricity, and engineers now say the system has hundreds of thousands of leaks.

“The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We’re nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there,” said Wayne White, former head of the State Department’s Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. “The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric” system.

Ironically, White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: “In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic.”

Knickmeyer reported from Baghdad.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Not trying to be a know-it-all but after 30+ years of Saddam, I have never been hopeful that it would be much better than the former Yugoslavia, which became such a mess after Tito’s death.

The plus side all along was that of not having to ask: how would things have turned out if somebody had done “something” more proactive about Saddam (i.e. Hitler)? Because that’s been a question for all of my life, considering the Holocaust etc…

And the tradeoff of the quick “conquest” of Saddam’s forces has been the grinding insurgency. Some have said he planned a guerilla war at the outset rather than massive battles and that certainly came true…

I will be glad when he is tried and convicted and punished. If the US were to withdraw before that, I would never be comfortable of their chances as a country.

I did read recently that the new legal system would allow Saddam’s execution after his first capital conviction. That could be in a few months.

I think when the American public draws a line down the middle of a page and starts putting the “pluses” on one side and the “minuses” on the other and the only plus is “got rid of Saddam”, they will legitimately question whether it was worth it.

The article above seems to inidcate that at least some decision makers are beginning to just how much fantasy there is in the neo-conservative vision of the world.

I’m one of those people who remains furious that Bush got is into this mess. I don’t think there are many errors, if any, more serious that starting a way that’s not necessary. The hubris of this administration is appalling. That said, I’m not convinced pulling out now is the right thing to do. Maybe I could be convinced.

I think there’s a lot of cold hard reality in the the neo-cons view of the world, but I think that none of it was in the vision they presented.

And sold. THey guys around Rumsfeld and Cheney don’t give two hoots about democracy in Iraq, and never did; that was nothing but a story for the suckers.

And now it’s being abandoned, along with all the other cover stories. Remember them?

Last week I saw the parents of one of the Ohio Marines killed last week. The mother said that when she listens to Bush say “Stay the course”, she wondered about Bush repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting it to come out differently. She suggested that might be the definition of insanity.

I’m not convinced that pulling out now is the right thing to do either. But it’s getting harder and harder to see how remaining can produce any different short or long term results. If we leave now, Iraq disintegrates into civil war. If we leave in two years Iraq disintegrates into civil war and we lose another 2000 US lives in the mean time. Is that better? What is this administration gong to do that could produce a different, better outcome?
I remember Colin Powell said “If you break it, you bought it.”

I don’t know much about politics in other countries but I really wonder if there can be something like a constitution that can easily be amended? What’s the use of a constitution that’s easy to change? Can anyone explane? I really don’t understand.

Rob

Hell, we don’t have that here, so why should we spend American lives to get it for Iraqis?

If you want to see what the neo-cons had in mind for Iraq, read the PNAC/RAD. There they clearly state that the US needs to control the world’s natural resources in countries like Iraq etc. They basically wanted to set up a Wal-Mart style quazi-democracy that would cater to US corporate interests. Arabs understand this about the US and are resisting with everything they’ve got.

Why would a pull-out now be the right thing? Because everything about being there is the wrong thing. Everything from our support for the Ba’ath Party and Saddam from the early 60s through the 80s, to the illegal invasion and occupation – is wrong. If we really wanted the Iraqis to have their own country we would have allowed for the elections they called for way back at the beginning of the occupation. Instead we refused and demonstrated we’re only interested in an election the US could control. This is what feeds the resistance.

Reasons to pull out now:

  1. No upside in staying. The belief that Iraq will be a stable Western style democracy is delusional. The cultural and religious currents in Iraq are running very deep. Shiites are dominated by the clerics (which were oppressed under Saddam). A lot of people are doing their best to put a positive PR spin on it, but in reality the clerics do not want women equal rights. In fact the head cleric prefers a seperate Shiite nation. Our biggest ally in the region doesn’t even allow women to drive (Saudi Arabia). It’s a farce.

  2. No ability to sustain the logistics of staying there. The reason the military keep talking about troop reductions while Bush is talking about staying is that they know they can’t sustain to stay in force without total collapse of recruitment. The military is overextended. The solution is a draft which is politically not viable. If you can’t sustain to stay there you need to get out.

  3. Can’t beat the enemy. To defeat the enemy you need many more troops several hundreds of thousands. One general who pointed out that fact was fired. The reality is to beat an insurgency you need to go house by house by house and be able to stay in every area of the country. You can’t do it with 135K troops. Since we can’t deploy the troops we need to win, we are not winning, we are fighting a war of attrition. They have more people than us…

Top reasons to stay:

  1. Save face for Bush since he can’t admit he was wrong ( how could that be God is guiding him)
  2. Supposedly preventing from encouraging the enemy. I think they’ve been encouraged for a while that’s why they’re getting more sophisticated and successful in their approach
  3. Continued military bases next to Iran to facilitate military strikes against Iran when needed
  4. Continued military spending and contracting, in essence huge military subsidies and contract spending.

The neo-cons don’t need a stable democracy; all they care is that Iraq stabilizes enough to all for the creation of 14 permenent US bases to replace the closed bases in Saudi.

That, all along, has been the endgame they’re playing for. All the BS about democracy was never in the real plans.

I think that Iraq is nearly at a point in which the ensuing chaos will make it impossible to sustain the bases–the optics of having a huge US garrison in the middle of a civil war doesn’t look good, and will make them more or less sitting ducks.

As it is, the only part of Iraq in which permenent US bases are likely to be welcome is in the Kurdish north. However, the army’s building operations are concentrated in the south or around bagdhad and fallujah, both locations they will have to abandon once civil war breaks out.

Someone asked this in another thread, I believe, and I don’t recall the answer (if there was one)…could someone please explain how this war is “illegal” (or point me to the previous answer).

Susan

According to international law, there are only two legal grounds for initiating a war:

  1. In response to an attack upon you or your allies
  2. In order to preempt an attack.

The war in Iraq was neither, although many lies were told about reason 2.

Who establishes international law? The U.N.?

I was always amazed during the early days of the invasion and the liberation when Rumsfeld talked at press conferences about the democracy we were going to establish in the soon-to-be liberated country. NO ONE seemed to pick up on his coments that only those he approved of would be allowed to run his new democracy, and anyone that he disapproved of would not be allowed to vote in his new democracy. No one in the media or congress seemed to question his vision that the Iraqi citizens wanted to model their new government on the grand ol’ US of A.

Will O’Ban

No. The UN is occassionally the venue, but the decision-making power is and remains in the hands of soveriegn nations.

International law is the sum of all international treaties. In the case of the the principle we’re talking about, I believe it’s a product of the Nuremburg trials, and was later incorporated in the UN charter.

As such, it is binding upon any nation which is a member of the UN–it’s what you have to assent to to join.

The five permenent members of the UN–the US, UK, France, Russia and China–were the ones who drafted the charter and “established” this particular law. It predates the UN, or rather came into being at the same moment.

The US government i.e. Reagan, Bush I & II, hate International Law. The US was the only government ever convicted of terrorism against another country with the “Nicaragua vs. the US” decision handed down by the World Court. Reagan thumbed his nose and declared that day “Law Day” in the US. George Bush II was asked about the World Court before the war in Iraq began and he said, “I don’t want some court we can’t control trying our soldiers and dignitaries.” The US has systematically vetoed UN resolutions condemning Israel for it’s treatment of the Palestinians, and they even vetoed the resolutions condemning Saddam for gassing the Kurds. The US sees itself as above International Law.

The five permenent members of the UN–the US, UK, France, Russia and China–were the ones who drafted the charter and “established” this particular law. It predates the UN, or rather came into being at the same moment.

Simon, for clarification, i think you meant to say “five permament members of the UN Security Council” not 5 permament members of the UN..

Indeed

Nice spin. The issue is sovereignty. That’s why it cuts across many kinds of issues. I will never support having a U.S. citizen tried before an international tribunal over the Constitutionally-mandated system. I am sure that not only Republicans have opposed it.