The Real Threat In Iraq
The New York Times (free registration required) is running a piece today that says the greatest threat US forces face in Iraq are the Iraqi citizens themselves. This is in direct contrast to the public messages of Donald Rumsfeld and crew, whose story is that it is only dead-enders and insurgents who are fighting us now, and their time is near a close.
Rather, based on intelligence estimates and polls by the State Department's intelligence branch, there is huge resentment among "ordinary Iraqis" regarding the U.S. occupation, and since the U.S. is the primary force in occupation, that animosity is directed almost entirely at the U.S.
Of course, if you read the story, there are dissenting views about how serious that threat is going to be. Condoleeza Rice thinks the Iraqis are getting less hostile toward us, as do a few other unnamed sources. But by and large, the intelligence indicates that our presence there is causing great resentment, and that the fatal attacks that have been experienced over the summer may not abate anytime soon.
But here's the part of this story that I find interesting. Here's an excerpt of the three lead paragraphs:
New intelligence assessments are warning that the United States' most formidable foe in Iraq in the months ahead may be the resentment of ordinary Iraqis increasingly hostile to the American military occupation, Defense Department officials said today.
That picture, shared with American military commanders in Iraq, is very different from the public view currently being presented by senior Bush administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who once again today listed only "dead-enders, foreign terrorists and criminal gangs" as opponents of the American occupation.
The defense officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were concerned about retribution for straying from the official line.
Look, I'm not naive. I know that any Administration is going to look poorly on people who stray from the party line, Democratic or GOP. And I know that people in all Administrations speak on condition of anonymity, for fear of reprisal.
But I have to say, I see that little asterisk next to virtually anything that gets said by a GOP member or unnamed Administration official these days. You know, that little asterisk that says "I will get in trouble for not complying with the lie."
Did it take a genius to see that we would be resented as an occupying force? No, of course not. As Eric Alterman wrote yesterday, even Bush I and Cheney circa 1990 knew this was the likely outcome of an occupation. And yet, here we are.
The Alterman stuff is especially disturbing to me. Cheney and Bush I aren't dumb guys now, and they weren't dumb guys then, either. Rather, they are smart guys, guys who know a thing or two about how the world works. They were spot-on in the first go-round about why an occupation was bunk, why it wouldn't work, and why to pursue that path would put us in a terrible position. And now, the scenarios they prophecized relative to occupation are coming true, thus far.
In light of the fact that no exit strategy has yet been articulated, is the ruin of our policy both of these men saw in the past still in our future?
And what changed for Dick Cheney? Did he decide he was previously wrong about the folly of occupying Baghdad? Or did that cost not outweigh other benefits that became important?
And knowing what we know about Iraq's WMD capabilities today, what exactly were the benefits of the invasion, other than the disposal of Saddam? Given that a growing number of ordinary Iraqis seem to want to kill the U.S. soldiers there that liberated them from Saddam, even that benefit seems murkier now than it was on May 1, 2003, the end of "combat".
1:23:21 PM 
|
