Paul Bremer's Still Not Learned Anything (But has Juan Cole?)

Another fair and balanced piece from the History News Network

where is the barf alert?

the sunni and the baaaathists are the rotten opressors, let Juan Cole go over there and talk to them

the only thing i don't understand is why the shiites and kurds have shown so much restraint

i figure they are waiting until they are armed and trained and then they will take care of buisness

will Juan Cole be upset then? maybe he will go help his friends "fight the good fight."

When the left stops insinuating that we ought to cut and run it makes it all the more difficult for the citizens to trust in the new government.

I believe that the left is deliberately trying to sabotage our mission in Iraq.

A lot of my leftist friends--and in my business that is about all I see--almost gloat over bad news from Iraq. My guess is that they hate Bush so much and so irrationally, that they hate to see victories (such as those we had most recently.)

A few democrats are reluctantly realizing their party is not worth any support.

We can only keep pointing out the danger the other party causes to our national security in the hopes of converting more to our side.

I have almost finished Bremers book, and I recommend it. It is all people, and he deserves a halo for what he did. Never heard of this yahoo, but sounds like he doesn't have a clue.

"A lot of my leftist friends--and in my business that is about all I see--almost gloat over bad news from Iraq.My guess is that they hate Bush so much and so irrationally, that they hate to see victories (such as those we had most recently.)"

Yes, and the problem is that such an attitude affects the whole MSM, with the small exception of some embedded journalists.

Juan Cole has been proven wrong many times in Iraq. He's predicted the elections would fail (wrong), that civil war would break out (wrong), and now his claim that "The Sunni Arabs of Iraq are opposed to the US presence almost to a person." is also untrue.

You need only go to Sunni Iraqi bloggers like this:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
... to get a sanity check on this.

Will have to debunk this further here:
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/

Juan Cole decides to chastis Bremer for daring to suggest we have a victory strategy. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008517 But what does Cole offer instead? Nothing but defeatism. Let us count the ways:

Paul Bremer says he hopes Bush's cabinet summit will develop an effective military plan for defeating the insurgency in Iraq. Bremer came to Iraq saying appalling things like "we will go on imposing our will on this country" or words to that effect, and appears to have learned nothing.

When someone uses quotes, it doesnt mean 'words to that effect', it means those exact words. Yet it was Bremer who handed off Iraqi Sovereignty, saying, exactly: Paul Bremer says he hopes Bush's cabinet summit will develop an effective military plan for defeating the insurgency in Iraq. Bremer came to Iraq saying appalling things like "we will go on imposing our will on this country" or words to that effect, and appears to have learned nothing.

Counter-insurgency is tough. The best the hawks can usually do is cite the British in their colony of Malaya in the 1950s, when they curbed a communist movement. But 1960 was a long time ago.

Here, Cole attempts to build up the insurgency as some kind of national force that is unstoppable. Trouble is, it isn't even a real insurgency. It may call itself that, and Juan Cole, in his desperation to validate his anti-Americanism may call it that, but the political program of the terrorists is so meaningless as to represent only one thing: A violent terrorist backlash against the US for the democratization of Iraq.

Contemporary counter-insurgency requires not just a military plan but a successful political track, of negotiating with guerrilla leaders and bringing them in from the cold. That is what the US has never developed, and there are structural reasons for which it is difficult.

Wrong. There have been negotiations with Sunni tribal leaders and other groups such as in Al-Anbar, that were friendly (and/or intimidated by) the terrorists. What Cole fails to do is distinguish the foreign-based Al Qaeda, and the baaathists, and the native Sunni 'helpers' of these two anti-Iraqi-Government forces.

Juan also wrongly puts the onus on the US Government - and acts as if the Iraqi Government, with over 200,000 security forces, a fulltime parliament and Prime Minister, do not exist! Why is it for the US Government to negotiate? The sovereign Government of Iraq now has the opportunity and the need to secure a stable and peaceful country. They can and will do it with the help of the US and coalition.

A lot of the guerrilla leaders are Baathists or ex-Baathists, and served in the Iraqi military in ways that make them anathema to the Kurds and the Shiites.

Yet he fails to mention that many former Army officers under Saddam are now serving in the new Iraqi Army. He fails to mention that, indeed, the Defense Minister in Iraq is now a Sunni.

So it is very difficult for the US to buck its main allies and try to make up with the Baathis. And what could the US offer the Sunni Arab religious revivalists? What an absurd euphemism for the Islamofascist terrorists!! The prospect of living under a government dominated by Shiite fundamentalists and Kurdish warlords, which they see as a puppet government of the United States? How could they live with that? They dont have to. They die and go to H*LL.

So, Mr. Bremer, the problem is not a military one. The US already has overwhelming fire power. The problem is a political one.

This is a false dichotomy. Bremer correctly pointed out that the terrorist networks could be defeated. He is right. Bremer correctly pointed out that

And it is not a political problem even the best and brightest will easily resolve.

Cole ought not presume that just because he can't or won't figure it out, others can't.

The Sunni Arabs of Iraq are op posed to the US presence almost to a person. They are 5 or 6 million strong, and probably have 60,000 or so fighters if we count weekend warriors (I know this is higher than US military estimates, but if US military estimates were correct there would not still be an insurgency.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. More Sunni Arabs support the Iraqi Government than support the insurgency. They voted, by the millions, for elected officials. Those elected officials command a non inconsiderable bloc of votes under the parties such as the Iraqi Accordance Front. It's not their polling views on the US presense, it is their allegiance to the Iraqi Government and whehter they support violence against it that is the key question and point.

The Sunnis have the best educated managers in their ranks, the best trained strategicians and tacticians, and they probably know where tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions are still hidden.

This completely distorts the

Only a small fraction of Sunnis are interested and supportive of violence. They make enormous sums of money through petroleum and other smuggling, and can easily get big money from hard line Sunni Gulf millionaires. Moreover, the US cannot militarily concentrate all its forces on the Sunni Arab areas, since there is a (Shiite) Mahdi Army low-intensity guerrilla effort in Maysan Province in the South, and Sadr City can't be all that stable either.

More nonsense. The US doesnt have to be everywhere at this time. Several provinces have now been turned over completely to the Iraqi forces; in every province, Iraqi forces are taking a bigger role and sharing a larger part of the load of security. For example (from Strategy Page): "So far, the June 7th strike has led to over 500 more raids. There have been so many raids, that there are not enough U.S. troops to handle it, and over 30 percent of the raids have been carried by Iraqi troops or police, with no U.S. involvement."

The US simply does not and never will have enough fighting troops in Iraq to impose a purely military solution on the guerrilla movements.

This was known from day one and is why we are standing up the Iraqi Army, Police and other security forces. But just because US forces alone can't do it, that doesn't mean a military victory is impossible.

While it is correct to say that a military solution is not sufficient, it is a wrong logical next step to say that military operations and military victories are meaningless. Far from it. The terrorists in Iraq will be defeated by a combination of military and political means.

The military side is this: Operations to kill and capture terrorists; security operations to make Baghdad as a whole a 'green zone' and to widen areas of better security; operations to cut off supply routes of money, arms, and foreign fighters vias Syria; operations to eliminate safe houses weapons caches, etc. Building up the Iraqi armed forces and police to be able to professionally wage this fight and establish the authority of the Iraqi Government.

Then there is the political solution. What Cole misses is that to a large extent the political solution has been worked on via the last 2 years of Iraqi political development: First, a Constitutional democracy, where 10 million voters instead of 1 dictator determines who runs Iraq; second, ensure the rights of Iraqis and a share of power for different sects, via Federalism; third, A system where the Iraqis can have a share of Iraq's oil wealth. The Sunnis need to participate in this, and have, in the December elections.

the kind of willingness to compromise and approach national reconciliation coolly that the Shiites and the Kurds have so far vehemently rejected.

Thisis quite simply false. Has he forgotten former PM Jafaari? The Shia-selected PM was not enough of a 'unity' candidate, and was thrown overboard because he wasnt enough of a consensus candidate for the Kurds and Sunnis. So he was removed and replaced. The new Iraqi Government was painstakingly made in 6 months of negotiations as a result of attempts to build a national unity Government.

To say that Shiites and Kurds are unwilling to brook compromise is an insult to them. Some are hardliners in any camp, but for Juan Cole to suggest that the victims of terrorism owe the terrorists some political settlement is a slap-in-the-face.

As is this: "The US is as hobbled by its allies as by its foes, in making a settlement." Juan Cole has set up multiple strawmen. First the strawman that the US is the one to make the settlment; Wrong, it's a purely Iraqi affair to arrange their politics. Second, the strawman that our allies are all the Shia. hardly, al-Sadr is the most troublesome and most theocratic of the Shia leaders, and he is the second biggest enemy we face in Iraq besides the terrorists and insurgents.

Cole seems to be locked in a time warp and fails to acknowlede any of the major political developments since Bremer was running the CPA. Small matters like the development of a Constitution, the election of a parliament and the forming of a national unity Government. In the end, THESE are the critical political developments that will win a victory for stability in Iraq.

Re: A lot of my leftist friends--and in my business that is about all I see

I have a line for you, something to try with your liberal friends. It's the best kept secret in the world.

"I wonder how many Americans the Iraq Army killed today?"

Once you say this, the liberal will give you a "whatever" comeback and a blank-deer-in-the-headlights stare.

If you feel that this is a teachable moment, pass along the total number of deaths at the hands of the Iraq Army (2004, 2005, 2006 total = 0).

That last statistic is great. I would never even have asked that question.

Thanks!

I appreciate your answer and would like to post it on HNN. I am not certain, though, what the rules are for FR.

I think I might have to edit it a small amount due to its length.

Thank you,

McVey

This was also posted on my blog here:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/

I suggest you make you own response and just link to mine response here,
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/

My final paragraph summarizes:

Bremer's plea is to use the means at our disposal to win the needed victory against the terrorists. Juan Cole's response is to pretend those means don't exist and to deny the reality of current Iraqi politics. Cole seems to be locked in a time warp and fails to acknowlede any of the major political developments since 2004, when Bremer was running the CPA. Small matters like the development of an Iraqi Constitution, the election of a parliament and the forming of a national unity Government have completely changed the political environment. He also neglects the most important security development in this fight against the terrorists: the development of over a 200,000 trained members in the Iraqi army. In the end, THESE are the critical political developments that will win a victory for stability in Iraq.