Asymmetrical Information

I'm smelling rope-a-dope here. Or maybe I'm wishing for it. It certainly seems (at least if you take the Press' word for it) that things are falling by the wayside in Iraq. I keep thinking that Bush is just biding his time, and is going to pull something big out of his hat and we are going to see how far-reaching his vision is.

I dunno. Maybe he's finally bitten off more than he can chew. We'll see what happens with the U.N. France and Germany are already making noises that we aren't "offering enough," whatever that means. Bunch of arrogant b*stards. This is where I think Bush is setting something really sneaky up. Give them enough rope, yada, yada, yada.

Okay. I've ranted enough!

Gee whiz, what does Jane Galt have against the Iraqis? What did they ever do to her? There is admittedly nothing wrong with the Bush administration attempting to get help from other countries. However, America must not betray the Iraqis we have just liberated! The United Nations is mostly a corrupt organization interested only in protecting third world dictators. Saddam Hussein’s best friends were the French, Germans, and other rogue states comprising the Old Europe. Why throw the Iraqis to the wolves?

"Why throw the Iraqis to the wolves?"

Well, if the request for international support is not another rope-a-dope, then the obvious reason is: because we have to.

The original estimates about how much money and troops it would require to keep post-war Iraq stable were far too low. I'm looking at you, Wolfowitz, and you too, Rumsfeld.

If the US doesn't have the force strength to go it alone, then we need international help. It's a shame we pissed off so much of the rest of the world in the run-up to war, but this isn't a disaster -- let's be real, cooperation can always be bought).

It is far too soon to call the conquest of Iraq a failure or even a near-failure. But the Administration was wrong about how much money and how many troops we'd need to make it work.

I suppose being wrong and then admitting it counts as "stepping up to the plate." Others might have chosen to admit nothing and do nothing.

So two cheers for the Administration for being less irresponsible than they could've been.

Perhaps biting the bullet would have been a better term. . . unfortunately, substandard blogging conditions lead to substandard word choices. . .

“The original estimates about how much money and troops it would require to keep post-war Iraq stable were far too low. I'm looking at you, Wolfowitz, and you too, Rumsfeld.”

"Others might have chosen to admit nothing and do nothing."

Do nothing? Are you hinting that the Iraqis don’t deserve to be free? It behooved us to invade Iraq to change the culture of the Mideast. We are not acting merely in an altruistic manner. The safety of our nation depends on eradicating radical Islamism and the secular socialist ideologies represented by Yasar Arafat and Saddam Hussein. The financial costs might be heavy , but are still worth it. There is no moral or intellectual justification to destroy what we have so far accomplished. The liberal media are mostly liars! The situation in Iraq is dramatically better. Why are some people even tempted to throw the Iraqis back to the wolves?

Just because the French and Germans (my ancestors) are disgusting low lifes does not mean we should act in a similar manner. We must remain decent human beings.

Regarding Iraq, if I were head of an "old Europe" country such as France or Germany, I would tell Shrub--on the QT, of course--you made your bed, now go sleep in it.

After which, I would pull whatever troops I had in Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?) out of there.

The Shrub administration has shown itself--through its incredible ignorance and hubris--to be totally incompetent.

"the French and Germans (my ancestors) are disgusting low lifes"

David,

it's in the genes. Bad luck for you. ;)

I don't get it.

The crazies set off a couple of car bombs in Iraq and it's evidence that things are spiraling out of control and we need more troops to patrol the streets?

Does Russia need more troops to protect its trains and theaters?

Does Israel need more troops to protect its citizens?

Does Indonesia need more troops to protect its beaches?

We're going to see continued terrorists strikes for a very long time. They're going to score an occasional hit on our soil.

But, because we are resolute, we will destroy the terrorist organizations and we will convince nation-states that it is not in their interest to sponsor or harbor terrorists.

Personally, I smell a rat. But I'm an admitted liberal, so maybe that's me.

Bush isn't asking for international help. He's still insisting on retaining US command and control over the operation, meaning he's essentially asking other countries to commit their young men so that American boys can come home sooner, and so that fewer of the inevitable deaths fall within US ranks. He's asking for cannon fodder and not offering any authority in return.

Either way, it works out well for him, though. If the others agree, he can trumpet his willingness to work with other countries as a team. If they don't, he can say "Look, i was right - the UN is a useless debating society. We asked for international involvement like they wanted and they still didn't pitch in!"

The truth is we did make this bed, over and above loud and repeated international objections. And I'd be stunned if any nation was willing to come sleep in it without US willingness to give significant authority over the occupation over to the UN. (I know a few are willing, and I am stunned.)

Raj,

You are so right! Insigtful, hardhitting commentary, and you managed to work in that hilarious play on words "Shurb" twice!

Ass

What more do I need to add?:

"EU farm chief slams poor nations' demands

Andrew Osborn in Brussels and Larry Elliott
Friday September 5, 2003
The Guardian

The European commission yesterday launched a ferocious attack on poor countries and development campaigners when it dismissed calls for big cuts in Europe's farm protection regime as extreme demands couched in "cheap propaganda". "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1036016,00.html

Stepping up to the plate? Biting the bullet? Rope-a-dope? More like closing the barn door after the animals have already left. Or perhaps making your own bed and then expecting someone else to lay in it.

Going to the UN now (after things have already started to go bad) only gives the France/Germany/Russia axis a lot more leverage than if we done so right after the war ended. At this point we're either going to have to go it alone, or let the UN become the formal political authority in Iraq.

This is a good example of how taking an unrealistically tough position at the start only leads to greater weakness at the end. It's a trap that Bush seems especially adept at falling into (see North Korea, the freezing out of Arafat, etc.)

hi all,

the administration can see that if it stays its course that it will be in deep doo-doo. it miscalculated all over the place re revenues, local friendliness, etc. it is coming to realize, even if condi rice doesn't, that iraq is not germany after wwii. wisely, it is looking for help. good for them!

the only thing that worries me is that it will not have the degree of humility to acknowledge that it really needs others' help (a la wolfwitz just recently), and so continue to annoy its allies. now might be a good time to go back to that "humble" foreign policy that the president promised us before the election.

what i find interesting in the post is that we admire the administrationj for making the "course correction" without really acknowledging that the original course selection was, by definition, ill-advised.

i am glad that many folks are still optimistic about the outcome over their. i hope they are right, but talking to my iraqi friend, he is just devastated by what has happened over there, and is quite pessimistic. the i ching has a nice phrase: if it is not right at the beginning, it will not be right at the end. i think we might be out of the beginning now...

"And I'd be stunned if any nation was willing to come sleep in it without US willingness to give significant authority over the occupation over to the UN. (I know a few are willing, and I am stunned.)"

What planet do you live on? The UN is mostly a corrupt organization of dictators, theives and other scoundrels. Your position is senseless. There is no logical reason to support your infauation of this feckless institution.

Why are you not celecbrating the freedom of the Iraq people? Don't you think that they are better off now then when Saddam Huissein was still in power? Gosh, I think that I've hit on something. The reality is that you are so anti-American---that you don't wish to admit that the situation is now vastly better in Iraq!

"David,

it's in the genes. Bad luck for you. ;)"

Gosh, you might be right. My German ancestors murdered millions of people and seem to always suck out the rear ends of evil dictators. If it's not Adolph Hitler---it's Saddam Hussein. Germany is truly a vile and disgusting nation. You and the French deserve each other.

"So what could the Europeans do to be useful? Well, they could contribute a whole lot of money to a sort of Marshall Plan for Iraq. But they won't do that because there is a huge difference between the Marshall Plan that assisted Europe after World War II and any plan to assist Iraq now.

That difference is complicated to explain but it boils down to this: In the former case, Europeans received money. In the latter case, Europeans would have to spend money.

Actually, that's wasn't so hard to explain after all."

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may090503.asp

David Thomson,

I am not criticising the administration for stepping up to the plate biting the bullet -- I am praising them.

Others might've chosen to admit nothing (everything is fine! we don't need any more troops!) and do nothing (let's not ask other nations for troops), but Bush and company are doing the right thing (now).

Well, there is some CYA going on, but that's life.

Norman Rogers,
It's the experts - the generals and other officials - who are asking for more troops.

Rumsfeld, for example, while saying there is no need for more US troops, wants more international and Iraqi troops. Well, the logic is pretty obvious: more troops are needed. If we can get them from other nations or from Iraq itself, great. If not, guess who is on the hook?

Here's some choice quotes from a NY Times article called "Rumsfeld Eager for More Iraqis to Keep Peace:"

As recently as several months ago, American officials said a new Iraqi army, for example, should number no more than 40,000 troops, and would not exceed 12,000 soldiers in the first year after the war.

[...]

Mr. Rumsfeld declined tonight to spell out specific goals, but he said that the number of armed Iraqis in uniform could reasonably be increased to 75,000 or even 100,000 in the months ahead.

[...]

In a separate news conference here, the senior American military commander in Iraq outlined situations in which he said extra troops might be needed. The commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, said that while he currently had enough troops to accomplish the mission in Iraq, there were several challenges "looming in the future" that would require more troops.

Among those challenges, General Sanchez said, was the need to completely seal the country's borders, disarming some of the larger rebel groups in the country and stepping between warring Iraqi factions in the event that civil strife broke out.

"Today, if I had to, I could move forces to tackle any one of those challenges, but we would pull forces from an existing mission," he said.

In speaking about Iraq's borders, General Sanchez alluded to Mr. Rumsfeld's comments that unguarded frontiers with countries like Iraq and Syria are allowing foreign militants to enter the country to stage attacks against American forces.

At the moment, roughly 14,000 Iraqis are deployed to guard the borders, but American officials have acknowledged that thousands more troops are needed. General Sanchez said that if there was a desire to have Iraq's borders "100 percent" sealed, then more troops would be needed.

So we have Iraqis guarding the Iraqi border against foreign militants. Is this the wisest course so soon after the end of major hostilities?

Then there's the money. I won't bother linking to the articles about Bush going to Congress for more Iraq money (or the old ones about how Afghanistan was left out of the 2004 budget), simply because I presume no one disputes this.

The original estimates of how much money and troops we would need for this job were too low. That's the case regardless of whether you believe the war was 110% justified or 0% justified.

"the administration can see that if it stays its course that it will be in deep doo-doo. it miscalculated all over the place re revenues, local friendliness, etc. it is coming to realize, even if condi rice doesn't, that iraq is not germany after wwii. wisely, it is looking for help. good for them! "

What help? Who is going to be willing and able to help? Who was ever willing and able to help in this mission? (Answer: the folks that are part of it right now)

The UN, the French, and the Germans have been against this operation since Day 1. Not because Bush screwed up, but because they have their own agenda that does not involve helping us in Iraq. If by some chance they manage to weasel their way into the operation and "help", they'll be in a perfect position to completely screw things up, thereby vindicating themselves and making us look bad, as has clearly been their goal from the very start.

This is not a "course correction"; this is either a way to demonstrate once and for all the folly of asking for "help" from those who are dead set against our mission or a disastrous mistake.

Great post, Megan. Who says you don't have a sense of humor? I was ROTFLMAO!

It's the Kurds who get thrown to the wolves.

Anyway, what can Bush do in Iraq that makes sense?

He can build strong bases. Air fields. Heck he had this in Saudi Arabia. WIth much less going on the ground.

The Iraqis need their oil fields defended.

And, the Kurds need to be defended. So that's 1/3 of the problem.

Since the Iraqis haven't really ever benefited from stuff since Saddam got sanctioned ... they've been living with ten years worth of horror stories.

Can their religion save them?

Really?

My guess is that Bush has to figure out how to keep a military base fully operational. Don't laugh. We've done this ON CUBA! Gitmo's part of the Cuban Island. It's very doable.

Also, military police isn't something new ... It needs to be tried in Iraq. But I don't think America has enough arab speakers to make this possible. So, it will go to about 40,000 Iraqi nationals. Will they learn to shoot straight?

Do I care?

With strength you can build mountains.

Fair and equitably destributed? Nada.

But the Kurds are a key to success. They even hold keys in Iran.

Why Assad has been given the room to maneuver, I have no idea. Israel just buzzed Assad's summer palace. But Bush is way too timid.

On October 7th we're gonna find out if Grey Davis, in the same mold as Bush; MUCH TOO TIMID!!! ... If he's tossed from office, Bush's bare ass will show. He's played too fast and loose ... with Enron. With the Saudis. With the looney right. Where's all the advantages? He's like the candy man and he's run out of candy.

And, the revolving door of the white house is still the way in and out, I supposed.

Of the many great reasons not to vote for Bush in '04, the greatest may be that his policies provided 70 million Frenchman on opportunity to say 'I told you so'. Even as a liberal, I can't stand the French.

hi ken,

"This is not a "course correction"; this is either a way to demonstrate once and for all the folly of asking for "help" from those who are dead set against our mission or a disastrous mistake."

have you been reading the news of the report that has basically said that the us army will stop being able to functionally cover the iraqi mission by this time next year if the us does not get more resources (from others or maybe a home draft?) to stay the course?

cas: Don't sweat too much about those news reports; they are coming from the same sources that keep reporting that Iraq is in complete turmoil, that the Iraquis to a man hate our guts, etc. Those are the same sources that kept reporting during the war that we were in a "quagmire" the day our tanks were rolling through Baghdad.

Every time people think that Bush has gone wobbly, it turns out that he has actually played a brilliant strategy and has created for himself a no-lose proposition. Here's what is happening with the UN deal: We have gone to the Security Council to ask for a fig-leaf resolution to give political cover to some countries that want to help but need political cover at home. (Bush made it absolutely clear in the Sunday night speech that we will continue to be in charge regardless.) This includes a lot of East European countries whose EU memberships are being threatened by France. We are trying to demonstrate to them that we will not force them to choose between American friendship and EU membership. One of two things will happen: Either France will stand in the way, or it won't. If they don't, we win because those countries get to contribute a little bit (it won't actually help much; it's mostly symbolic, but great things can come from symbolic first steps), and this possibly leads to greater Western investment and trade with their countries. If France does stand in the way, it demonstrates to everyone conclusively where the problem is, and we come out as the good guys.

(Troops from any European country will be of little practical use. They lack the training and technology, and in many cases the talent, to interface with our command structure and interoperate with our troops. With a few exceptions, such as the British and the Poles, their presence will be almost entirely symbolic.)

To Wallster: Regardless of where I might be on the political spectrum, I would never base any voting decision on anything the French have to say about it. They are going to repeat the same mantra regardless, because it really has no meaning to them; they just like the sound of their voices saying the words.

To Jim and several others: Where are you getting those original White House estimates that you now say were absurdly low? I don't recall any such estimates, and Bush has for a long time refused to put a number on it because everyone knew that there was too much uncertainty to do that kind of detailed planning. It's as ridiculous as the demands that the adminstration spell out the exact date, hour, minute, second, millisecond, and GPS coordinates to within 1" of the time and place where power will be handed over to the Iraquis and the last of our troops will leave. How long did we keep forces in Japan and Berlin after WWII? Especially considering that this war isn't actually over; we've prevailed in one theater, but there are many yet to take on.

Comments are Closed.