Analyst paints bleak Iraq picture

",,,Center for Strategic and International Studies, has a new analysis on U.S. prospects in Iraq. They are, in a word, bleak."

Why does the Center for Strategic and International Studies hate the troops?

Terrorists are circling the date that the Center for Strategic and International Studies issues it's next report.

So much for Sleepy McCain's "surge" of troops into an ongoing civil war.

It's to bad that McCain hitched his wagon to the liars in the W. administration and the Evangelical Wacko's,before he did that I actually believed that he was a different kind of politician,an independent thinker.

That can't be right?

John D., Paulo and Jeff said winning the Iraq War is a piece of cake.

I'd rather trust the Wingnut Geniuses of the Swamp than some goody-two-shoes "analysts" with their fancy "knowledge" and "expertise."

Bush took what was a bulwark against Iran's regional power and turned it into an ally of Iran.

Terrorists are circling the date that the Center for Strategic and International Studies issues it's next report.

Posted by: John | Mar 14, 2007 12:00:31 PM

"I'd rather trust the Wingnut Geniuses of the Swamp than some goody-two-shoes "analysts" with their fancy "knowledge" and "expertise."
Posted by: Ron | Mar 14, 2007 12:19:31 PM"

Ron,
Yeah, and that Cordesman guy, could be French.

***********

bb,

Yes, Bush has created Greater Iran.

So much for "creating our own reality". Here's some more 'cheery' news from noted analyst:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth/print

Yes, Bush has created Greater Iran.

Posted by: C.Morris | Mar 14, 2007 12:51:18 PM

Yep Iran has to love the Republicans. Bush takes out their biggest enemy and gives them an entry into Iraq like they always wanted. That's what they fought the Iran Iraq war for, right?

Reagan sold them arms.

They must love having friends like the Republicans to give them a hand.

These kind of reports only embolden the terrorists. Please can't we go back to the time when they at least told us we were winning?

"They must love having friends like the Republicans to give them a hand.

Posted by: Tony | Mar 14, 2007 1:01:02 PM"

Oh yeah,

Plus, Bush provides the loud mouth, hard power bluster and fuss
that the nuts running Iran can use for propaganda purposes to shore up their own power. Those guys use fear of us, just the way Bush uses 'our' fear of them, to drive political points.

TeamBush is a full service enabler to the Iranian Shiite rulers.

Well, daymmm. Just this morning on C-Span I heard some republican congresscritter from Texas, who'd just come back from a fact-finding mission with Duncan Hunter, R-CA, say that things were ever so much better overe there now. Much like Babs Bush described the exiles from New Orleans after Katrina.

If I had a buck for every one of these Republic Party hacks whose chimed in with how much BETTER things are in Bush's Messupatamia these last three years I might be so wealthy as to think about voting R myself. On second thought that'd be when pigs fly!

John E., I know facts are beyong your grasp, but since the surge, actually attacks and deaths are down.

And, Ron, I never said it would be a piece of cake.

DT, quoting Rolling Stone?!??! Smoke some more, I guess, because it does the same to your brain that reading Rolling Stone will do.

The Loony Left = Pathetic.

Bible-thumpin Johnny Jesus,now that we know that you know a gay man in the Army,maybe you can pray us into victory.Lord knows your Commander in Chief is losing this un-necessary war.

OBL just celebrated his 50th birthday thanks to Republican failure.

DT, quoting Rolling Stone?!??! Smoke some more, I guess, because it does the same to your brain that reading Rolling Stone will do.
Posted by: John D | Mar 14, 2007 1:47:51 PM

Yeah, Crazy John Delova,

I know "The Stones" sources aren't as qualified as say, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter, but, ya know, sometimes you just have to go with the panel you've got, not the panel you want.

The Rolling Stone Panel:

Zbigniew Brzezinski
National security adviser to President Carter

Richard Clarke
Counterterrorism czar from 1992 to 2003

Nir Rosen
Author of In the Belly of the Green Bird, about Iraq’s spiral into civil war, speaking from Cairo, where he has been interviewing Iraqi refugees

Gen. Tony McPeak (retired)
Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War

Bob Graham
Former chair, Senate Intelligence Committee

Chas Freeman
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War; president of the Middle East Policy Council

Paul Pillar
Former lead counterterrorism analyst for the CIA

Michael Scheuer
Former chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit; author of Imperial Hubris

Juan Cole
Professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan

Has anyone noticed that after 4 years and 3200 G.I. deaths no general officer of our army has yet challenged the conduct of this war. Not one has risked his "retirement star" by telling the civilians to "get in or get out". Timid men like this do not win wars. These are "chicken ...." officers being pushed around by "chicken hawks"

John D,
Re Rolling Stone;
Just 'cause they're baked, don't make em toast.

Sorry Lefties,but Anthony Cordesman is a well known Bush hater who spends most of his time on Air America Radio,PBS and NPR.
The Swamp found another America hater in their deep pile of journalistic nonsense.
Back to the drawing board....sorry.
Paulo

Posted by: dt | Mar 14, 2007 2:39:44 PM

Has anyone seen Curveball? Bush/Cheney main soure for attacking Iraq. Living lavishly in Germany at the expense of US taxpayers.

Bible-Thumpin Johnny Jesus,pray for us.

Curveball was the designation for a claimed "Iraqi chemical engineer" who the United States claimed had served as an informant. Curveball would be the attributed source of pivotal information concerning weapons of mass destruction leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.The CIA claimed that it did not have "direct access" to Curveball, and that the mysterious informant instead communicated to Germany's intelligence service, which relayed the information to the United States Defense Intelligence Agency. He was described by German intelligence as an individual not living in Iraq and as an "out of control" and mentally unstable alcoholic.

Paulo-

Did Cordesman develop his hate for Bush and America when he was working for Senator John McCain as his National Security Assistant?

It's amazing how the America haters have infiltrated the Department of Defense which gave Cordesman the Distinguished Service Medal.

The insurgents have employed a new tactic. They are burning down houses. Over 100 houses were burned to the ground on Sunday. I wonder what this General Peter Pace thinks about that. Also over the last two days, 6 more U.S. soldiers have been blown up. Iraq is a complete diaster. (Attacks and violence is down- sounds like a Fox News propaganda piece, something you would hear from Bill O'Reilly or Fred Barnes or the great American, Sean Hannity).We are over are heads in Iraq and things are out of our control. Maybe all of these tough war talking Republicans should gear up and get on over to Iraq and straighten things out.

Predictably, Frank James cherry-picks his "analyst" so that the analyst says things Frank James wishes to hear. It's an old, and not very ethical, newspaper ploy.

If Frank James ACTUALLY wanted expert opinion on Iraq, he'd consult (among others I could mention) John Keegan, the man recognized as the foremost military historian and foremost living historian (the NY Review of Books calls him "the best historian of our day.."). Keegan has written a book on the Iraq War. But Frank James never has even mentioned Keegan in his Swamp postings. Why? Because Keegan would say things Frank James doesn't wish to hear, and would say things Frank James doesn't wish YOU, the reader, to hear.

Well, if "Rolling Stone" says so it must, obviously, be true. It's a good thing Zbigniew Brzezinsky and his boss weren't complete failures in office or anything.

When your publication is so liberal that it couldn't tolerate the great writing of P.J. O'Rourke in its pages any longer, it might be time to read something else.

Oooooh!... Everyone run for cover from those screaming liberals over at the Public Broadcasting Service, and National Public Radio. Paulo, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Guess you better stick to the "fair and balanced" network, objectivity is a bitch!

Bruce-

Since your such a fan of Keegan, here's the conclusion of an editorial he wrote in ZFebruary for the Telegraph-

"The long-term American aim is to transfer responsibility for maintaining law and order to the emergent Iraqi national army, but its creation is laborious and time-consuming and there have been many setbacks as new units prove incapable of conducting effective operations. There are also disquieting developments such as the occasional cooperation between Sunni insurgents and Shia terrorists and foreign jihadists. The ultimate Sunni insurgent aim is to turn its main energies against the Shia, with the object of re-imposing Sunni dominance. The Americans do not wish to involve themselves in a Sunni-Shia conflict; indeed, their main purpose is to avert such a disaster. The only certain hope of doing so is by success in the battle to impose civil peace in Baghdad. The success of the surge will be measured by the extent to which the new troops and their commanders end ethnic cleansing and sectarian killings there. In order to impose peace, it is essential to crush or disperse these sectarian militias: the Badr Corps, a Shia organisation, and the Mahdi Army of the Shia leader Moqtada al-Sadr in eastern Baghdad. Appeals have been made to religious leaders to disband their militias but, as their power and influence depend on the militias, it is not surprising that such appeals have been ineffective. On the other hand, full-scale offensives to tackle the militias in their home areas can only cause more civilian death and suffering - thus exacerbating the security situation.

The prospects for the US defence establishment are not heartening. While US forces do not face defeat, they are confronted with the unappetising possibility of their general war-fighting capability being eroded by years of anti-terrorist and counter-insurgency involvement at a time when the security situation of the United States world-wide is under increasing threat and the willingness of the American public to support a long drawn out and apparently profitless campaign is weakening.

Iraq is not Vietnam. The casualties are not comparable and US forces have suffered no setback such as the Tet offensive, but the atmosphere is dispiriting. What started so well has become a depressing backstreet quarrel among a people who show no gratitude for being rescued from a brutal dictatorship. The surge may achieve a transformation but no one would bet on it. Let us hope that it does not result in the need for another surge in six months' time."

Is that what you wanted to hear?

"These kind of reports only embolden the terrorists. Please can't we go back to the time when they at least told us we were winning?"

You like being misled, instead of hearing the truth? You'd rather someone pee on your leg, and tell you it's raining?

Reality Sucs

Jeff,

I didn't expect you to embrace any of Carter's people. Yes, Brzezinski's foreign policy history is mixed, including the Iran debacle, but his experience wasn't limited to Carter, he served under Reagan and Bush I as well. (that's not an endorsement, BTW, just a reminder that two republican presidents thought enough of his credentials to bring his experience to their administrations). Brzezinski did have a few policy successes, unlike those in the current regime.

Brzezinski's support of non-antagonistic policies after the Cuban Missile Crisis helped keep the 'cowboys' from incinerating the earth.

He had a hand in LBJ's Great Society and civil rights policies. Oh, I forgot, republicans don't like those.

He was involved in the normalization of relations to China, took part in the Camp David Accords, as well.

Anyway, several of the names on the Rolling Stone panel of experts served under Republican presidents;

Michael Schueur, 22 year CIA veteran, former chief.

Paul Pillar, 28 year CIA veteran, national intelligence officer for the Near East and S.E. Asia, under Bush.

General Tony McPeak (ret), member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bush I.

Chas Freeman, ambassador to Saudi Arabia, president of Middle East policy council, served under Bush I.

Richard Clark, anti-terrorism czar under Clinton and Bush II.

I have to think that, given the positions these people held under both Democratic and Republican administrations, would qualify them as experts, despite your attempts to discredit.

When your publication is so liberal that it couldn't tolerate the great writing of P.J. O'Rourke in its pages any longer, it might be time to read something else.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 14, 2007 5:28:37 PM

Jeff, I'm guessing that when O'Rourke became a regular contributor to the American Spectator, that bastion of objective thought. Rolling Stone concluded that P.J. had found his "calling", and decided to move on.

I do miss P.J. on "Point/Counter-point" though. What was his signature line?; 'Jane, you ignorant slut', 'you're on your back and the meter's running'. Oh, sorry, that was the SNL parody. But P.J. would have laughed, political satirist that he was.

dt,

It don't matter how qualified your list is.

Since you posted it, the cons will pluto it.

************

"These kind of reports only embolden the terrorists. Please can't we go back to the time when they at least told us we were winning?"

You like being misled, instead of hearing the truth? You'd rather someone pee on your leg, and tell you it's raining?

Posted by: Aaron | Mar 14, 2007 5:58:31 PM"

Aa,
Bill R was pulling your leg, buddy.

Raving Loon, your quote was succinct though inaccurate:

"He was described by German intelligence as an individual not living in Iraq and as an "out of control" and mentally unstable alcoholic".

They were describing George W Bush, not Curveball

There were plenty of experts from across the spectrum saying we should not have gone into Iraq a 2nd time, but Bush would only listen to what he wanted to hear. With 9/11 still fresh, too many feared coming across as unpatriotic & question the stupidity of an Iraq invasion.

Of course the US was able to topple Saddam. That would have been easy for a country like England to do on their own.

But how naive was it to believe Muslims would view the US as liberators & embrace democracy in Iraq & that would spread thru-out the Middle East?

So what are US troops going to accomplish in Iraq now?

Another military expert Frank James won't ever interview is Col. Austin Bay, an Iraq War veteran who recently said:

"The chattering class nostrum that Free Iraq and its coalition allies have "lost the Iraq war" is so blatantly wrong it would be a source of laughter were human life and hope-inspiring liberty not at such terrible risk."

John Keegan was an early and open supporter of the war, which of course means that however sterling his expert credentials are, Frank James hasn't and won't interview him for the Swamp.

In the recent article in the Telegraph Keegan explained that the US forces can't be defeated militarily, and only can be defeated if Congress pulls the rug out from under them. The money quote:

"While US forces do not face defeat ... the willingness of the American public to support a long drawn out and apparently profitless campaign is weakening."

I've already cited Col. Austin Bay as another expert Frank James hasn't interviewed. I could easily name a dozen others.

So, ya'll got to hand it to the Commander in Chief
Liar El Presidente The Decider George W Bush has
a 100% Track Record on all his Decisions,since
they all were wrong and always turn to crap on
The Great Decider,so there is something all you
Neo-cons and Republicans can give your Hero
Der Bushie credit for doing! Impeach George W Bush and Halliburtons Man in the Bush White House
Self Appointed Vice President Delusional Dick Cheney and Shyster Attorney General Alberto
Psycho Gonzales! Oh well this one will probably
not make it by the Chicago Tribune Board of
Censors, who often aid the Dictatorship of
George W Bush by Suppression of Free Speech,
Free Press and Free Expression!

Hey, people, can we please embargo the word "embolden?". Someone taught it to Shrub as his "word of the day", and now the clones have discovered it. The worst part about having Bush in charge is that the national IQ seems to have dropped by about 10 points.

Does anyone really think that insurgents await their copy of the N.Y. Times (or whatever) each morning, and THEN decide to hate us? Since when is abiding a failed leadership a test of loyalty? Our troops are in Iraq, paying the price, and are none the worse for an interview or two. Sending those troops in, to follow a failed strategy and the lies that brought this about, is the true immorality in all of this. Shame on those who excuse this miserable Administration, hiding behind false "patriotism" as an excuse for their tolerance of failure.

The facts are the facts - Bush Sr. tried for a Shia uprising to displace Saddam in 1991, dropped handbills over the eastern portion of Iraq, and then the U.S. and allies withdrew, leaving Sadaam in power. That led to punishment of the Shias for the next 11 years.

We backed Saddam in a war against Iran from 1980-1987, and now by removing Saddam, Bush Jr. pulled the cork out of the bottle, and there's no going back. The insurgents despise each other's sects, and despise us for bringing this mess about. Before we took out Saddam, Shia and Sunni were living together, even intermarrying. We have now revived a 1200-year-old feud, and everyone is worse off for it.

It does not matter what our press has to say, and Cordesman is a respected figure when it comes to discussing these issues. The insurgents will wait us out, and whenever we leave Iraq "to the Iraqis", the real battle will begin. The Shia hold 14 provinces, and will attack the Sunni. The Kurds feel imperiled, and the surrounding Sunni nations such as Saudi Arabia are expecting the worst.

We are in a very expensive holding action, without a timeline, all for nought. All the whining about "emboldening" our enemies is garbage; exceeded only by the garbage from Cheney and cohorts that brought this about.

If in response to a threat of flooding in New Orleans a president sent in “troops” armed with brooms to sweep out hurricane driven waters, would flood-control experts be accused of hating the troops by pointing out the plan is not going to work? Is the USA so bankrupt of values, reality and vision that for the sake of hero worship we are willing to follow policies so empty of competency that the only way to defend against honest critics is to wave the flag and accuse critics of “hating” our troops. What exactly do we have to show for 3,200 body bags? What exactly will we accomplish with another 3,000 deaths?

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

Hey Bruce, why do you cherry pick your quotes from Keegan? I quoted three full paragraphs from the same Op ed you quote a edited version of a singel sentence. It's hardly a postive statement on the way the war is going for the US.

Where's your credibility Bruce?

I would be delighted to see an interview
of Austin Bay posted on the Swamp.
It would give an opportunity for people other than Glenn Reynolds followers to pick apart his drivel and tear it to shreds.
How about those A.P sources Bay denounced back in December, Bruce?
Did they hate the troops, too?

"Logic prisoner" writes "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."

Ever heard of the American Revolution, "Logic prisoner"? Lasted 8 years (1775-1783), in case you were unaware of it.

"Ever heard of the American Revolution, "Logic prisoner"? Lasted 8 years (1775-1783), in case you were unaware of it.

Posted by: bruce | Mar 15, 2007 8:15:09 AM"

Yes, and it did not go well for superpower England.

bruce,
The colonists defeated the occupying British army!! Great analogy.

Bruce. Sun Tzu The Art of War is one of the oldest books on military strategy in the world. It is also one of the most famous studies of strategy and has had a huge influence on Eastern and Western military planning, business tactics, and beyond.

Ever heard of it??? Gen Douglas MacArthur read it. The people who brought you Operation Desert Storm read it and cite it. Vo Nguyen Giap as well. You might want to read up on him. Silly rabbit bruce. Military strategy is clearly not your strong point!!! Yes I have also heard of the American Revolution. Nice try bright boy.

Oh my, more examples of why the Loony Left are ignorant. Jethro, for example, writes: "The colonists defeated the occupying British army." The colonists were Royal Subjects. They were British, came from England. They were settlers under the jurisdiction of the English government.

More correctly, Jethro, the colonists defeated their government and set up their own government and country. England was not an occupier.

Jethro, you sure you aren't the same Jethro from Beverly Hillbillies?

PM Maliki got it right when he said last week,

"The terrorism that is claiming the lives of Iraqi citizens in Baghdad, Hilla, Mosul and Anbar is the same terrorism that intimidated citizens in Saudi Arabia, targeted the people of Egypt, and blew up the twin towers in New York and subways in Madrid and London."

We're fools if we think withdrawing from Iraq will end war and bring peace. Horrible fools...

Johnny D,
You have zero credibility if you are trying to tell us that the American Revolution was a Civil War, not a war of independence from the British Empire.

As a boss, George W. Bush has a personality flaw: He has a need to reward failure. When an underling fails, he rewards them with a Medal of Freedom, or whatever. Suitably craven underlings who want to feel his favor take this need of Bush's and do the logical thing, they fail. That is why so many of them have. From Rummy, to General Frank, to Brenner, to good old, "You're doing a heck of a job, Browne" etc., on down.

The first step to peace in Iraq will entail giving up the demand that the Iraqi government agree to Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) that will transfer most of Iraq's oil wealth into Western coffers. Giving up on PSAs is a crucial first step. Iraqis can read after all, and would rather fight than be known as the generation of Iraqis that lost their country's mineral rights.

What indeed has become of "Curveball"? If Bush is the warlord, then isn't Curveball like the "little guy" who sells the illegal handguns on the street corner? How come he gets off scott free?! And what about the German BND refusing to let the CIA have any pre-war, face-to-face interviews with the great--so what if he was an alcoholic--WMD liar? All we hear about is how they warned everybody...not good enough.
What if there is, say, an Iranian Curveball? What lessons would he have learned about what happens to weapons of mass destruction liars: nothing.