...the conflict is ever evolving. It is imperative that we recognize that evolution and not think that it is simply business as usual over there. It is in fact getting far worse every day, and in historically predictable ways.

Riiiight...Abhi (great post on your part, btw), see, first that would require Bush to acknowledge that something can evolve, and his track record on that isn't real good either...

Apparently Bush is currently reading a book about France’s occupation of Algeria.

my friend greg cochran was talking about the algeria analogy 3 years ago.

Great post Abhi - good job in taking it beyond the disaster/better than Saddam impasse! I've been talking to some folks over at other blogs (I admit it - I've been cheating on SM) that discuss the war and it's sad to see the conversation always degrade into these polar camps.

Of course we would not be having these problems in Iraq if Al Gore was in the white house.

I wonder if Ralph Nader still thinks there no difference between Gore and Bush.

The insurgency and the civil war ( its about time it was classified as such) is a worst case scenario come true. What Irag needs is another Saddam, not one with genocidal aspirations, but someone who has the cajones to end the strife and bring peace between the communities. What we are seeing now is the Iraqi equivalent of gangs. Young men who have no jobs, given a gun and the moral qualification to use it. If a leader ( not one as weak and self centered as the incompetent al-maliki)emerges who can keep control of the armed forces and stand up to Moqtada Al-Sadr only then does Iraq have a chance. Although i believe his drive and strength should be on par with Syria's erstwhie premier 'Hafiz al-Asad'. This type of leader would probably make mass arrests and quite a few executions. But this doesnt look like a problem a Gandhi or MLK can solve.

Nice post. But one thing that is not mentioned but of great importance as to how things will turn out is the Iran-Syria connection to the Shia. As long as there is external support that funds one faction there will be a trouble. Why wouldn't Iran try to escalate the infighting even if some Shia political leaders are willing to compromise? Why wouldn't a worse form of Lebanon type of govt be formed by Iran/Syria. It is very cost effective for Iran to do so as to avoid bigger threat from US/West.

Stabilization would only postpone the conflict. It is better to split the country along Shia/Sunni/Kurd factions. Iraq's borders are artificially created anyways.

kesh, you are in the realist camp. someone like Mubarak will stabilize the country. but it won't happen for a few years or at least as long as Bush is the WH. no WMD, no democracy --> no public reason to invade iraq --> Bush and neocons can't hide their faces anywhere then.

Personally, I do not understand why people do not understand one fact. The military is not made for police keeping. It's mission is to kill, i.e do damage. The whole military industrial complex is setup to provide the military soldiers, navy sailors, marines, airmen etc... weapons to kill. Heck, our own military cannot even keep American citizens in control. During the Katrina stabilization process, it took a 3-star general to fly in and tell the troops to lower their weapons and start giving a helping hand. If our soldiers treat our own citizens this way during times of duress, think what they would do to Iraqis.

What the President of the United States just told us that 20,000 troops aged 18-21 primarily (maybe higher) that went through 3 months of boot camp, 6 months of technical schooling in their profession (infantry, etc...), limited 6 month counter-insurgency training, possible prior deployments to Iraq WILL attempt to quell a Civil War. My first thought is Yeah, right!
What can we do?
Repent. Ask forgiveness. Talk to Europe. Talk to our allies. Engage the world.
Has Bush heard of the term DIPLOMACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently Bush is currently reading a book about France’s occupation of Algeria. It was recommended to him by Henry Kissinger. I can’t help but think how such intellectual curiosity comes four years too late.

Battle of Algiers is considered to be one of the best work of documentation of France in Algeria. It is a damning movie in a pseudo-documentary style.

Top policy makers at Pentagon saw that movie before "shock and awe". But then why did they repeat the same mistake............guys. Here are some excerpts:

In 2003, the film again made the news after the US Directorate for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict at The Pentagon offered a screening of the film on August 27, regarding it as a useful illustration of the problems faced in Iraq. A flyer for the screening read:

How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film.

According to the Defense Department official in charge of the screening, "Showing the film offers historical insight into the conduct of French operations in Algeria, and was intended to prompt informative discussion of the challenges faced by the French."

All from Wikipedia.

In 2003, the film again made the news after the US Directorate for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict at The Pentagon offered a screening of the film on August 27, regarding it as a useful illustration of the problems faced in Iraq. A flyer for the screening read:

How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film.

According to the Defense Department official in charge of the screening, "Showing the film offers historical insight into the conduct of French operations in Algeria, and was intended to prompt informative discussion of the challenges faced by the French."

I believe it is fitting, today, to share the wisdom of a man who's vision, compassion, and perseverance is sorely needed in these times. The Reverand, April 4, 1967, Riverside Church, New York City:

...the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken -- the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

By the way, the latest issue of the NYR has a telling piece on the human catastrophe of the occupation which includes a review of Nir Rosen and Anthony Shadid:

Americans, by now, can be forgiven for believing that we know something about the situation in Iraq; we hear about it, after all, every day, in what seems like benumbing detail. And yet, in reality, what we know about the lives of individual Iraqis rarely goes beyond the fleeting opinion quote or the civilian casualty statistics. We have little impression of Iraqis as people trying to live lives that are larger and more complex than the war that engulfs them, and more often than not we end up viewing them merely as appendages of conflict. The language of foreign policy abstraction and a misplaced sense of decorum on the part of the press and television also conspire to sanitize the fantastically disgusting realities of everyday death....

...It is an aspect of the problem often overlooked in reporting of the war, but Iraq today is a country in the grip of revolutionary change. The American occupation swept away the institutions of Saddam's regime without providing for new ones to replace them. It encouraged a remarkable flowering of pluralism in expression (including satellite television, avidly competing newspapers, and cell phones), allowing Iraqis to discuss the problems of their own society with a freedom that is still rare in the Arab world,[9] while failing to provide many basic services or respond to widespread unemployment. It organized democratic elections and stimulated the growth of local self-government without ever dealing with the conditions that prevented these new participatory institutions from effectively exercising power—and watched helplessly as they were bypassed by other forms of community self-assertion, like Shadid's activist clerics....

...Many American commentators mistakenly assume that the democratic freedoms brought by the Americans have simply allowed the inherent weaknesses of Iraqi society to come out into the open.[10] Certainly Iraqi society has always been deeply divided against itself; but under the occupation it has been turned upside down. The middle class, under attack from criminals and murderous ideologues, is abandoning the country. According to the Iraq Index of the Brookings Institution, the authorities have issued two million passports since August 2005. An estimated 40 percent of Iraq's professional classes have left the country.[11] New elites are rising in their place, sometimes through the use of violence; needless to say, this is not the sort of civil society that the Americans were hoping to promote....

"In Sunday night’s interview with Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes, an interesting fact was revealed."

Actually, there were MANY interesting facts revealed about Bush, and none of them too comforting.

First of all, great post Abhi. I've been waiting for sometime to participate in a discussion like this. Several things popped into my head as I read the post and comments.

types of attitudes. The first one, from people on the political left and center, is one of utter exasperation and hopelessness.

First, I was decidedly against the invasion of Iraq and I disagree with this Administration's stand on most issues. I fall into the category described in Abhi's article and it has only gotten worse over the past several weeks. This largely has to do with the Administration's reaction to the Baker-Hamilton report. The administration all but ignored all the major recommendations of the only centrist strategy presented on the Iraq conflict. How am I supposed to feel any less than exasperated when it is clear that those running the war still have no patience for a dissenting views here at home, leave alone in the diplomatic arena?

I watched Pelley's segment on 60 Minutes last night. I found it very alarming. It seems as though the President's "let history judge me" outlook is totally ignoring the requirements of the short and medium term. I also think it's kind of hypocritical of him to think it historical terms with respect to the war in Iraq, but not in the same terms when it comes to the destruction of a great American city and global climate change. I got the feeling that he has resigned to the fact that he will ignore opposing views for the next two years and leave it to the next guy, or rather generation, to clean up his mess.

Finally, though I often get frustrated with the sophistry of Tom Friedman, I recommend that everyone read his op-ed from last week. He wrote about how the Administration's war effort has placed the entire burden of Iraq on the military and their families without demanding any sacrifice from the rest of us. This sentiment resonated with me. Outside of reading articles and getting involved in informal political debates, the Iraq war has hardly affected my day to day life. That is the biggest failing of this administration. They went to war without getting a broad commitment for change, probably because it would have been impossible to get such support. But the fact that they started the war without the committment of the citizenry should have been a sign that a drawn out conflict would not be sustainable.

To me, the really hopeless part about this is the absolute unwillingness of our political parties to operate in good faith here. I personally would not have been against this war from the beginning on the merits. I believe that we DID have a moral responsibility to save Iraq from Saddam Hussein, since the American government was substantially responsible for first installing him. It is completely moral and just that the blood of his victims should trouble us. I still believe a well-planned war that was truly aimed for that end would have been worth fighting.

But I was against this war because, from the beginning, there has been a shock lack of honesty and openness about the cost, objectives, strategy, and governance of this conflict. From the very beginning, discussion about these very important elements of any war have been quashed (admittedly, by both parties). As a result, we entered this war without asking the fundamental questions necessary for the public to evaluate our involvement. Indeed, those of us who asked those questions quickly found our patriotism maligned and our views dismissed. So we started firing the guns without actually ever defining the goals of the war. We planned a nation-building operation on the fly, and we eschewed the advice and expertise of the nations and organizations who had actually had experience on this end. So now we reach this this point where thousands of troops are sitting around in tiny, bristling enclaves around Iraq with virtually no well-articulated reason for their further presence other than the utterly idiotic and meaningless phrase: "to win".

And yet even today there's no attempt to work things out in good faith. Information is routinely hidden. The war continues to be funded outside the normal budget process. Falsehoods are uttered as fact, often by the White House but even more often by the popular conservative media. Bipartisan structures are convened to come to consensus, only to have their recommendations slapped away like flies. In today's political landscape, the White House still acts as though cooperation with Democrats is tantamount to surrender to "the terrorists". So there is nearly no hope of coming to any sort of compromise here. The proponents of this war have decided that the only choice is between victory or death, both domestically and in Iraq. So the choice is either to wage a tedious, difficult campaign to FORCE the troops home (most likely through incredibly distasteful policy solutions like cutting funding) or to let Bush burn through lives and dollars to satisfy his absolutist stance.

Faced with that domestic situation, who WOULDN'T feel bleak about this war?

the problem now is 1. iran is empowered 2. no wmd's 3. no stability endangering democracy

1. I read Bush's "surge" speech as a warning to Iran, with whom we are at war but have been too timid to respond. Iran, like Saddam, enables terror, but unlike the Saudis cannot be negotiated with (arguable point), and the strengthening of their hand has been the most serious unexpected consequence of this war, not unlike the way we strengthened the soviets by defeating nazism. So bush will take churchill's advice and try to defang iran b/f they become too big (like N. Korea). He will be met with great resistance as even churchill was called a warmonger after the "iron curtain" speech.

2. bush still thinks (correctly) that getting rid of saddam was critical to the war on terror despite the fact that he had no wmd's since 1. he could easily reconstitute them 2. he may have shipped them off prior to the war 3. he made is intentions toward the US known when he tried to assassinate our president, among other things. Bush follows the 1% doctrine.

3. i think rummy wanted to get rid of saddam while minimizing american casualties, and he succeeded at the expense of stability in iraq. by allowing sectarian violence to take root before democracy, rummy put at risk wolfowitz’s neocon dream. but all is not lost.

Manju, do you seriously think Saddam may have 'shipped off' his WMDs? What is the basis for the speculation (genuinely curious)?

Also, given the Iraq situation, is it realistic for the US to contemplate military action against Iran and/or Syria? The list of allies will be shorter for any further escalation, methinks.

bush still thinks (correctly) that getting rid of saddam was critical to the war on terror despite the fact that he had no wmd's since

This is an already discredited notion. Saddam was a tyrant but only terrorized his own people. America doesn't care about self-contained terrorism. Saddam was secularist who would have executed Al Qaeda agents as well as Iranian agents within his borders. The only "terrorists" he openly supported were the families of Palestinain suicide bombers sent against Israel (after death monetary support). Use of the world correctly in this case is incorrect.

Manju, do you seriously think Saddam may have 'shipped off' his WMDs? What is the basis for the speculation (genuinely curious)?

I don't know. There have been multiple reports. I once heard Georges Sada, a General under Saddam, claim with absolute certainty (on Jon Stewert's show) that this occurred. David Kay also bought up the possibility.

Also, given the Iraq situation, is it realistic for the US to contemplate military action against Iran and/or Syria? The list of allies will be shorter for any further escalation, methinks.

I don't think an occupation is realistic. But the iraq war was very succesful up to that point. I don't know how successful airpower will be in terms of destroying their nuke program (there are rumors that Israel may use tactical nukes) but if it is feasable, I think Bush will try to get it done. Politically, Ahmadinejad's fanaticsim is Bush's best friend. He may be able to lure them into a greater war than they are already waging, and that would justify an american invasion/bombing. Maybe that's what the raid on their consulate was about. Plus, the saudis and much of the rest of the region are really worried about Iraq.

It is utterly frustrating that people still refuse to let go of the alleged nexus between Saddam and Al Qaeda. On the other hand, the same administration says nothing about the real paymasters of the Taliban, namely the Pakistan administration (disclosure: I'm an Indian national).

" Saddam was a tyrant but only terrorized his own people "

Thanks for laying out, in just a few words, the primary rationale of a certain part of the anti-war constituency. The one which is not rabidly left wing but does care about the sufferings of the different peoples of the world. So it was OK as long as he was terrorizing his own people?

" America doesn't care about self contained terrorism "

Historically, let's say it doesn't. But a certain American president departed from that for good. And you oppose it? Interesting that the man who is changing the immoral way America has long callously stood by, while others across the world suffered, is the one who is getting all the brickbats from people who would congregate in a heartbeat to protest the injustice meted out to marginalized people all over the world.

In fact you want to steer America back to the age of inconsequential diplomacy as exemplified by Baker Hamilton rubbish.

" Saddam was secularist who would have executed Al Qaeda agents as well as Iranian agents within his borders "

This is no secret. Are you telling me this administration is so ignorant to not know the above? I'd like to ask you what would your plan have been to deliver millions of suffering Iraqis from the stranglehold of brutal Saddam and his equally cruel sons waiting in the wings to follow him, without losing a few more generations to the hell of despair and torture? Thank god for George W Bush. And of course we haven't been all altruistic about this adventure. We will have accomplished something strategically unparalleled in US history. But for that you need patience and a long term view.

Saddam was secularist who would have executed Al Qaeda agents as well as Iranian agents within his borders.

He was a great friend of America when he was killing commies in Iraq and waging war against Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran. Besides the invasion of Kuwait, his other big mistake was this:

The only "terrorists" he openly supported were the families of Palestinain suicide bombers sent against Israel (after death monetary support).

His enmity towards Israel doomed him. The neocons were baying for his blood for years.

Bush may (I predict he will) still come out ahead. America has all the cards. It can afford to make even big mistakes and still win in the long run. Unlike Vietnam, Iran has no superpowers as allies. Bush has many sunni arabs on his side now and even China and Russia are distancing themselves from that crackpot Ahmadinejad's Iran. India had distanced itself even before he came to power. America is succeeding in isolating Iran. There is too much at stake: Oil. Privatizing Iraq's vast Oil resources, to the advantage of american oil companies, is the Grand Prize.

Thanks for laying out, in just a few words, the primary rationale of a certain part of the anti-war constituency. The one which is not rabidly left wing but does care about the sufferings of the different peoples of the world. So it was OK as long as he was terrorizing his own people?

To the best of my knowledge, Bush never suggested that he planned to go after all world dictators alphabetically. The primary rationale for the war was WMDs and War on Terror. The removal of Saddam is certainly an accidental benefit, but again it is debatable if Iraq is better off without him.

So it was OK as long as he was terrorizing his own people?

Come on, don't be juvenile and put words in my mouth. I am analyzing it objectively from an American foreign policy perspective. The North Korean dictator and the leadership of Sudan are terrorizing their own people every bit as badly as Saddam terrorized his. Why don't we stop them? Because we are selfish and it is better for us to not stop them. In Iraq's case the right wing thought it was better to intervene for selfish reasons. There wasn't a moral component to it.

But a certain American president departed from that for good. And you oppose it?

I oppose incompetence and ignorance and those that confuse the two with morality.

Thank god for George W Bush.

Really, your comment would have been just as significant if you had just written that one line.

Terrible (#21), of course the administration would have known such things that seem obvious to everyone. But that's not what they said, did they? The insinuation was that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Why couldn't Bush try to build up a consensus for regime change to achieve the humanitarian and strategic goals that you point to? And how long you do think is long term going to be?

Saddam was a tyrant but only terrorized his own people.

and the kuwaitis and israelis, our allies.

America doesn't care about self-contained terrorism.

this is true of pat buchanan and other realists but the neo-cons, including rummy, challenge this view. It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to see how regional terrorists (say Hamas or hezbollah) could want to attack us too (because of our support of israel).

Saddam was secularist who would have executed Al Qaeda agents as well as Iranian agents within his borders.

True, so would N.Korea...but we still worry about tem giving WMD's to terrorists.

The only "terrorists" he openly supported were the families of Palestinain suicide bombers sent against Israel (after death monetary support).

I'd remove the quotes. there's also Abu Nidal,PLF, MKO, Hamas, ansar al islam, Abdul Rahman Yasin (helped bomb wtc in '93).

IMHO, the role of the American press, both conservative and liberal, in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the run up to Iraq was quite crucial in mobilising public opinion in favour of the war. The liberal press has been wise in hindsight, but they were quite happy to go along with the administration and did not ask too many uncomfortable questions when they should have.

I'd remove the quotes.

Agree, so would I. There doesn't have to be any equivocation on whether Palestinian suicide bombers are terrorists or not.

IMHO, the role of the American press, both conservative and liberal, in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the run up to Iraq was quite crucial in mobilising public opinion in favour of the war. The liberal press has been wise in hindsight, but they were quite happy to go along with the administration and did not ask too many uncomfortable questions when they should have.

I think everyone assumed, including the Clintons, that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...and this alone justifyed a war in the eyes of mainstream democrats. His behaviour toward the UN seemed to "confirm" this. I think he really wanted to world to believe he had stockpiles because that was a critical to his power. He succeeded.

here is a pretty harsh (deserved) article on the pro and anti-war punditry and the media treatment of them...

I think Pat Buchanan saying "The age of American Empire is over" on the McLaughlin group show, says it all (or probably Buchanan writing on opinion piece on Antiwar.com )

I would urge people to check out Prof. Juan Cole's Top 10 Myth's about Iraq 2006 His top one is ...

1. Myth number one is that the United States "can still win" in Iraq.

If you think that Juan Cole is America hater then check out 6 brutal truths about Iraq by, Gen. Willian Odom

One of his truths

Truth No. 3: The theory that "we broke it and therefore we own it," with all the moral baggage it implies, is simply untrue because it is not within U.S. power to "fix it."

The sign of hubris is that US thinks that its presence has some kind of "effect" on keeping Iraq togather. This hubris is going to get more American soldiers killed, while US presence remaining irrelevant to the conflict, as it is now.

The stupidest thing about Iraq I hear on TV is about this "are we winning??" WTF?? Its a civil war between two parties and US is not one of them. How can the US win?

think everyone assumed, including the Clintons, that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...and this alone justifyed a war in the eyes of mainstream democrats

Oh, give it up already!

Why has no paper of record in the US, felt the need to interview Muqtada Al-Sadr??