Ever have a goal in mind that requires two steps, where the success of step two relies on the solid execution of step one? Say, like painting the porch. There’s a real satisfaction in laying down that shiny new coat of paint on the planks, stepping back and seeing it sparkle, knowing how great it’s gonna look when it dries…you don’t really mind all the bending over, the fumes, the mess, the careful attention to the edges, all the details.
But that’s step two. Step one in the process is stripping or sanding down the old coat of paint. Now, step one requires equally careful execution if the final goal is to be successful, but knowing that it is simply a means to an end, there’s not as much personal satisfaction in the task. Really, for most people, despite how important it is, step one seems a horrific drag, and it’s hard to get as excited about the details. Still the details are incredibly important…a poorly sanded porch will not result in a beautiful new painted porch. There’ll be uneven patches, build-up, those awful tell-tale relief lines…in short, a mess that will likely embarass you for years to come.
I suspect to a large degree this explains the FUBAR situation in Iraq, the seeming incompetence, the lack of attention to detail. And I suspect it’s because Iraq was always just step one. Iran is step two, and always has been.
This is hardly a newsflash. Folks across the blogosphere are already beating the drums of war, ramping up their rhetorical rockets, ready to take on the "mullahs," and others have suggested that the real purpose of the Iraq invasion was the desire to build US bases there. All else was marketing. (Ken White, over at our Blogfather, Tacitus, is a good source for some of these musings.)
And like the porch painter, in the sanding stage, who hears on the weather report that a thunderstorm is likely tomorrow, it’s so tempting to rationalize that there’s not enough time to worry about how well step one is completed. To focus on the middle section that folks are most likely to see first, and merely give a lick and a promise to the corners, where, if you’re creative enough, later you can stragetically place your furniture.
Thunderstorms building in Iran may explain the rush to war and odd choice of priorities the Administration seems to have in Iraq (including the decision not to ask Rumsfeld to retire…see Dowd’s Sunday column for a humorous round-up of Rummy’s record…when you see it summarized, it really hits you that he’s a total disaster).
Thunderstorms on the horizon, like the rise in power of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. According to Vali Nasr and Ali Gheissari in today’s New York Times:
[T]he Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has been growing in prominence in recent years, and may be poised to gain control of main levers of power. This has broad implications for Iranian politics, and for the future of American policy on Iran.
[…]The full power of Revolutionary Guards was on display last year at the official opening of the Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran. After the ceremonies led by President Khatami, Revolutionary Guard forces stormed the airport and shut it down. While the reason for the show of force was a desire to get the contract for the management of the airport, more than anything it clearly established the extent of the group’s power in Iran.
Now, guard commanders are showing readiness to assume large civilian roles, somewhat as Pakistani generals did before taking power from the country’s civilian leaders in the 1990’s: promising order, stability and prosperity. Some senior commanders are now sporting stylishly trimmed beards, flaunt newly acquired graduate degrees, and prefer to be called "doctor" rather than "general." At least one, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, is being mentioned as a contender for next May’s presidential election.
Most important for America, the guards hold the key to nuclear dispute. They control both the Shahab missile program and vital parts of the nuclear technology effort. The guard corps’ current commanders were greatly affected by Iraq’s use of chemical weapons in the 1980’s and Scud missile attacks against Iranian civilians. This experience drives their insistence that Iran needs a deterrent that will prevent any future attack on its soil. The greater presence of American troops in the Persian Gulf area only intensifies their concerns.
Nasr and Gheissari give a good history on the Guard and then go on to argue that our best approach is, not surprisingly, "a more nuanced policy," which boils down to 1) slowing down the Guard’s growing power, and 2) driving a wedge between the Guard and Iran’s religious leadership. And, again not suprisingly, they argue that our friends in Europe are key to doing this. Nuance and better relationships with our European allies, these are things we need in dealing with Iran, arguably the real goal all along here…(must. not. reopen. that. can. of. worms….).
Election results aside, if the current task is reaching step two (i.e., to set ourselves up with bases in order to better clamp down on Iran), then we’ve done a piss-poor job of sanding the porch. Not only is nuance not our current strength (and Rice seems even less skillful at this than Powell, so…); not only are our relationships with key European allies "strained"; we’re simply leaving far too many patches "done" with just a lick and a promise in Iraq, and relying too much on our hope that someone will be able to strategically cover those patches with something down the road. Our embassy and bases there are likely to be continual targets because we’ve failed to stop the insurgency and stand little chance of stopping either a civil war or the rise of another brutal dictator, all of which happened, I suspect, because we weren’t all that focussed on doing Iraq right in the first place. Unquestionably, all of this will affect our ability to pose a more serious threat to Iran from there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The overarching shortcoming of my metaphor here, however, is that there are not just two steps, and a clamp down on Iran is not the ultimate goal. A clamp down on worldwide terrorism is the goal, and there were steps before Iraq (Afghanistan, bin Laden) that we arguably rushed, and steps after (N. Korea, Pakistan, etc.) that require an equally careful execution. In short, we’re gonna need a whole lot of furniture to cover up those rough patches on the porch if we don’t start focussing more carefully on the tasks at hand, strengthen our alliances, employ a bit of nuance, and get each step right before we rush on to the next.
Edward: The overarching shortcoming of my metaphor here, however, is that there are not just two steps, and a clamp down on Iran is not the ultimate goal. A clamp down on worldwide terrorism is the goal
That was what Bush claimed shortly after 9/11. It was unconvincing then, given how many of his senior administration were keen supporters of terrorism in the 1980s (and many of his supporters, notably Sebastian Holsclaw, are still vocal and passionate defenders of terrorism) and it’s unconvincing now. To clamp down on worldwide terrorism, one must – at least – renounce it as a national policy.
However, following on from this, I wonder how many Bush supporters will care that Bush lied to them about the invasion of Iraq? I believe your reasoning is correct, and Bush & Co didn’t care that they were breaking Iraq because their intent was to invade Iran: but it gives what Bush supporters may think is a “statesmanlike” reason for all the lies that have been told about why Iraq was invaded.
It is impossible to prevent the Bush administration from deciding to invade Iran: it was impossible to prevent them from deciding to invade Iraq. But I wonder how long the readiness to support anything Bush & Co decide to do, no matter how often they have failed before, no matter how many lies they tell, will last?
Fire the contractor who sanded the porch and then tear the porch down.
Actually, I prefer Sebastian’s metaphor of the glass of milk from his post before this one. Some people thought Iraq was a glass of milk. I say it’s apple juice and to hell with it.
Bush’s plans for Iran?
No!
John Thullen: Bush’s plans for Iran? – No!
How on earth can anyone stop Bush & Co from invading Iran if that’s what they’ve decided to do?
Random thoughts:
1) Bill Kristol talking up Syria. Say what? Kristol is connected but sometimes off the reservation, but it is to wonder.
2) “Invasion” is not in the cards. Bombing and perhaps covert operations and some Kurdish chaos is more likely. Then we see the Iranian response, and escalation if the Iranian response is “disproportionate.”
3) Watched Noah Feldman (who some here may be more familar with than I) talk on CSPAN II last night. Many things were said, among which Kurdish independence is a de facto fait accompli de gras, soon to be de jure in Iraqi law.
On the Iraqi response to an attack on Iran, two things, somewhat vague: Feldman said most important was that certain forces in Iraq would see this as a lack of American committment to supporting the Iraqi government and power structures, and try to take advantage.
Feldman also thought that Sistani and the other Ayatollahs would be much more accepting than might be assumed;Iran has much fewer friends in Iraq than I, for one, had thought.
Combine those two into a speculation: If America attacks Iran, Sadr goes after Sistani, and Dawa goes after SCIRI?
I have no idea, Jes. I am completely disgusted, powerless, helpless, and desperate about this. That and “there will no payroll tax increase to fund Social Security”.
All cases are closed before “negotiation” begins.
We just do what we are told, apparently.
Or do we?
A clamp down on worldwide terrorism is the goal, and there were steps before Iraq (Afghanistan, bin Laden) that we arguably rushed, and steps after (N. Korea, Pakistan, etc.) that require an equally careful execution.
Worldwide terrorism is on the rise, and more and more difficult to track since it is more and more local groups/cells. Iraq inspires more and more moslims to join worldwide, so that is definately not the way to clamp down on it.
Newspapers over here start to wonder about the North Korean threat (some USA ones do too it seems). My non-partisan solide pro-American Christian Dutch newspaper concluded that it might well be that the US “pulled an Iraq” on NK and thus created a real threat out of a non-threatening situation.
This powerlessness and un-restrained bush co glee will be stopped dead in it’s tracks with another massive terrorist attack on u.s. soil. One or more attacks will cause even bush fans to look twice at him and think; ‘did I make a mistake?’
See, bush fans think everything is fine with the current imperialism ’cause we haven’t been hit again.
Judson: This powerlessness and un-restrained bush co glee will be stopped dead in it’s tracks with another massive terrorist attack on u.s. soil.
First, I hope you’re wrong in that I profoundly hope there will never be another massive terrorist attack. Anywhere.
Second, I’m afraid you’re wrong: if there’s another WTC attack, Fox News will find some way to blame it on Iran.
Or possibly on Kerry.
Or even on Clinton.
9/11 was used as a reason to invade Iraq: if another WTC attack happened on US soil, Bush & Co would not hesitate to make similar political capital out of it, and they would succeed, for the same reason. Nothing Bush & Co have done since 9/11 has made another attack on US soil any less likely: but they talk good talk, they have good marketing, and to Bush supporters, that’s all that’s necessary to make them believe that Bush is “serious about terrorism”: he doesn’t have to do anything positive to protect the US.
Actually Jes, I’ve supported the war in Iraq from the start, and I don’t care what the justification de jure is. Iraq is better off with Saddam out of power. Saddam’s regime was just that awful. I’ve always held that Iraq was probably in the top 5 as far as terrorism sponsors around the time of 9-11, though wouldn’t necessarily put it 2nd after Afghanistan. But since it borders on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, it’s strategic value in this conflict is uniquely high, especially as Pakistan and Libya seem to now be towing the line. Whatever tripe Bush puts out there for world consumption is fine by me.
I always felt that WMD issues were raised at the UN to put the UN on the spot – either they approve the invasion, or are revealed as hypocrites opposed to their own resolutions, thereby reducing their future ability to diplomatically impair US objectives. So again, not terribly upset if the White House changes its justification.
So I don’t feel lied to at all. I understand that misdirection is part of strategy, and since I approve of the President’s war aims, I get the sense that he’s deceiving those who oppose those aims, rather than deceiving me.
Actually Jes, I’ve supported the war in Iraq from the start, and I don’t care what the justification de jure is.
You might as well stopped there. Pretty much everything you wrote after this sentence becomes irrelevant for several reasons.
First, absent the immediate threat of WMD and solid links between Iraq and those groups who would utilize those WMDs–there’d have been no war. The American public wouldn’t have gone for it.
Second, commiting US troops to war is probably the most serious step the Executive Branch can take. As such, expending US lives must only be done with crystal clear objectives and rationales, without political gamesmanship.
Third, a companent of US national security is our credibility. Compromising our credibility around the world by having changing justifications for war is damaging our national credibility.
since I approve of the President’s war aims, I get the sense that he’s deceiving those who oppose those aims, rather than deceiving me.
Except that you’ve just implicitly admitted that you have no idea what his aims are. Which makes it rather difficult to claim that you’re the one being undeceived, no?
Mike P: Actually Jes, I’ve supported the war in Iraq from the start, and I don’t care what the justification de jure is. Iraq is better off with Saddam out of power.
Given that more Iraqis have been killed by the US invasion/occupation than were killed by Saddam Hussein over any comparable time period when Iraq was not at war, and those that survive are living under worse conditions, justify this claim.
I won’t bother repeating the substance of Jadegold and Anarch’s comments, but I second their queries.
strategy, and since I approve of the President’s war aims, I get the sense that he’s deceiving those who oppose those aims, rather than deceiving me.
And those aims would be?
Mike p,
You realize the logical conclusion of your stance would be to give the president full power (with no check by Congress) to invade any country he wanted to, right?
“Iraq is better off with Saddam out of power. Saddam’s regime was just that awful.”
I won’t argue with the second statement, but I’m not sure about the first, at least in the short term. The incidence of violent death in Iraq has skyrocketed since the invasion and it doesn’t appear to be falling or even plateauing yet. (See Iraq body count or Roberts et al Lancet 11/20/04, etc.) Improving the lot of people living under dictatorships and helping them get rid of the dictators are laudable goals, if these are indeed the goals of the current US administration, but they need to be pursued in some way that doesn’t cause more suffering than the dictators did in the first place.
mikep said since [Iraq] borders on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, [its] strategic value in this conflict is uniquely high, especially as Pakistan and Libya seem to now be towing the line. Whatever tripe Bush puts out there for world consumption is fine by me.
And apparently also fine if he puts the same tripe out for domestic consumption. Who needs honest, informed debate? It’s not as if we’re in a democracy or anything.