by Frank James
Anthony Cordesman, national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, issued a short analysis today that calls into question the Bush Administration effort to make the fight against the Iraqi insurgency wholly synonymous with fighting al Qaeda.
At a press conference last week, for instance, President Bush, in one of numerous instances during the hour-long session where he mentioned al Qaeda and Iraq in the same breath, said:
The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.
It's this repeated conflation of al Qaeda and the entire Iraq insurgency that caused Cordesman to write:
The Sunni insurgency in Iraq is complex, involving many different groups with varying motivations and goals. By exclusively targeting Al Qa’ida in Iraq, the counter-insurgency campaign may be missing its mark. The US naturally focuses on Al Qa’ida because of 9/11 and the fact it poses a serious international threat. So do some Iraqi leaders, but largely because it is easier for them, particularly if they are Shi’ite, to blame as many of Iraqi’s problems on foreigners and Sunnis as possible.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I don't think Bruce will be able to smear Cordesman due to Professor Cordesman has formerly served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But he may have had a friend that once voted democrat.
Posted by: bill r. | July 16, 2007 4:46 PM
bill r.,
Bruce sold his soul to the RNC store a long time ago.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 16, 2007 6:02 PM
This just in - chimpy is about to lick the other boot, and invade Iran. We are screwed!
Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”
The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. “The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern,” the source said this week.
Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.
“Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact,” said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
That's right, Condi and Gates opposed this absolutely INSANE idea, but president shotgun mcchainee is going to the mat on this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html
Yep, we are screwed. Unless, of course, we pursue the I word.
Posted by: snitramc | July 16, 2007 7:37 PM
To give but one example of many I could give about an expert's opinion that Frank James doesn't want you to hear, read what army General Kevin Bergner says at
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12827&Itemid=18
Bergner reports that anti-terrorism actions in Iraq continue to succeed and are continuing to draw in terrorists from Iran and other Muslim countries:
"Bergner said successes are occurring in spite of ongoing resistance from al-Qaeda, proxy groups like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps -- or Quds force -- and their Lebanese Hezbollah surrogates, and other foreign fighters drawn to Iraq."
Frank James doesn't want you to hear this.
Posted by: Bruce | July 17, 2007 9:36 AM
snitramc
Interesting article. Its notht etopic of this post but I would like to pursue it anyway.
I'm sure the aggressives on the Right will immediately say its a good idea to attack Iran, but read the very last sentence of the article, its almost like an afterthought:
"Russia and China are resisting tougher measures."
So hypothetically, we attack Iran and China and Russia decide to side with them, they do have all those natural resources China needs and China doesn't give a rats about human rights or who they deal with.
(Anything to get those cheap goods into Wal-Mart where we good patriotic Americans lap them up with our credit cards blazing, having arrived at Wally-world in our SUVs and Hummers burning that good ol Iranian oil..but I digress)
Look at our military. Look at its readiness.
I have an uncle who was career Navy and now works for a contractor refurbing the electronics in Navy planes, they recently have asked him if he wants to work 7 days a week, double overtime on Sunday. He says the stockpile of broken equipment is enormous and they cant even remotely keep up with repairs.
Thats the reality of our military readiness all you armchair warriors. You think this 'War on Terror' is the war of all wars? Then where the heck is the draft?
Typical American stance - you want it all. You want revenge, justice, and pride, but you sit you fat American butt in the armchair and channel surf your life away on a nice plasma tv you put on your credit card.
And soldiers and civilians continue to die.
We are engaged in Iraq and have spent so much military capital there, how could we possibly invade another sovereign (like it or not) nation?
And China and Russia decide to back Iran or attack us? And then Israel decides to back us and attack them? Nice scenario, seem far-fetched?
WE HAVE NO MILITARY READINESS PEOPLE! WE ARE CUTTING TAXES AND DEFICIT SPENDING TO FUND A CURRENT WAR/OCCUPATION!
When will this country wake up? When will the hawks realize you cant build stability with bombs, you cant fight terror with guns. Sorry war drum bangers, I know it feels good to avenge the lost Americans, but what an exercise in futility in the middle east! You are fighting religious fanatics who will double with every fanatic we kill.
Yet we cant find the money to secure our borders..
Posted by: Erick | July 17, 2007 9:42 AM
For another expert opinion on Iraq that Frank James knows about (it was in the New York Times, the church bulletin of the leftie media) but doesn't want you to know, see General Rick Lynch's comments at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/world/middleeast/16commander.html?ei=5065&en=15503e23ff4ea637&ex=1185249600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
I provide this link to help give equal time to views Frank James doesn't like.
But the bigger question is: Why is the "Swamp" in general, and Frank James in particular, so afraid to give readers "expert" opinion on both sides of the war?
Posted by: Bruce | July 17, 2007 9:47 AM
The Cheney administration has political capital left? That's pretty hard to believe. The only way they can sell a war with Iran will be to convince people that Iran is behind attacks on our forces. If the reports of attackers using Iranian explosives in Iraq don't do it, maybe another "Gulf of Tonkin" type incident will work. The biggest problem Cheney has with selling an Iran attack is that many people don't believe a word he says.
Posted by: Tom O | July 17, 2007 10:30 AM
RNC Bruce,
Do you get a pension plan for working for the RNC?
The act of ignorance is the same as an affirmative.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 17, 2007 11:57 AM