Interesting book, interesting perspective

[jjzelinski]

Just finished reading the book America?s Secret War by George Friedman (the guy runs the corporate intelligence outfit Stratfor) and I have to say that it has altered the way I see the war in Iraq somewhat, but not necessarily for the better.

His general point is that we invaded Iraq not for the incredibly hollow and fictitious reasons we were fed but because we were losing the support of Saudi Arabia. He states that the Saudi citizenry was/is a huge supporter of Al Qaeda. Personnel and resources come out of Saudi more than any other country and we required Saudi Intelligence to aid us in our hunt for Al Qaeda. This was due to their (the House of Saud) internal struggle to maintain their rule over a population that is widely supportive of Al Qaeda?s endeavors.

His main point is that we invaded Iraq to pressure Saudi Arabia into supporting our efforts to eradicate Al Qaeda as they had the best intelligence in the region, something we lacked almost entirely. One of the reasons for this is because the Saudi population was in effect propping up Al Qaeda with resources of all varieties, including people, money, and weapons. Fearing a national coup the Saudi government, genuinely allied with us due a symbiotic relationship we share, they withheld critical intelligence from us to assuage their citizenry. Not having any of that business, we decide the best way to strong arm the Saudi's into fearing us more than Al Qaeda and thereby supporting us with their superior intelligence capabilities was to invade the "most strategic country in the region"; Iraq.

This also served as a method by which we could convince those in the region that we weren't as militarily weak as Iran, Syria, Saudi, etc. perceived us to be (primarily because they think we always do things half assed and are paralyzed by our fear of military casualties).

Friedman doesn't appear to be under illusions as to the success (or almost total lack thereof) in Iraq, but does suggest that our invasion was supported by our (limited) "coalition of the willing" under no misconception as to the true nature of the operation (i.e. everyone knew Iraq was feeble and generally posed no threat to anybody *but* Iran of all places ). The reason France and Germany resisted was not because they objected to any kind human-rights issue but because they were concerned about the U.S. rendering them and the EU obsolete in terms of geo-politics.

I could go on, but I'll wrap up my post with my take on his view of the administrations strategy; they were playing a *way* more sophisticated game then I gave them credit for but pretty much failed to see the "trees for the forest." They were playing so many moves ahead that the Iraq move wasn't given near the scrutiny such a reckless plan deserved.

If anyone else has read it (been out since late'04) I'd love to hear your take on it, otherwise if you haven't I highly recommend you do *regardless of your political affiliation*. (For instance he's a conservative, I'm not.)

 

[Craig234]

I could go on, but I'll wrap up my post with my take on his view of the administrations strategy; they were playing a *way* more sophisticated game then I gave them credit for but pretty much failed to see the "trees for the forest." They were playing so many moves ahead that the Iraq move wasn't given near the scrutiny such a reckless plan deserved.

This sounds reasonable; the people involved aren't generally idiots, but they're following a different, selfish agenda where it's hard for them to be bothered with the troublesome American people needing a 'cover story'. That's why one of them described WMD as a 'convenient bureacratic device' for using to tell the American people why they were invading, while it was irrelevant, hence the prevention of Hans Blix's inspections (sorry, Bush fanboys).

The sad thing is how far any principles were from the policy setting - it was just a ruthless pursuit of geopolitical power, who cares about the cost to anyone. The morality, the issue of empire and such, didn't really even touch the policy.

 

[jjzelinski]

It's sort of ironic that we invaded Iraq with sh!t for intel in order to *gain* intel we desperately needed

 

[Lemon law]

Sorry, I can't buy the George Friedman contention. But I will concede that it might have been a small side consideration. Look at the negatives. (a) There was no Al-Quida in Iraq before invasion--a police State dictator like Saddam would not allow any independent power bases that could ever be a competitor to him. (b) Iraq with a predominately Shia population was still under the firm control of Saddam and Sunni Moslems. Any attempt at regime change had to acknowledge and shift control to the Shia---which has to isolate Saudi Arabia and place great stresses on the Saudi monarchy which was our most friendly remaining oil rich power in the region. If the Saudi monarchy supported the US Iraqi invasion initially, they have to be having second thoughts now. But Saudi Arabia does have one carrot--taking Iraqi oil off the world markets has allowed the price of oil to rise. (c) The world opposition to a US led occupation of Iraq in the UN was led by France and Germany. The very two nations that had all the Saddam Hussein oil contracts all locked up.---and poof---no more Saddam and the old oil contracts are null and void. And Presto chango--the new oil contracts go to the US and England.

I think there is no doubt that Iraq was a naked grab for Iraqi oil---and anyone who does not realize that not only can't see the forest for the trees---but mistakes Bush's for trees.

 

[conehead433]

OK so I'm not buying any part of this bridge either. If we wanted intelligence about Al Qaeda we would have never let all of the Bin Laden family board a plane for Saudi Arabia immediately after 9-11. They should have been kept here, their personal assests in this country frozen, and also interrogated.

 

[jjzelinski]

Most of your points are addressed quite well in the book. I'll try to explain his take on your points:

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sorry, I can't buy the George Friedman contention. But I will concede that it might have been a small side consideration. Look at the negatives. (a) There was no Al-Quida in Iraq before invasion--a police State dictator like Saddam would not allow any independent power bases that could ever be a competitor to him.

Friedman doesn't suggest that we actually went into Iraq looking for Al Qaeda, he very bluntly says the reason we went there was to pressure Saudi Arabi rather than aide them. Getting rid of the Suni buffer (which the Saudi's enjoyed) was intentional, however we falsey expected the Shia majoirty to fall ine line with our governance. Unfortunately, that's where our single largest miscalculation lies; the Shia had already been organized by Grand Ayatohla Al Sistani from Iran throught the last decade. So when the Baath party fell out of rule, Iraq never deteriorated into a state of rebellion and unrest like we expected or even hoped for; they were already in lock-stop with Iran and that caught us totally off guard.

Going into Iraq with such a small force (which was almost 80k more troops than Rumsfeld wanted btw) was designed to demonstrate our military significance in the region in order to compel the major nations of the area to play by our rules rather than the rule of Al Qaeda.

(b) Iraq with a predominately Shia population was still under the firm control of Saddam and Sunni Moslems. Any attempt at regime change had to acknowledge and shift control to the Shia---which has to isolate Saudi Arabia and place great stresses on the Saudi monarchy which was our most friendly remaining oil rich power in the region. If the Saudi monarchy supported the US Iraqi invasion initially, they have to be having second thoughts now. But Saudi Arabia does have one carrot--taking Iraqi oil off the world markets has allowed the price of oil to rise.



(c) The world opposition to a US led occupation of Iraq in the UN was led by France and Germany. The very two nations that had all the Saddam Hussein oil contracts all locked up.---and poof---no more Saddam and the old oil contracts are null and void. And Presto chango--the new oil contracts go to the US and England.

Actually this is where outside players like Russia come into play; they desparately wanted to keep Iraqi oil off th market as much of their GDP is from oil revenue. Saudi cares too along these lines, but they're not alone. This also explains why the French were not on board since they had prior arrangemtns made with both the Iraqi's and the Russian's so braodly introducing Iraqi oil would undermine their advantage

I think there is no doubt that Iraq was a naked grab for Iraqi oil---and anyone who does not realize that not only can't see the forest for the trees---but mistakes Bush's for trees.

I think oil is one of two reasons (Israel) we have anything at all to do with the entire region, so as far as oil being our main reason for invading Iraq I would agree but only on a much broader (strategic) scale .

 

[Moonbeam]

I thought we invaded Iraq because we are stupid warmongering knee-jerk bully-coward imbeciles who shat our undies in reaction to 911. You go kill them George, they've ruined my pants.

 

[jjzelinski]

Well that, moonie, and the fact that we pretty had no idea how to address terrorism much less stop it altogether. One thing became painfully clear; we really don't know a thing about the middle east. I think for anyone the next logical conclusion to address a clear lack of intel about a region is to invade it with an ill equipped and unprepared occupational force (a fraction of the size it needs to be) and *take* the intel by force!

 

[Lemon law]

Why did we need intel when we could get it from Chalibi, screwball, and curveball. Our neocons were prepared to believe any favorable fantasy and willing to pay the big taxpayer bucks to get it from any dubious source. No questions asked.

The correct question is did the neocons have any brains to begin with? And if you are standing behind the door when brains are handed out---its too late later---but you can find any number of vendors who are willing to claim the ability to sell you brains---see P.T Barnum and the Emperor wears no clothes for the conventional wisdoms on those salient points.

I still have a hard time buying the Friedman contention, but how can any know what was going on in the brains of the brainless? In terms of a visionary plan pre-thought many moves ahead, thats a in their dreams because the plan flopped and is still flopped at step one. But I have almost no doubt that Iran was going to be one of the next steps. The neocons had a certain distaste for subvert an existing country and use its rulers for our ends after their experiences with the Shah and Saddam.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
-snip-

the Shia had already been organized by Grand Ayatohla Al Sistani from Iran throught the last decade.

Al Sistani is an Iraqi, he's a "good Shia" unlike the Shia clergy in Iran. I think the head Shia in Iran is something along the lines of Khomeini (sp?).

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

TO Fern,

I am pretty sure that jjzelinski has it right and Al Sistani is Iranian. But he was a highly respected Islamic scholar and was highly regarded by the Iraqi shia as the most respected
Shia cleric in the region. Especially after AL-Sadr's daddy was assassinated in 1999 by Saddam. But with all the Saddam assassinations of Shia clerics, its sometimes hard to tell all the ancestries and residencies. But why debate a matter of fact? But AL-Sistani was almost the only Islamic cleric to embrace the concept of democracy in Iraq---and hence may meet your definition of a good Shia---but for the past few years Sistani has lapsed into a brooding silence of disgust. If he opens his mouth again on political matters, its possible you may swiftly revise your estimate regarding a good Shia. Al Sistani has serious Shia clout in Iraq and thats what counts.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TO Fern,

I am pretty sure that jjzelinski has it right and Al Sistani is Iranian. But he was a highly respected Islamic scholar and was highly regarded by the Iraqi shia as the most respected
Shia cleric in the region. Especially after AL-Sadr's daddy was assassinated in 1999 by Saddam. But with all the Saddam assassinations of Shia clerics, its sometimes hard to tell all the ancestries and residencies. But why debate a matter of fact? But AL-Sistani was almost the only Islamic cleric to embrace the concept of democracy in Iraq---and hence may meet your definition of a good Shia---but for the past few years Sistani has lapsed into a brooding silence of disgust. If he opens his mouth again on political matters, its possible you may swiftly revise your estimate regarding a good Shia. Al Sistani has serious Shia clout in Iraq and thats what counts.

You ask "But why debate a matter of fact"

Fair question. Look at the qouted portion of his paragraph below. Note that it states Al Sistani is Iranian, and that he has organized the Iraqi Shia to be in lock step with Iran.

I contend that is a huge and fundamentally erroneous understanding of the situation and Iraq v. Iran Shi'ism.

The Iranian version of Shi'ism is radicaly different from Iraqi Shi'ism in very important ways.

Iranian Shi'ism - Clergy should control government. Man is inherently bad, must be disciplined by clergy.

Iraqi Shi'ism - Clergy should NOT participate in government (seperation of church & state), man is inherently good, clergy should help people.

Al Sistani is the head Clergy in Iraq, unlike Al Sadr (not formally trained, a "lay preacher" of Iranian style Shi'ism) he believes in the traditional tenets of Iraqi style Shi'ism. I find this a good thing, less likely to see a radical Islamic government under Al Sistani's influence (This would not be the case were he an Iranian style clergy/Shia). (I should note that Al Sistani is the "head" cleric for all Shia, except the Iranians, thus his apparently benevolent influence is widespread far outside of Iraq.)

What I do NOT believe a good thing is any spread of Iranian influence vis-a-vis their brand of Shi'ism.

I hope that explains why I continually harp on these Shia differences that most Americans completely ignore (gawd knows most have trouble differentiating Shia v. Sunni)

Fern

the Shia had already been organized by Grand Ayatohla Al Sistani from Iran throught the last decade. So when the Baath party fell out of rule, Iraq never deteriorated into a state of rebellion and unrest like we expected or even hoped for; they were already in lock-stop with Iran and that caught us totally off guard.

EDIT: There is also a conflict between the Iranian Shia clergy and the Iraqi. The Iranians would like to displace (or replace) the Iraq clergy, and claim themselves as "head" Shia clergy for the entire Shia world. AFAIK, all the Shia Clergy have been trained in Iraq (Quom) under the Iraq version of Shia. This includes Khomeni (who founded the Iranian revolution and created the Iranian style Shi'ism). I do not know where the Iranian clergy are trained, or if they still study in Quom (Iraq).

Sunni Islam HQ is in Bahgdad IIRC.

EDIT #2: Head Iranaian Shia clergy is Khamenei

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Why did we need intel when we could get it from Chalibi, screwball, and curveball. Our neocons were prepared to believe any favorable fantasy and willing to pay the big taxpayer bucks to get it from any dubious source. No questions asked.

The correct question is did the neocons have any brains to begin with? And if you are standing behind the door when brains are handed out---its too late later---but you can find any number of vendors who are willing to claim the ability to sell you brains---see P.T Barnum and the Emperor wears no clothes for the conventional wisdoms on those salient points.

I still have a hard time buying the Friedman contention, but how can any know what was going on in the brains of the brainless? In terms of a visionary plan pre-thought many moves ahead, thats a in their dreams because the plan flopped and is still flopped at step one. But I have almost no doubt that Iran was going to be one of the next steps. The neocons had a certain distaste for subvert an existing country and use its rulers for our ends after their experiences with the Shah and Saddam.

Well I have to admit I'm deliberately phrasing the sentiments I'm expounding as "according to Friedman" in order to distance myself from some of the claims, but I still find his arguments to be (by far) the most well thought out and convincing I've yet run across.

First off, Challibi was an Iranian agent; he's been exposed as such for almost 3 years. One of the reasons he's fallen out of favor with Bush Inc. is because he's the one who fed them all the BS that the Shia majority would embrace the American forces as liberators, knowing full well that they were very much under the thumb of Iran through Iraqi Grand Ayatollah (sp?) Ali Al Sistani (who *was* born in Iran).

The hope of Iran was that we'd facilitate at best a puppet Shia dominated government occupying a territory that was once home to their most bitter enemy (read up on the horrors of the Iran-Iraq war sometime, good god...) or at at least a neutral buffer government still composed predominately of Shia but under the influence of the U.S. Friedman says that we made a deal with Iran (after we'd gone in and found the Shia unsupportive) that would cause Iran to quell the brewing unrest among the Shia in exchange for unmitigated Shia dominance in the new Iraqi government.

Long story short, once we finally began to gain ground on the Baathist guerrilla's who were also harrasing us we felt we could begin to contend with the Shia issue without the aid of Iran so we backed out of the deal. Now Iran is taking its revenge and is deliberately destabilizing Iraq. This is why all of the sudden our focus has shifted that direction.

So if Friedman is right, we were once begrudging allies with Iran prior to, during, and shortly after the invasion of Iraq. So in essence we WANTED to believe Chalabi because it wa considered at the time to be good for both nations (U.S. and Iran.)

Now, to address your question as to whether the neocons had any brains amongst them the answer is a resounding "sort of." What they lacked more than anything were eyes, ears, mouth, and nose. And what does that leave a bunch of anxious interventionists with? Hands. And of course they used these hands of theirs very bluntly in hopes of feeling their way through a situation they were pretty much completely blind too and that's why tried so hard to coerce Saud into helping us with their intel.

Two main points I've not mentioned are:

A.) I'm just a schmuck on a forum so before you dismiss Friedman due to the inept manner I'm trying to explain his book I again emphasize that you read the book. It probably won't take you more than a few days, and it's page turner to boot so you shouldn't mind too much.

B.) Friedman points out the toal failure of AL Qaeda to meet its objective of uniting the Islamic world under its banner. So far, not a single Islamic government has openly adopted the will of Al Qaeda or even indicated their remotest support of it. I have to admit I hadn't considered the battle we're engaged in to be 2 sided, I always figured Al Qaeda was winning by default due to it's simplistic goal of jihad. Now this might be true for the radical Islamic man, but not for the radical Islamic organization who has a more lasting goal than "die in the service of allah." It stands to reason that Al Qaeda as a true organization WOULD have a goal beyond martyrdom, and it stands to reason that the goal would be to unite the Islamic would, and it stands to reason that they have yet to do this. So... at least we're both having a hard time with this clash of civilizations

EDIT: I suck at teh italics