Replies

Based on what I just read, Baer is the perfect example of why we have such a big problem with the CIA. He consistently positions himself outside the current conventional wisdom on the Middle East, tells us just enough about how serious this matter is because we're dealing with capable people of dangerous intent -- that's CIA speak for "my problem is bigger than yours so give me the resources" which we now convert into ". . . give me the attention" -- but at the same time he suggests absolutely nothing in the way of policies that will lead to solutions. He leaves us hopelessly adrift in the "nuances" of the many-tiered and complex layers of a culture whose historical traditions reach back for thousands of years and . . . .

This is the guy you always run into at those downtown parties who is over in the corner holding but never smoking his Moroccan briar pipe -- because Algerian briar is so passée -- thrilling the poor housewives who've never been farther than fifty miles from their hometowns with strange and fascinating tales of his time in exotic lands and who, after you wake up the next morning and think about it, never said a damn thing.

I'm not trying to suggest to anyone that there is such a thing as simple solutions or that we haven't made mistakes in intelligence. But sooner or later in a worldwide confrontation with terror that has all the aspects of a true war one must make choices about where the fight will be made. Baer is one of those who is going to stand around and throw cold water on every possible option.

Excellent analysis.

For me he exposed himself way back when he lectured us on our "war for oil". This would be when he first came on the public scene. He somehow failed to notice that we drew our "no fly zone" boundaries to leave the oil in Saddam's hands all those years, even though we could easily have justified occupying the south, and the north too, which would have put all of Saddam's oil in our hands.

If we were all about warring for oil, how is it that at the end of our 100 hour war, in which we smashed Saddam's military, we failed to actually get our hands on any of it?

And even now, we take criticism from Dems for not using Iraq's oil to pay for the war. Again, we managed to fight a war for oil without getting any of it.

Baer is smart enough to notice that Al Qaeda has taken refuge in Iran, at least some of Bin Ladin's inner circle have, and they (with Syria) are the powers behind the insurgency in Iraq. He didn't notice the continuous contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda, or fails to mention them because it doesn't serve his case. Yes, with the fall of Saddam, Iran becomes Al Qaeda's new sugar daddy. Good job you noticed that, Robert. Too bad he didn't notice anything prior, like Ramsi "the iraqi" or Yasin the "other" iraqi.

But we also find ourselves with a ring of airbases all around Iran, should we decide to get jiggy with them. A policy he does not endorse. He wants us to set "serious" with Iran, but not "serious-serious".

I very much liked your comments, and especially your devastating description of the fool in the corner of the room at the party. And I quite agree with the thrust of your remarks.

However, it seems to me that there is something very much wrong with our position today in Iraq which should be fixed but cannot be fixed so long as we dismiss all criticisms out of hand. I am not suggesting you do that, quite the contrary, your point is well taken. My concern arises out of criticisms which come from a more respectable source, Pulitzer prize-winning author Thomas E. Ricks in his new book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.

By all accounts this reporter who spent four tours in Iraq, and did not isolate himself in the Green zone, has made a well-documented and devastating criticism of the conduct of the war, all toward reinforcing this point: Bush's decision to invade Iraq "may come to be seen as one of the most profligate actions in the history of American foreign policy." Yet he is quick to add this point, in an explicit warning directly aimed at Democrats which I just heard him make on C-SPAN to the effect that we cannot withdraw and we must not lose. In the event of an American bug out he sees a disaster in the making in the region with Saudi oil and its money going to Al Qaeda as that regime inevitably falls, and with Pakistani nukes going to Al Qaeda as that regime inevitably falls as the consequences of an American bug out.

Although I have not read the book, I did read a transcript of his interview with Amazon and watched carefully his interview on C-SPAN and I read all the online reviews available. Ricks does not leave his criticism with Bush and Cheney but includes Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. He cites massive intelligence mistakes. He faults the media, especially Judith Miller of the New York Times. And he blames Congress for failing to conduct oversight. Finally, he blames the military itself for forgetting all the lessons it had learned about counterinsurgency and reverting to self-defeating and counterproductive big army tactics. His criticisms in this regard seem to be in keeping with the insights which appear in the book Imperial Grunts.

He offers concrete ideas which he says the military will never accept: He advocates that top brass be required to stay in Iraq until the war is won while being granted extensive and frequent leave out of the country. He wants to see more officers of the caliber that teach in the war College to be posted to Iraq to operate his advisers. He wants our troops withdrawn leaving a very large cadre of advisers to train up the Iraqi forces while lowering our own profile which only feeds the insurgency. He wants the money currently being wasted on amenities for our troops to be diverted to equipment for the Iraqi forces, presumably because our troops for longer be there.

He sees a 5% chance of success if we continue on our present course. As I noted above, he is very pessimistic about the disaster which will befall us if we fail.

I intend to read this book just as soon as I can get it over here in Germany. I do not believe this author can be dismissed as easily as we can dismiss Baer. It is my hope that people like you on these threads will undertake a serious response to a serious analysis. Otherwise, these threads are doomed to degenerate into one long screed against liberals and forfeit their role as the most important web site on the Internet.

Baer is just "serious" enough to tell us we have a problem, but devoid of any serious solutions (his bashing "neo-cons" for taking down Saddam's regime is a worthless piece of lib-PC groupthink). I agree with you 2000% and I think what you said bears repeating:

"Baer is the perfect example of why we have such a big problem with the CIA. He consistently positions himself outside the current conventional wisdom on the Middle East, tells us just enough about how serious this matter is because we're dealing with capable people of dangerous intent -- that's CIA speak for "my problem is bigger than yours so give me the resources" which we now convert into ". . . give me the attention" -- but at the same time he suggests absolutely nothing in the way of policies that will lead to solutions"