« Zombies in Africa | Main | Ad Newseum »
July 28, 2007
Ask the ghost of Gen. Stilwell
(Posted by John.)
We don't need to be psychics to figure where this leads: faced with the choice of backing Petraeus, or backing the nominal Iraqi PM, the US Govt. will find some cushy job for Petraeus to retire to.
The number of times the US government has found itself committed to defending a client regime with only a feudal sense of governance, unable to make broad national compromises necessary for it's own survival, really defies comprehension. Similarly, the number of times intelligent, well-meaning American officers have gone up against intransigent puppet regimes and lost is beyond counting.
July 28, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Bush to Iraqi PM: Calm down! Ride your bike. Find a military audience to talk about how good things are. Don't read the reports. Eat some cheeseburger pizza. Take a vacation and cut some brush down.
All sides spoke with the critical September reports by Crocker and Petraeus to Congress clearly at the front of their minds — the need to make it clear to an increasingly hostile U.S. legislative branch that progress is being made and it would be wrong to start pulling out troops and cutting support now.
I was really guilty of misunderstanding. I thought previously the Sept. reports were to be an honest recounting of how things were going. I didn't realize that Crocker and Petreus were charged with producing a marketing and sales document to persuade Congress how good things are and how much progress is being made.
And how well (not) the US commander and ambassador were working with the PM of Iraq.
The US made a tactical error that has spread into a strategic failure. Iraq needs a strong man and its time to put things right. We should dig up Saddam Hussein and his boys and put them back in charge of maintaining order and sectarian peace. SH will clear Iraq of al Queda in Iraq so we don't have to fight them there and they'll be dead so we won't have to fight them over here. And most importantly, Saddam will gladly sign over Iraqi oil to the Oil Majors in the US/UK as the price of being returned to power.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 28, 2007 11:57:39 AM
Similarly, the number of times intelligent, well-meaning American officers have gone up against intransigent puppet regimes and lost is beyond counting.
Petraeus is not an "intelligent, well-meaning American officer." He's a hired stooge who's been promoted to advance a specific set of failed policies, and if necessary, he'll serve as a fall guy when those policies fail once again. Maliki, on the other hand, is being "difficult" because he represents the interests of various constituencies in Iraq which happen to conflict with the Bold New Plan du jour.
This is the difference between being an elected official of a proto-democracy and being an appointed military viceroy from a colonizing foreign power. Petraeus's authority derives entirely from the support of George W. Bush; Maliki, on the other hand, has to maintain the confidence of a disparate and increasingly disgruntled coalition of Iraqi political actors to keep his job. Your post, with its bizarre implication that the Bush administration should just "pick" Petraeus over Maliki, which presumes that leadership decisions in Iraq should devolve entirely to the whims of Washington. Iraq is, nominally at least, a sovereign country, and I'd like for America - and America's liberals - to treat it as such.
Posted by: Christmas | Jul 28, 2007 12:36:16 PM
the money quote in the report is undoubtedly:
"But the reality of how the three men get along likely lies somewhere between the worst and best reports about their relationship — perhaps one of the most important in the world and unquestionably central to the future of Iraq, the larger Middle East and scores, if not hundreds, of political, diplomatic and military careers in the United States."
Heroic fascism comes to journamalism.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Jul 28, 2007 1:00:34 PM
hattip for seydlitz89 for above
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Jul 28, 2007 2:33:28 PM
I didn't realize that Crocker and Petreus were charged with producing a marketing and sales document to persuade Congress how good things are and how much progress is being made.
The quote doesn't actually say that, and, in any case, what you quoted is something the authors of the article added, not something any of the principals said.
Petraeus is not an "intelligent, well-meaning American officer."
Any evidence for that?
This is the difference between being an elected official of a proto-democracy and being an appointed military viceroy from a colonizing foreign power. Petraeus's authority derives entirely from the support of George W. Bush; Maliki, on the other hand, has to maintain the confidence of a disparate and increasingly disgruntled coalition of Iraqi political actors to keep his job.
The need to answer to others belies the idea that Maliki's authority derives entirely from Bush. In fact, his authority also derives from a political process. It isn't one or the other; it's both.
its bizarre implication that the Bush administration should just "pick" Petraeus over Maliki
John doesn't imply that, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe it.
Heroic fascism comes to journamalism.
Possibly the quote exaggerates about the importance to the world, but it isn't particularly heroic or fascistic.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 28, 2007 9:33:52 PM
"The number of times the US government has found itself committed to defending a client regime with only a feudal sense of governance, unable to make broad national compromises necessary for it's own survival, really defies comprehension. "
Maybe that is because the vast majority of the rest of the world, 'client state' to the US or not, is mostly quasi-feudal if not almost tribal. From Hungary to Guatemala old patterns die hard.
Posted by: Deep Thought | Jul 30, 2007 9:50:47 AM
Perhaps a government can be a 'client regime', or it can be 'able to make broad national compromises', but not both.
Put another way, I think that a government can be a 'client regime', or it can have legitimacy; but not both. That is, it can pursue the interests of its foreign sponsor, or it can pursue the interests of the local population, but not both, hence the permanent need to maintain the client regime in power by force of arms.
The intelligent, well-meaning imperial officer who comes to realize this, and despairs of the endless violence required to 'solve' this political contradiction, has exhausted his utility to the imperial state, and will be replaced.
Posted by: rlaing | Jul 30, 2007 6:24:47 PM
ARE U A REAL GHOST ?
Posted by: KAT | Oct 12, 2007 4:03:26 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
