Hitch. On Baker. 'Nuff said.

Tags: Neocons, Iraq

Sometimes they don't go quietly into the night.



Muravchik's rallying cry for Neoconism is not particularly memorable. On the one hand, we see his benchwarmer's excitement of getting playing time after the rout is beyond repair. Muravchik can get away with this silliness only because the public does not yet associate his name with the disaster. Perle and Adelman et al. quite sensibly are beginning their Self Criticism turn and leave such boosterism for the “B Team”. Muravchick's “Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?” moment will fall on deaf ears from his own bench at the moment. But he is planting a flag (possibly sacrificially), as he does his current Foreign Policy piece advocating bombing Iran.

As badly as things have gone in Iraq, the war has not disproved neoconservative ideas. Iraq is a mess, and the U.S. mission there may fail. If that happens, neocons deserve blame because we were key supporters of the war. But American woes in Iraq may be traced to the conduct of the war rather than the decision to undertake it. In fact, despite the alarming spike of anti-Americanism worldwide, the political space in many Middle Eastern countries — such as Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco and most of the Persian Gulf nations — has widened appreciably in response to Bush's pressure and advocacy.

In recent weeks, hopes have risen that Baker and the Iraq Study Group will devise an alternative approach to neoconservatism, one more in the mode of traditional conservatism. Rumor has it that this will rest on courting Iran. But why would a country whose president proclaims his goal to be “a world without America” pull our chestnuts out of the fire? Others suggest that Baker will link Iraq to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, but this has been sought for decades without success. Even if achieved, why and how would it make Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites stop slaughtering each other?

Until someone comes up with better ideas than these, the neocon strategy of trying to transform the Middle East, however blemished, remains without alternative. No doubt, the results of the midterm elections will produce some course corrections (as Rumsfeld has discovered). But neocon ideas are unlikely to be jettisoned — either by Bush or his successor — until a viable replacement is found. So far, there is none.

Profoundly misleading. Muravchik is intellectually and factually dishonest. Neoconism was not really about reform in the region. It was and remains an argument for “regime change” via force of arms, coercion or covert action. And Iraq was to be beginning of a process that Perle and others have said in front of this writer was to end with the overthrow of the House of Saud. The reason the term “regime change” became part of the American lexicon was the Neocon conceit that societies adopt and cohere to the form of government given them — a top down approach rather than an organic, bottom up vision ala America circa 1776.

Under this formulation, simply changing the regime and imposing “democratic” process such as elections would, the theory goes, mould and shape the New Iraqi Man. This is the theoretical underpinning for the Administration's argument that formulaic electoral processes would yield success. Contra Muravchik, the Neocon top down model of imposed societal engineering via military force or covert action lies shattered in pieces.

Imposed leadership lobotomies and hastily concocted new political orders via a “dictatorship of the transient and foreign electoral process” was and clearly is shown by Iraq to be impractical and dangerously delusional. (Even the Israelis backed away from American Neocon efforts to begin efforts to foment a coup in Syria).

Of course, that Neocon argument about top down social engineering was itself a distraction and an illusion. All of this was and is about harnessing American power, wealth and blood for other reasons. We must remain vigilant against future Trotskyite “infiltration” (Trotskyites call it “entrism” ) of our policy discourse (see this entertaining contortion by Trotskyite and Neocon Stephen Schwartz in NRO on the subject). And Muravchik's false dichotmy of their “New Islamic Democratic Man” and the strawman of 'militant status quo' can be ignored.

Societal reform in the region and policies to address and contain the demographic/educational bubble in the Islamic ecumenae will be needed. Now, perhaps we have a chance to do so on a rational basis based on American national interest.



Tags: Neocons, Iraq

Battle for Rummy's legacy erupts while his political corpse is still room temperature. Roughly hewn, there appear to be three main narratives vying for quick historical primacy: (a) military reformer overshadowed by his Iraq failures; (b) a bureaucratic bully who got everything wrong; and (c) a traitor to the cause of Will and Power who single-handedly ushered back into influence the hated 'Realists“ with their pygmy vision of pragmatism.



Peter Boyer in the New Yorker sets out the first and best argument via ”How Donald Rumsfeld Transformed The Army And Lost Iraq“. Boyer correctly goes back to Andy Marshall and Soviet theoretical writings from the 1980s and early 1990s to show how serious military thinkers (including the late Art Cebrowski remembered here) understood the need for military transformation long before Donald Rumseld arrived on the scene. We can attest to all of the above as being personally familiar with the original writings and some of the personalities Boyer describes there.

While it is true that ONA (the Office of Net Assessment) under Marshall after 2001 came to harbour some Neocon agitators and Feith allies such as Harold Rhode (who at least speaks several relevant languages), Marshall and ONA's commitment to creative strategic thought transcends Neoconism across the decades. Boyer's analysis tracks our experiences with OSD, the military transformation personalities and the Neocons. In truth, the Joint Staff had become too powerful and bureaucratically inert. And the Army did need reform. We recommend Boyer's piece as a relatively solid and incisive first cut at the Rumseld/transformation narrative.

As for the second line, as much as it pains us to say it, Woodward's State of Denial probably remains the single best source integrating Rumseld's dysfunctional personality and events on the ground in Iraq. Woodward also shows how Rumsfeld's almost sociopathic need for control undermined his own transformation and reform agenda. Screeds like Kwiatkowsky's ”Rumsfeld's Legacy“ while entertaining in a rile up the base sort of way are just Kool Aid of a different flavor In the end, the problem with this line of analysis is that for all of his obvious blundering and destructive impact on policy formulation and execution, the President tolerated it. So in the end, the entire critique by necessity must arrive back at the Oval Office.

And the third narrative is the one probably most familiar to you, Dear Reader, because we have enjoyed following it here so closely. Indeed quotes recently submitted here from Adelman, Perle, Ledeen and Dector and now part of the SLS blog are priceless. Neocon youngling Michael Rubin adds his own beginner's take in the WSJ as well. Rubin interestingly now seeks to link Rumsfeld to the despised 'Realism.' Jim Hoagland also lashes out at 'Realism” in the WaPo as he bitterly complains that the wreckage of the Neocon Will to Power is the triumph of their hated enemy, pragmatism.

President Bush lost more than a midterm election and a cantankerous defense secretary last week. He also abandoned any lingering chance of remaking U.S. foreign policy into a radical force for democratic change in the Middle East and elsewhere . . .But Bush's going on the defensive does not mean that the radical positive changes he had hoped for cannot come about on their own, even if on a different timetable and with much greater costs than he ever imagined. True realism lies in recognizing that his diagnosis of a crumbling order in the Middle East was sound, even if his prescriptions were not.

Perversely, one can imagine Krauthammer hunched over one of his no doubt tedious chess games, invoking Teddy — “the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

Tags: Rumsfeld, OSD, transformation, Perle, Adelman, Neocons, Iraq, Rubin, Hoagland, New Yorker, Boyle

Ralph Peters slinks away from his car wreck in Iraq hoping no one saw him help driving. He finally bows to consensus reality and concedes Iraq is 'unwinnable'. But oh the delusions that remain.

Those of us who hoped that the Iraqis could achieve democracy were wrong — and their failure has implications for the entire region . . . Iraq was the Arab world's last chance to board the train to modernity, to give the region a future, not just a bitter past. The violence staining Baghdad's streets with gore isn't only a symptom of the Iraqi government's incompetence, but of the comprehensive inability of the Arab world to progress in any sphere of organized human endeavor. We are witnessing the collapse of a civilization.

All those who rooted for Iraq to fail are going to be chastened by what follow. And contrary to the prophets of doom, the United States wouldn't be weakened by our withdrawal, should it come to that. Iraq was never our Vietnam. It's al-Qaeda's Vietnam. They're the ones who can't leave and who can't win.

So to be clear, Peters concedes the Administration was less than competent. But to him the Iraqis are the ones responsible for provoking the half assed OIF in the first place and then turning their nation into another Lebanon.



Peters remains deceitful to the last, shirking his responsibility as one of the coarse, third tier cheerleaders for violence and force. (He offers instead a Hastert-like hollow acknowledgement of responsibility that offers much but accepts nothing).

How he thinks Iraq a trifling failure not even on a Vietnam scale says alot. Vietnam was a minor geopolitical struggle on the periphery of the main contest to contain Soviet power. Pullout there left the central system strategic equation unaffected or any other core geostrategic interest. And within 10 years from that pullout we were on the cusp of winning the Cold War. We agree with Bill Odom (much as it surprises us, but that is a long story) that Iraq is the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.

Failure in Iraq by contrast has pulverized the stability of the region that is vital to the global economy — but then hated stability and Realists were always the true enemies of Peters and Neocons when launching this absurd CF.

Iraq has stirred the passions and hatreds of an ecumenae numbering approximately 1 billion. The balance of power in the region is decisively against the U.S. and its non-radicalized allies. U.S. prestige, soft power and political capital has been depleted by the Administration's reckless policies and incompetence. Not to mention the treasure and blood lost.

But Peters goes one further. He claims somehow Iraq is actually a victory for the U.S. somehow because it is Al Qaeda's Vietnam. For real. Read his piece again. We normally “grok” Neocon Kool Aid trips but not this one.

How Peters' audience reacts to his volte face will be interesting. Many undoubtedly already knew Iraq was lost, and no longer believed in elections, purple digits, or Dubya's secret plans and wunderwaffen. Yet many also required Peters and others to continue to at least pretend to believe in Victory to assuage their own pain from cognitive dissonance. The penalty for Peters and others to peddle the Kool Aid is also high. Billmon's report that Fox News continues its ratings free fall shows how thin the triumphalist gruel has become. (MSNBC is enjoying a ratings increase)

Fox News's total audience fell 24 percent in the past year, to 1.3 million viewers from 1.7 million, and its key primetime audience, viewers ages 25-54, was down 7 percent in October on a year-to-year basis, to an average 363,000 viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research data. In third quarter, Fox News suffered a 38 percent decline in 25-54s, to 409,000.

A temporary blip, of course, until audience disenchantment, shame and anger is re-directed to the 'stab in the back' meme and then Iran.

Look for them beginning early Spring 2007.

Tags: Neocons, Iraq, Ralph, Peters, War, Vietnam

Dubya's warm embrace of Cheney and Rumsfeld today confirms the sour two years ahead of us. And effectively spikes Cher Condi's dreams of being more than a staffer and AgitProp queen.

We note with bemusement the recent and futile Imperial City parlour game played by some, breathlessly speculating on who might be Condi's deputy, etc. A pointless pursuit as Zoellick himself realized when he abandoned Condi and resigned in July. A fitting end to the tenure of a vacant mind and empty persona.

Instead, Cheney and Rumsfeld will remain in the saddle to the bitter end. This Administration, true, is not above political kabuki, and it is possible that with this affirmation, Rumsfeld could resign with political cover. But we don't think so. Conventional prefab wisdom believes Bush's actions are tied to protecting flanks on Iraq and other related decisions of the past. We believe it is really a prospective decision: i.e., about Iran.



Administration continued use of “unacceptable” to describe the Iranian nuclear program affirms it is a casus belli. Today Michael Ledeen argues that we are already at war with Iran anyway. And bemoans Bush's decision to not act immediately. Cheney and Rumsfeld will facilitate the implementation of actions in the remaining two years to make Ledeen's AgitProp a reality.

Whether Iraq is code orange or red in some CENTCOM PowerPoint presentation does not interest the Stiftung. The American force posture in theater, equipment burn rate and human capital depletion effectively removes a robust military threat against Tehran for the near and medium term. This is true whether Americans re-set the forces over the horizon or not.

Which leaves “precision” air/sea strike and integrated special forces action as the only remaining card to play. The naval exercises in the Gulf now would be an adjunct to any such unfolding campaign.

Lieberman as Minister of Strategic Threats in an Olmert Cabinet is a catalytic engine for those seeking to create the momentum of inevitability. Interestingly, as those who followed the Walt and Mearsheimer mau mau know, a Democratic House may also inadvertently assist. The Democratic Party is even more vulnerable to AgitProp from that direction arguably than the Republican from the Evangelical/Neocon axis. It would be nice to be surprised.

Tehran also would welcome this development. Riding out American airstrikes and transient force would do much to further Tehran's bid for leadership in the Islamic world and overcome the Persian/Sunni taint. If Israel could not locate and identify Hezbollah assets next door after years of intelligence activity, Tehran must like the odds of American ability in even locating the important nuclear program elements let along reaching them. In any event, strikes would delay not halt Iranian progress.

What a poisoned chalice to leave the American people in 2008. Iraq in chaos. Iran resurgent in the Islamic world (think Hezbollah's PR triumph after the Israeli foray into Lebanon but on steroids). And Neocons and Bush defenders pointing to the wreckage as affirmation that we are in the war of civilizations that they yearn for.

The utlimate in burned bridges. And the Dubya/Cheney/Rumsfeld troika determined to pull it all down around them and us. All setting the stage for McCain and “National Greatness”, Guiliani's Neocon “Resolve” . . . or?

A Democratic victory next week is merely the first step on a long road to stopping this. One hopes they are up to it.

Tags: Iran,, Iraq,, Neocons,, Rumsfeld